ministry of trade and industry (south africa) in ... · pdf fileministry of trade and ... of...

Ministry of Trade and Industry (South Africa)

IN ASSOCIATION WITH

Ministry of Transport and Public Works (Malawi) Ministry of Transport and Communications (Mozambique)

Ministry of Works (Tanzania) Ministry of Communications and Transport (Zambia)

REGIONAL SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE (SDI) PROGRAMME

SUPPORT TO THE MTWARA DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR PROCESS

AND

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

IN ASSOCIATION WITH

GTZ WILDLIFE PROGRAMME IN TANZANIA

AND

WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND TOURISM

AND

WILDLIFE OFFICES OF SONGEA, NANTUMBO, TUNDURU AND MBINGA DISTRICTS

WITH PARTICIPATION FROM

NATIONAL FOREST PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT PROJECT (NFP-ISP), FORESTRY AND BEEKEEPING DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF NATURAL

RESOURCES AND TOURISM

Prefeasibility And Environmental Baseline Study For The Ruvuma River Interface

Final Report

GTZ Wildlife Programme In Tanzania Box 1519 Dar es Salaam Tanzania Tel: +255-22-2866065 Fax: + 255-22-2116504 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.wildlife-programme.gtz.de/wildlife Project Websitewww.selous-niassa-corridor.org

Mtwara Development Corridor Secretariat P.O. Box 2669 Dar es Salaam Tanzania Tel: +255-744-501063 Fax: + 255-22-2113168 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.africansdi.com

2

This document has been circulated to the following: Number

of Copies

To Whom Circulated

1 Regional SDI Unit, Midrand, South Africa 1*2 GTZ: Wildlife Programme In Tanzania 1*2 National Development Corporation (NDC), Tanzania 1*2 Wildlife Department, Ministry of Natural Resources And Tourism, Tanzania 1*2 Foresty and Beekeeping Department, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism 1 FINNIDA: NFP-ISP 1 DANIDA: NFP-ISP 1*5 Songea, Nantumbo, Tunduru, Mbinga And Masasi Districts 1 CBTC 1*2 KfW 1 UNDP 1 Vice Presidents Office 1 WWF - Tanzania 1 Sociedade para Gestao e Desenvolvimento da Reserva do Niassa 1 Flora and Fauna International (FFI) 1 WWF - Mozambique 1*9 Authors Signed: Signed: Team Leader , GTZ-Wildlife Programme, Tanzania MtDC SDI Project Manager Dr Rolf Baldus Mr. Graham Smith Dated: 21st August 2005 For citation purposes, please refer to this publication as: Author (s): Mr. Graham Smith , SDI Project Manager, Mtwara Development Corridor Date: July 2005 Title: Final Report – Prefeasiblity And Environmental Baseline Study For The Ruvuma Interface Published By: GTZ-CWM and MtDC Secretariat Pages: 120 Acknowledgement: This report was first prepared as a draft by the Mtwara Development Corridor Project Manager, Mr. G. Smith, and is a summary of a series of input reports from Mr. R. Hahn, Dr. R. Baldus, Mr. P. Malesa, Dr. D. Mpanduji, Mr. C.C Mahundi, Dr. P. Norton, Mr. B. Kaale and GIS mapping support from Mr. R. Verwimp and Mr. A. Cauldwell. It is based on material reviewed and interviews conducted with national and district stakeholders.

3

Preface This report is principally been the collaboration between the following three initiatives: • Mtwara Development Corridor (MtDC) process, with funding from the South African Government of Trade

and Industry through the Regional Spatial Development Initiative (SDI) Programme, with institutional support from the National Development Corporation (NDC), which is the mandated agency within Tanzania to accelerate development along the Mtwara and Central Development Corridors;

• The Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) funded by the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation, which is currently providing support to the wildlife sector in the form of Community Wildlife Management (CWM) project, with institutional support from the Wildlife Department, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (WD-MNRT) and the Wildlife Offices in Songea, Nantumbo, Tunduru and Mbinga Districts in Ruvuma Region;

• Participation from FINNIDA supported National Forest Programme Implementation Support Project (NFP-ISP), which is anchored in the Forestry and Beekeeping Department, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (FBD-MNRT).

The MtDC SDI Project Manager initially approached the GTZ-CWM Project Leader, to explore the possibility of co-financing a baseline study on Southern Tanzania to identify sensitive area for wildlife and forestry conservation and management to ensure that was a wider understanding of environmental issues when considering the promotion of “anchor’ projects along the MtDC. The GTZ had already through the Selous Conservation Programme (SCP) concluded that the “Western Corridor” between the Selous GR in Tanzania and Niassa GR in Mozambique, known as the Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor (SNWC), was an important biodiversity corridor within the miombo eco-region. The SCP also laid the groundwork for the establishment of Wildlife Management Areas (WMA’s), to support the diversification of rural livelihoods and to initiate the co-management of natural resources through community based natural resource management (CBNRM) practices at the village level. GTZ support was also instrumental is securing a Global Environmental Facility (GEF) grant of approx. USD 1 million, which is to be administered by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), to initiate the SNWC project that will be anchored in the WD-MNRT with implementation support being provided by GTZ International Services. Consequently, GTZ were interested in participating in an environmental baseline study to (i) collect information to inform the planning of the new SNWC project and (ii) to use this information to consolidate arguments to additional financial support from within the German Government. The latter objective has already been partially successful, following the commitment of approx. Euros 5 million for implementation activities under the SNWC project through the KfW Development Bank. Within the FBD-MNRT support was also being provided by a combination of donors to advise on the NFP-ISP. A key component of the overall programme is participatory forestry management (PFM), which is being promoted by FBD at the village level. Interest was expressed by the NFP-ISP to pilot the integration of wildlife and forestry sub sectors at the local level and FINNIDA provided some funds for local consultants to compile input report for the Forestry/Beekeeping sub sector. The Regional SDI Programme support to the MtDC process is particularly interested in the prospects for Private Sector Participation in the wildlife and forestry sub sectors at the village level through the mechanism of Joint Ventures (JV)/Joint Forestry Management (JFM) Agreements, in which villages provide land, labour, wildlife/forests and enforcement and the Private Sector provide investment, employment, management expertise and access to markets. With this coincidence of objectives the participants agreed to co-finance a prefeasibility and environmental baseline report for the areas south of those sections of the proposed main trunk road from Masasi to Mbinga down to the Ruvuma River. The MtDC-PM agreed to act as the Project Leader for this assignment and in this capacity took responsibility to frame the overall concept note outlining the objectives of the assignment, terms of reference, programme and budgets for input reports on the legal/institutional, socio-economic, infrastructure, biodiversity, wildlife, forestry, beekeeping, tourism and GIS aspects of the study.

4

Contents Page

PREFACE ....................................................................................................................3

CONTENTS PAGE ......................................................................................................4

ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................10

Introduction............................................................................................................................10

Socio-Economic Profile..........................................................................................................11

Institutional Linkages For The Management Of WMA's..................................................12

Proposals.................................................................................................................................13

Eastern Wildlife Corridor Selous – Niassa GR...................................................................13 Description Of The Corridor................................................................................................13 Mining Areas .......................................................................................................................13 Most Critical Area................................................................................................................13 Areas South Of The Main Road Tunduru-Masasi ...............................................................14 Areas North Of The Road Tunduru-Masasi.........................................................................15

Continuation in Tunduru District.....................................................................................15 Continuation in Masasi District .......................................................................................15 Continuation in Nachingwea District...............................................................................15 Continuation in Liwale District .......................................................................................15

Western Study Area...............................................................................................................15 Namtumbo/Tunduru Districts ..............................................................................................15 Songea District.....................................................................................................................16 Other Key Interventions Required .......................................................................................16

Infrastructure....................................................................................................................16 Community Based Conservation Training Centre, (CBCTC) .........................................16 Natural Resources Utilisation ..........................................................................................17

Wildlife ........................................................................................................................17 Forestry ........................................................................................................................17 Beekeeping...................................................................................................................17 Fisheries .......................................................................................................................18

Alternative Conservation And Land Management Concept .............................................18 Liparamba GR......................................................................................................................18 Sasawara FR.........................................................................................................................20 Mwambesi FR/GCA ............................................................................................................20

5

Muhuwesi FR/GCA .............................................................................................................21 Lukwika/Lumesule and Msanjesi GR..................................................................................21

Integration Of The Tourism Concept With The WMA Concept ......................................23

Economic Opportunities Associated With The WMA Concept ........................................24

1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................27

1.1 The Mtwara Development Corridor Initiative........................................................27

1.2 The Selous Conservation Programme And Community Wildlife Management Project .....................................................................................................................................27

1.3 National Forest Programme Implementation Support Project.............................28

1.4 Selous-Niassa Transfrontier Conservation Area ....................................................28

1.5 Report Focus...............................................................................................................29

1.6 Report Structure ........................................................................................................32

2.0 LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OVERVIEW ..................................................33

2.1 Background ................................................................................................................33 2.1.1 Towards A Selous-Niassa Trans-Frontier Conservation Area.............................33 2.1.2 Study Area ...........................................................................................................33 2.1.3 Approach And Methodology ...............................................................................36

2.2 The Legal And Institutional Environment ..............................................................36 2.2.1 The Legislation Governing Natural Resources Management In Tanzania..........36 2.2.2 Natural Resources Management Focal Points .....................................................37

2.2.2.1 Land Tenure ....................................................................................................37 2.2.2.2 NRM On Reserved Land - National Government And Local Authority........38

2.2.3 Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) Focal Points ......38 2.2.3.1 Wildlife ...........................................................................................................38

2.2.3.1.1 Institutions, Structures And Instruments For Managing WMA’s.............38 2.2.3.1.2 Utilisation Of Natural Resources In A WMA...........................................39 2.2.3.1.3 Investments And Joint Venture In WMA’s ..............................................39

2.2.3.2 Forestry ...........................................................................................................40 2.2.3.2.1 Community-Private Sector Participation In The Forestry Sector ..............42

2.2.3.3 Bee-Keeping ...................................................................................................45 2.2.3.4 Fisheries ..........................................................................................................45

2.2.4 Summary Mosaic Of Legal/Institutional Set-up For NRM .................................46

3.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE .......................................................................46

6

3.1 Summary Profile – All Districts................................................................................50

3.2 Summary Profile – Mbinga District, Ruvuma Region ...........................................51

3.3 Summary Profile – Songea Rural District, Ruvuma Region .................................52

3.4 Summary Profile – Nantumbo District, Ruvuma Region ......................................53

3.5 Summary Profile – Tunduru District, Ruvuma Region .........................................54

3.6 Summary Profile – Masasi District, Ruvuma Region ............................................55

3.7 Major Planned Infrastructure Investments ............................................................56 3.7.1 Dar-Es-Salaam-Kilwa-Kibiti-Ndundu-Somanga-Nangurukuru-Lindi-Mingoyo-Mtwara Road........................................................................................................................56 3.7.2 Mtwara-Masasi-Tunduru-Songea-Mbamba Bay Road........................................57 3.7.3 The Unity Bridge 1 ..............................................................................................58 3.7.4 The Unity Bridge 2 ..............................................................................................58

3.8 Implications For Use/Management Of Natural Resources ....................................59

4.0 BIODIVERSITY ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................60

4.1 Introduction................................................................................................................60

4.2 Biodiversity Issues......................................................................................................60

4.3 Biodiversity Recommendations ................................................................................62

5.0 WILDLIFE ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................62

5.1 Introduction................................................................................................................62

5.2 The Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor .......................................................................63

5.3 Wildlife Issues...................................................................................................................64 5.3.1 Wildlife Status .....................................................................................................64 5.3.2 Wildlife Resource Utilization ..............................................................................65 5.3.3 Beekeeping Activities ..........................................................................................66 5.3.4 Critical Areas For Wildlife Conservation ............................................................66

6.0 TOURISM ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................69

6.1 The Ruvuma River As A Tourism Destination .......................................................69 6.1.1 Characteristics Of The River ...............................................................................69 6.1.2 Landscape And Habitat Characteristics Of Different Sections Of The River .....70

6.2 Tourism Routes To Integrate The River .................................................................71

7

6.2.1 The “Lake To Coast” Routes ...............................................................................71 6.2.2 Present Road Access To The Rovuma River.......................................................71 6.2.3 Tourism Support Services....................................................................................72 6.2.4 The Reserves As Tourist Attractions ...................................................................73

6.2.4.1 Liparamba GR..................................................................................................73 6.2.4.1 Lupilichi Wilderness Area ...............................................................................73 6.2.4.2 Western Corridor Of The Selous Niassa TFCA ..............................................74 6.2.4.3 Niassa GR ........................................................................................................74 6.2.4.5 Mwambesi FR..................................................................................................75 6.2.4.6 Lukwika-Lumesule GR....................................................................................75 6.2.4.7 Additional Attractions......................................................................................75

6.2.5 Conclusions Regarding The Ruvuma River As A Tourism Destination .............75

7.0 FORESTRY ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................77

7.1 Introduction................................................................................................................77

7.2 Forestry/Beekeeping Issues .......................................................................................78 7.2.1 Concentrations Of Forest-Based Resources.........................................................78 7.2.2 Management Of The Forest-Based Resources.....................................................79 7.2.3 General Status Of Existing Forest Reserves ........................................................79 7.2.3.2 Forest – Based Products That Underpin Rural Livelihoods ................................80

7.2.3.2.1 Timber........................................................................................................80 7.2.3.3 Forest – Based Products To Underpin Private Sector Investment Opportunities 82

7.2.3.3.1 Large Scale Integrated Sawmills ...............................................................82 Songea/Namtumbo Districts ........................................................................................82 7.2.3.4 Establishment Of Timber Plantations .........................................................83

7.3 Conclusions..............................................................................................................83

8.0 INTEGRATED SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK FOR NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ............................................84

8.1 Introduction................................................................................................................84

8.2 Eastern Wildlife Corridor Selous – Niassa GR.......................................................84 8.2.1 Description Of The Corridor................................................................................84 8.2.3 Mining Areas .......................................................................................................84 8.2.4 Most Critical Area................................................................................................85 8.2.5 Areas South Of The Main Road Tunduru-Masasi ...............................................85 8.2.6 Areas North Of The Road Tunduru-Masasi.........................................................86

8.2.6.1 Continuation in Tunduru District.....................................................................86 8.2.6.1 Continuation in Masasi District .......................................................................86 8.2.6.2 Continuation in Nachingwea District...............................................................86 8.2.6.3 Continuation in Liwale District .......................................................................86

8.3 Western Study Area...................................................................................................86 8.3.1 Namtumbo/Tunduru Districts ..............................................................................86

8

8.3.2 Songea District.....................................................................................................87 8.3.3. Other Key Interventions Required .......................................................................87

8.3.3.1 Infrastructure....................................................................................................87 8.3.3.2 Community Based Conservation Training Centre, (CBCTC) .........................87 8.3.3.3 Natural Resources Utilisation ..........................................................................88

8.3.3.3.1 Wildlife ......................................................................................................88 8.3.3.3.2 Forestry ......................................................................................................88 8.3.3.3.3 Beekeeping.................................................................................................88 8.3.3.3.4 Fisheries .....................................................................................................89

8.4 Alternative Conservation And Land Management Concepts................................89 8.4.1 Liparamba GR......................................................................................................89 8.4.2 Sasawara FR.........................................................................................................90 8.4.3 Mwambesi FR/GCA ............................................................................................94 8.4.4 Muhuwesi FR/GCA .............................................................................................94 8.4.5 Lukwika/Lumesule and Msanjesi GR..................................................................95

8.5 Scope For Private Sector Participation In WMA’s ................................................95 8.5.1 Summary Of The EPIQ Model ............................................................................95 8.5.2 Application Of The Findings Of The EPIQ Model To Study Area Proposals ....98 8.5.3 Conclusions And Recommendations .................................................................101

REFERENCES.........................................................................................................106

APPENDIX 1 – SOCIO ECONOMIC PROFILES ....................................................107

APPENDIX 2 – INFRASTRUCTURE PROFILES ...................................................112

APPENDIX 3 – TERMS OF REFERENCE..............................................................124

9

Abbreviations

AA Authorised Association (for WMA management) CBC Community Based Conservation (a process) CBCTC Community Based Conservation Training Centre, Likuyu, Namtumbo CBFM Community Based Forest Management CBO Community Based Organisation (an institution) CIMU Conservation Information Monitoring Unit CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species CWMP Community Wildlife Management Project/GTZ DED District Executive Director DNRAB District Natural Resources Advisory Body DGO District Game Officer DFO District Forestry Officer DBO District Beekeeping Officer DNRO District Natural Resources Officer EIA Environmental Impact Assessment FR Forest Reserve GCA Game Controlled Area GEF Global Environmental Facility GIS Geographical Information System GPS Global Positioning System GR Game Reserve GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit JFM Joint Forest Management MtDC Mtwara Development Corridor NGR NFP-ISP

Niassa Game Reserve National Forest Programme Implementation Support Project

PA Protected Area PFM Participatory Forest Management PM Project Manager (Game Warden) SCP Selous (Game Reserve) Conservation Programme SGR Selous Game Reserve SRN TANAPA

Sociedade para Gestao e Desenvolvimento da Reserva do Niassa Tanzanian National Parks

TFCA Trans Frontier Conservation Area RMPZ Resource Management Zoning Plan UNDP United Nations Development Programme WMA Wildlife Management Area WPT Wildlife Policy of Tanzania WWF World Wide Fund for Nature

10

Executive Summary

Introduction Given the limited resources available to and the focus of the Mtwara Development Corridor (MtDC) process, which is to identify and package projects aimed at attracting private sector investment, the MtDC Project Manager, the Project Leader for the GTZ-Community Wildlife Management Project (CWM) and the National Forest Programme Implementation Support Project (NFP-ISP) Facilitator have agreed, in principle, to co-finance a study of what is referred to as the Prefeasbility And Environmental Baseline Study For The Ruvuma Interface. The three reasons for this include: From the MtDC Perspective: To support the Tanzanian government efforts, through the

Department of Tourism (MNRT) to identify and package potential tourism routes and associated projects, which are consistent with the National Tourism Master Plan, notably the “Southern Tourism Circuit” and which are consistent with the Mozambique government’s efforts, through the Department of Tourism to strengthen the “business case” for the “Lake to Coast” and “Swahili Coast” tourism routes detailed in the National Tourism Strategy for Mozambique.

From the CWM Perspective: To support the Tanzanian governments efforts, through the

Wildlife Division, in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism and Department of Regional Administration and Local Government, in the Presidents Office, to develop the wildlife corridors, principally through the establishment of wildlife management areas (WMA’s);

From the NFR-ISP Perspective: To support the Tanzanian governments efforts, through the

Forestry and Beekeeping Division, in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT) and Department of Regional Administration and Local Government, in the Presidents Office, to pilot the integration of community based natural resource management (CBNRM) areas, principally through the integration of CBNRM activities in the wildlife and forestry subsectors by demarcating WMA’s and Village Land Forestry Reserves (VLFR’s) in the same areas;

This study was carried out in Tanzania only. The boundaries of the study are defined as follows: “…From the Liparamba GR in the west it stretches about 350 km along the river Ruvuma, which is the international boundary of Tanzania and Mozambique, until it reaches the Lukwika-Lumesule GR in the east. The main road from Mbinga town till Masasi town demarcates in general the northern boundary. The Selous GR is the northern boundary regarding studies for the linkage of the Selous and Niassa GR’s via wildlife corridors... The socio-economic profile of the study area is summarised overleaf to provide the reader with a thumbnail sketch of the study area, its people, their use of natural resources and their access to basic social services and physical infrastructure. Since the focus of this study has been to provide an alternative land management concept, which integrates CBNRM according to relevant laws/regulation in Tanzania, an overview of the legal/institutional linkages for the establishment and management of of Wildlife Management Areas (WMA’s) is presented in schematic form on the following page.

11

Socio-Economic Profile The socio-economic profile in the Study Area is summarised in the table below. The key highlights are as as follows:

There are a total of 191,000 households, 780,000 people living in 362 villages in the study area, rendering a household size of 4,1 persons per household; Most villages are small in size ranging from 1,000 to 3,000 people (240 or 66% of total), although this is highly variable across districts; Most villages had access to at least 2 natural resources (245 or 68%), typically agricultural land and forestry resources, but one of the reasons for the number of

small villages was the trend towards the dispersal of settlement as people cleared forests to open up agricultural fields, although this too was highly variable across districts;

Almost half of all villages had access to at least one cash crops (176 or 48%), which was typically the district specialisation, notably coffee in Mbinga, tobacco in Songea, tobacco in Nantumbo, cashew in Tunduru and cashew in Masasi. As there are villages in Mbinga that don’t grow coffee and villages in Songea that don’t grow tobacco there are a minority of villages (30 or 8%) that have no income from one of the main cash crops. Conversely, as there are villages in Songea that grow cashew in addition to tobacco, villages in Tunduru that grow tobacco in addition to cashew and villages in Masasi that grow sesame in addition to cashew a majority of villages (245 or 68%) derive an income from 2 cash crops;

A minority of villages (22 or 6%) derived a source of income from mineral resources, which were limited to gold mining in Mbinga district and gemstone mining in Tunduru district;

Access to social facilities is low and variable, for example, 1 secondary school per 13 villages, 1 hospital per 24 villages, 1 police station per 36 villages and 1 border post per 33 villages;

Access to basic services, represented by access to potable water and access to markets via good roads, is highly variable between districts but in aggregate terms access to potable water is good with only 17% of villages without at least a water pump but access to markets via good roads is limited with almost 60% of all roads being classified in either “fair” or “poor” condition.

A L L D IS T R IC T S

P O P U L A T IO NH o u s e h o ld s P o p u la t io n

1 9 0 ,9 6 9 7 7 9 ,6 1 1 M in e ra ls S S H o P o B P W a te r R o a d sS iz e # V i l la g e s # N R 's # V i l la g e s # C ro p s # V i l la g e s # V i l la g e s

> 1 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 3 0 2 2 2 7 1 5 1 0 1 1 1 7 % 5 9 %5 -1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 6 9 2 1 5 64 -5 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 4 5 1 1 7 63 -4 0 0 0 3 9 1 4 8 0 3 02 -3 0 0 0 9 4 0 0 3 6 21 -2 0 0 0 1 4 6 3 6 20 -1 0 0 0 6 1

V i l la g e s 3 6 2

# S o c ia l F a c i l i t ie s # V i l la g e s P o o r A c c e s s

S O U R C E S O F IN C O M E A C C E S S T O S E R V IC E S

N a tu ra l R e s o u rc e s C a s h C ro p s

12

Institutional Linkages For The Management Of WMA's Local Government

Ministry of Natural Resources & Tourism

Wildlife Department/ CBC-Unit

District Natural Resources Advisory Body

Authorized Association (Community Based Organisation, CBO)

Employment Village Game Scouts

Wildlife Management Area, WMA

Village Branch of Authorized Association

(CBO)

Village Branch of Authorized Association (CBO)

Village Assembly Village Assembly

Village Government of

registered village


registered village

Village Council Village Council Village Natural Resources

Committee Village Natural Resources

Committee

MANAGEMENT of Wildlife & Tourism Forest Beekeeping Fisheries

Private Sector

13

Proposals In section one recommendations and constraints for the establishment of the eastern wildlife corridor are described. Recommendations for the western side of the Ruvuma Interface, including the Districts Tunduru, Namtumbo and Songea, are explained in section two. Section three gives general recommendations for the natural resources management in the study area. Although the concept development in this section of the report is no more than a proposal it can be assumed that its acceptance by the local people and the District Authorities in its entirety or parts thereof is high. The fact that there are already a large number of villages in the study area ready to establish WMA’s and Village Land FR’s is an indicator of the general acceptance of the concept.

Eastern Wildlife Corridor Selous – Niassa GR The concept to establish the wildlife corridor is to interlink the existing protected areas with a network of WMAs. This category of protected areas has the advantage to allow the communities to play an active role in conservation with tangible benefits and contribute to the reduction of conflicts with wildlife near other protected areas. Because the utilisation of natural resources is not restricted to wildlife, but includes forestry, beekeeping and fisheries, these areas are economically attractive for the communities and allow more flexibility in management. Description Of The Corridor The assumed migration routes of elephants and other mammals in the eastern part of the study area are described in the study on wildlife. The assumptions on the course of the migratory routes are based on observations of resource persons in the field and experience in migration behaviour and habitat requirements of elephants and other larger mammals. The report gives an overview of the present situation of land-use in the area earmarked for the establishment of a corridor. It can be noticed that the present situation is very complex and migration might takes place between all protected areas. Although animals are migrating at present from north to south, while maybe crossing cultivated areas at night or using some bottlenecks, these migration routes will be increasingly obstructed with the growing number of the human population and its demand for more land. The purpose of a wildlife corridor is not only to conserve migration routes of larger mammals. A corridor should mainly link two or more areas like a genetic bridge in order to allow genetic exchange and conserve the biodiversity of fauna and flora. Because of these reasons a corridor is a conservation area in itself and requires a suitable size of land with natural vegetation. Mining Areas The proposed concept neglects the small and medium scale gemstone mining in the rivers, although it has a destructive impact on the biodiversity. But in terms of land-use it has only a short-term impact, whereas the establishment of a wildlife corridor and its conservation is a long-term matter of land-use. Furthermore it appears that the mining activities are already subsiding in the outlined areas, which are mainly located along the rivers. Most Critical Area The most critical area is the main road from Tunduru to Masasi. The ribbon band development of settlements and cultivation-areas along that road makes it almost impossible to establish a formalised wildlife corridor between the Selous and Niassa GR’s without the translocation of some villages or sub-villages. On the baseline map it appears that the shortest link between Selous and Niassa GR’s would be the connection of the Muhuwesi FR with a new conservation area along the river Muhuwesi.

14

But already major cashew-nut plantations and settlements at the main road prevent the establishment of a continuous corridor. At present the only suitable area for a corridor to cross the main road Tunduru – Masasi would be west and east of the river Lumesule, which is the administrative boundary between Tunduru and Masasi Districts. A possibility to cross the road between the villages Namdembo and Chigweje and Lumsesule villages would be in Masasi District. Presently there are gaps of each two kilometres length with natural vegetation in the ribbon band development along the road. Between the villages Lumesule and Mkwera, which is already located in Tunduru District, are also some minor gaps. But already farming activities between the villages and at the river Lumesule are obstructing the development of a continuous corridor. Recently at least three sub-villages were established along the road between the villages Nakapanya and Mkwera in Tunduru District. In this location the establishment of a corridor crossing the road is not anymore possible unless the development of these settlements is reversed. It also has to be mentioned that the landscape of this most critical area for the entire corridor concept is of stunning beauty because of the shape and size of the surrounding granite outcrops. With presently few small openings allowing the corridor to overcome this bottleneck at the road the idea of an Eastern Wildlife Corridor connecting the Selous with the Niassa GR will not be possible without finding an appropriate solution. Areas South Of The Main Road Tunduru-Masasi The core areas for conservation are without doubt the Lukwika/Lumesule GR and Mwambesi FR/GCA. Both areas are rich in wildlife and have a direct link to Niassa GR thus allowing cross-border migration. Their riverine forests are of high biodiversity and contribute to the protection of the water catchment areas while representing the characteristic vegetation of the Ruvuma basin. Because of their important role for the establishment of a wildlife corridor it is recommended to upgrade the conservation status of Mwambesi Forest Reserve/GCA to a GR. It is recommended to establish a WMA west of Mwambesi Forest Reserve/GCA along the river Ruvuma. For the purpose of identification on the map it is named “WMA Mwambesi West”. Beside its importance for conservation of the riverine vegetation this WMA could play an important role as a buffer zone for the Mwambesi FR and also Niassa GR. It would be desirable to increase the rather small area of Lukwika/Lumesule GR by adding the extended hunting areas Ndechela/Ruvuma Open Area. But because of the high number of villages located close to the boundaries it is recommended to establish a WMA in order to avoid human/wildlife conflicts in the future. It would be ideal for the establishment of the wildlife corridor if the recommended WMA could be designed in such a way that it would follow along the river Lumesule to the north, where the road will have to be crossed. This area is named for identification purpose “WMA Ndechela/Ruvuma”. Another WMA is recommended to link the Mwambesi Forest Reserve/GCA and Lukwika GR. This will include the hunting area Msechela Open Area and the area west of the river Muhuwesi till reaching the boundary of Mwambesi FR/GCA. This WMA would be an important link for the establishment of the corridor and a buffer zone for both protected areas in Tanzania and Niassa GR. In the northeast the WMA would also have to follow the river Lumesule. Thus, having a band of WMA's on both sides of the river a link to the north could be established. This area is named for identification purpose “WMA Mwambesi East”.

15

Areas North Of The Road Tunduru-Masasi After crossing this road the WMA’s could follow the river Lumesule upstream and open like a funnel in northwest direction into Tunduru District and northeast direction into Masasi District. Continuation in Tunduru District In Tunduru District the villages Ngapa and Luwegula could establish a WMA connecting the river Lumesule with Muhuwesi FR/GCA. For identification purpose named “WMA Ngapa”. Since the northern boundary of Muhuwesi FR/GCA does not incorporate the entire catchment area of the river Muhuwesi it is recommendable to review its boundaries and extend the reserve to the north till it reaches the boundary of Selous GR. This extension of Muhuwesi FR would include another 830 km2. Continuation in Masasi District In the northwest the villages Lumesule and Chigweje could establish a WMA till reaching the northern border of the district. This area was named “WMA Lumesule”. The WMA could be linked with the recommended “WMA Kilimarondo” in Nachingwea District. Continuation in Nachingwea District It is recommended that the villages of Kilimarondo Division establish a WMA in the west of the district, named “WMA Kilimarondo”, which follows along the river Lumesule till reaching the administrative boundary of Liwale District in the North. This WMA could also be linked with the proposed extension of Msanjesi GR, which is called Kipindimbi. The proposed extension of Msanjesi GR would be linked with the Lionja Forest Reserve while establishing the proposed Village Land Bee Reserve and proposed Village Land Forest Reserve. Continuation in Liwale District There are to ways to continue with the interlinking of protected areas, viz: In the east the proposed Village Land Forest Reserve of Nachingwea District could be linked with

the Village Land Forest Reserve “Angai”. With the cooperation of the organisation Muhima the “Angai Village Land Forest Reserve” could be linked with the Nyera Kiperere FR, which borders the WMA Magingo.

On the western side the villages Ngongowele, Ngingo and Lilombe etc. located along the road to Liwale town could establish a WMA, which borders the recommended WMA’s of the Tunduru and Nachingwea Districts in the south and the WMA Magingo, Selous GR and the extended Muhuwesi FR/GCA in the north and northwest respectively. This area was named “WMA Muhuwesi/Selous”.

Western Study Area Namtumbo/Tunduru Districts The establishment of the SNWC in this area will be realised soon. Long-time and thorough planning with all stakeholders involved and a major research project were part of the preparation phase. For the establishment of this corridor the most critical area was also the ribbon band development of settlements along the main road Songea – Tunduru. But member villages of Mbarangandu and Nalika WMA’s prevented any further settlements and farming activities and provided some openings of at least 10 kilometres length each along the road for the continuation of the corridor. A network of new WMA’s, incorporating Sasawara FR, will soon close the link between the WMA’s Mbarangandu and Nalika in the North and Niassa GR in the South. Although wildlife numbers of several species are comparatively low it can be expected that with reduction of poaching activities the area will be restocked in a few years. Natural migration of animals from Selous GR, the Northern WMA’s and

16

Niassa GR as well as the undisturbed growth of some small populations around the rivers Lukimwa/Njuga and the Sasawara Forest Reserve will assist to build up a healthy wildlife population. The area of WMA’s can be extended in the southwest of the District along the river Njuga in the northern direction. This was not planned for the project area of the GEF/UNDP funded wildlife corridor project but would add to the viability of this corridor. This area was named “WMA project extension area”. The district administrations will be the main actors to facilitate the process of developing the wildlife corridor. But since Natumbo District was established only recently the required infrastructure is not yet in place. Although the general district offices are under construction adequate offices for the natural resources management with storage facilities, armoury and communication systems will be needed as well as field equipment. Because Natumbo town is not connected to the national electricity grid and does not have its own power supply at least the offices need electricity to run computers, communication systems and lighting. Songea District The establishment of a WMA in the south of Songea District would provide an important link with the wildlife corridor in the east and the Liparamba GR in the west. Furthermore there would be also linkages with the Lipilichi Wilderness Area in Mozambique. This area was recently established and is managed by a private enterprise in cooperation with the villages. The recommended WMA would incorporate all villages of Muhukuru and Ndongosi Wards and would extend from the rivers Njuga and Lukimwa in the east till reaching the river Ruvuma in the west following its course in the northern direction. Thus, the WMA would also serve as a buffer zone for Liparamba GR. This area was named “WMA Muhukuru/Ndongosi”. The southern section of the river Ruvuma in Songea District is an important area for migratory birds from Europe and is a stopover place on their flyway route to South Africa. With the establishment of a WMA the stopover places for migratory birds at the river Ruvuma and its oxbow lakes in Songea District could be protected for the future. The Government of Tanzania ratified and implements the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species. Other Key Interventions Required Infrastructure Both areas in the south of Songea and Namtumbo Districts count to the remotest places with the least human population density along the entire border with Mozambique. This is also one of the reasons why the habitats for wildlife are still more or less intact and allow for the establishment of the wildlife corridor and the other recommended WMA’s. But this fact also accounts for the underdeveloped infrastructure. Bridges and access roads will have to be rehabilitated or newly constructed in order to assure an all year round transportation between the villages. In order to facilitate the management of the WMA’s a resource inventory, a management and a development plan for the road system including access and management roads has to be carried out and implemented. Furthermore existing airstrips will have to be rehabilitated or new constructed. Radio communication between key villages and the district administrations could widely improve the development of these areas. Community Based Conservation Training Centre, (CBCTC) This national centre for the training of village game scouts and village and CBO executives is located in Likuyu, Namtumbo District. It was developed jointly by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Selous GR and the Selous Conservation Programme/GTZ. With the implementation of the recommended WMA’s of this study a high number of course participants has to be expected. Already

17

the conservation agency of the Niassa GR showed interest to send villagers for training. In order to increase the capacities of the centre according to the expected demand additional infrastructure like dormitories, classrooms and a secure water supply would be necessary. Natural Resources Utilisation As already mentioned, the status of WMA allows also the utilisation of other natural resources than wildlife. Consequently the local population is not deprived from the use of other natural resources products. The diversification of income generating natural resources products minimises the economical risks to manage their WMA. In order to avoid conflicts and optimise the utilisation of the resources the Community Based Organisations are to produce a management plan for their WMA, which divides the area in different zones of utilisation. Wildlife At present the wildlife population of many WMA’s recommended in this chapter is not high enough to carry out sustainable hunting, neither for high value tourist hunting nor for meat hunting for the local population. This might refer to the entire area or to certain species. Also photo tourism focused on wildlife will presently not be an option for income generation because of the same reason. Permanent poaching pressure in the past reduced the number of wildlife substantially and made the remaining animals very timid towards people. But experience in establishing WMA’s under similar conditions proofed that the wildlife population need only three to five years of absolute protection to recover from previous unsustainable utilisation. This can only be achieved with the commitment of the local communities towards conservation and consequently their assistance in law enforcement. In order to increase the efficiency in law enforcement regarding the immanent problem of trans-boundary poaching, a high level of cooperation between the Governments of Tanzania and Mozambique is necessary. Also the areas where wildlife crosses regularly the river Ruvuma should be identified together and should receive special attention and protection. Forestry The improvement of the management and conservation of the forests has to be one of the highest priorities. The multi purpose benefits of the natural forests like shelter, construction material, energy, medicinal-plants and other by-products are of extreme importance for the local people, who count to the poorest in Tanzania. Intact natural forests provide the habitat for wildlife and make wildlife management and bee-keeping possible. In conjunction with the sustainable harvest of timber and the utilisation of other by-products the forests contribute to the economic development of the rural areas. With the new Forest Act institutional weaknesses of the past concerning their management and conflicts regarding the utilisation of the forests and land-use constraints can be overcome. Proposed village land forest reserves or those being in the process of establishment were already mentioned in the previous chapters. Also one proposed joint management between the Forest Department of the National Government and the adjacent communities of a National Forest Reserve was pointed out, whereby the management refers to conservation of wildlife and preservation of the forest (Sasawara FR). Other new recommendations for PFM in the sense of the Forest Act were not made, because forestry is already included in the management options of WMA’s. But this does not exclude options to carry out PFM in many other areas outside the proposed WMA’s. Beekeeping All recommended WMA’s have a high potential for beekeeping and production of bee-products. During the field research almost everywhere signs of local beekeeping for domestic use could be found. But the production is not yet on a real commercial level due to lack of marketing and other issues. Only in Nachingwea and Liwale Districts beekeepers sell their products on a bigger scale. This management option could be developed within the recommended WMA’s and outside other protected

18

areas, where there is no room to establish a buffer-zone with WMA status. Taking the increased worldwide demand for bee-products into consideration, in particular for honey from areas free of pesticides, bee keeping has an enormous income potential for the communities. But the usual processing and marketing problems will have to be solved first. This can be only successfully done in a joint venture with the private sector. Fisheries Because of the lack of proteins in most of the southern areas the local communities are very much dependent on this resource. Fishing activities will continue in the recommended WMA’s wherever compatible with other management options. Taking the present status of the fishing activities and fish resources into account it will be necessary to enforce the law regarding the use of poison and other destructive and unsustainable fishing methods and equipment. For the purpose of protecting and conserving the fishery resources in particular at the river Ruvuma the AA’s of the recommended WMA’s will be responsible. In other areas fisheries community management units (beach management unit) with a status of an Authorized Associations could be formed. Due to the nature of the conservation issues regarding fisheries and wildlife management as well the potential for tourism development along the river Ruvuma a zoning plan for fishing activities will need to be prepared. The river Ruvuma is on its longest stretch a trans-boundary ecosystem with Mozambique’s largest protected area, the Niassa GR, and the Lipilichi Wilderness Area, both having its boundary in the middle of the river. Consequently the zoning for fishing activities in Tanzania will be a matter of discussion and mutual agreement with the Conservation Agencies of these protected areas. Due to the zoning of fishing activities and the improvement of the fishery management a higher yield of fish in the remaining areas might be achieved. But often the attractive sites for fishing and other management purposes coincide leading to conflicts in utilisation. Therefore it is recommended to support the establishment of fishponds in suitable areas outside the WMA’s as a matter of economic compensation for the fisheries community.

Alternative Conservation And Land Management Concept The key for the identification of the location of areas are set out in the table overleaf and are summarised on the map titled, Alternative Conservation And Land Management Concept. The major opportunity spaces that require detailed interventions are discussed below: Liparamba GR The Liparamba GR is in particular locally of great importance. Large areas of Mbinga District have been heavily affected by human development activities such as settlement, agriculture and to some extent mining activities. This resulted in a deforested landscape including higher elevations and hilltops on a large scale. The reserve protects the only remaining intact forest ecosystem of the district. Here, primary Miombo forest and a number of wildlife and bird species represent the biodiversity of the entire District. The reserve is also very important in terms of cultural and traditional beliefs of the local communities. The traditional rainmakers and traditional healers are allowed to enter the reserve frequently for the purpose of ritual prayers and collection of medicinal material. Established in the year 2000, the Liparamba GR counts to the most recent game reserves in Tanzania. With enormous efforts and commitment the District Game Officer and the District Administration are rehabilitating this reserve.The wildlife population, considerably reduced due to illegal off-take before the reserve’s establishment, shows already signs of recovery.

20

At present the main target is to increase the wildlife population by means of protection of the area. To reach this aim an adequate number of trained scouts, the necessary equipment including radio-communication and the essential infrastructure like management roads inclusive bridges, office, outposts and staff housing is required. The borders are presently under way to be demarcated and a few basic management roads are under manual construction. For the management of the reserve it is now getting increasingly important to make this reserve financially viable. In the present situation it appears that the long-term solution would be the combination of beach and wildlife tourism. But as the development of the beach tourism at Lake Niassa is also still in its very infancy it will not be easy to put this reserve on a secure financial base for the coming years. In order to facilitate the development of a General Management Plan (GMP) the project GTZ-CWM, as part of its internship programme, presently provides a Tanzanian graduate temporarily to the reserve to prepare a first draft. According to the results of the GMP a development plan for the road system and eventually a Tourism Master Plan will have to be prepared and implemented. Finally the reserve has to be marketed and promoted as a tourist destination. It also has to be discussed whether to include the Bishawishi mountain range into Liparamba GR. This way the reserve boundary could coincide with the national boundary with Mozambique. Sasawara FR This reserve protects an important catchment area and was identified as a core area for the establishment of the SNWC. Total neglect of protection and management has already resulted in encroachment with farming activities and serious poaching of wildlife. With the UNDP/GEF funded SNWC project it is planned to conserve the wildlife and to protect the forest as its habitat in this reserve. In order to implement this objective the adjacent villages will establish WMA’s outside the reserve. In addition these villages will conserve and manage the wildlife within the forest reserve while being responsible for the reserves protection. The villages will negotiate a joint management agreement with the FBD for this purpose. This cooperation between the local communities and the FBD will be possible under the new approach of PFM. Another option, which is independent of the results of the survey, would be to de-gazette the entire forest reserve and establish instead WMA’s. In order to facilitate the management, independent of its status of being a WMA or a forest reserve, a resource inventory, a management and a development plan for the road system including access and management roads has to be carried out and implemented. Mwambesi FR/GCA This reserve is presently used as a hunting block. Because of its value as core conservation area in the Ruvuma Interface and Eastern Wildlife Corridor, with reference to the previous chapter, it was recommended to upgrade its status of conservation to a GR. Whatever decision will be prevailing regarding the reserves’ future status, it will be necessary to improve its management and increase the revenue from tourist hunting operations. It appears that several villages are located in the reserve since its establishment. Since different maps of this area contain contradicting information it is recommended to survey its boundaries and demarcate them in the field. It might be necessary to change the course of its boundaries in certain areas. The number of trained game scouts will have to be increased. At present the two district game scouts, who are based in the hunting camp and in the village Mtwaro, are hardly capable to carry out sufficient patrols and supervise at the same time the hunting activities. It is also necessary to improve the radio communication between the outposts and the district game office in Tunduru town. The road network has also to be improved to facilitate the management of this area. Because of the lack of bridges it is neither possible to cross this area in the south along the river Ruvuma nor to take a shortcut in the north from the village Mtina to Mtwaro. In both cases it is necessary to take the long way via Tunduru town. Necessary outposts and staff-houses have to be constructed and the staff adequately equipped. A resource inventory with adequate maps has to be carried out and a GMP has to be developed and implemented.

21

Muhuwesi FR/GCA According to different information sources encroachment with farming, mining and logging activities together with poaching are the major threats of this reserve. It will be necessary to survey the reserve’s boundaries and assess the scale of encroachment and deterioration. The recommended extension of the reserve in the northeast to meat the Selous GR boundary will have to be taken into account as well. Furthermore a resources inventory has to be drawn up and mapped. It is recommended to maintain the status of this FR and its present utilisation as a hunting block for tourist hunting. But in addition suitable areas for timber harvesting outside catchment areas have to be zoned and should be utilised. Based on all collected information a general management plan including forest and wildlife management has to be developed. For the management of this reserve a higher level of communication and cooperation between wildlife and forestry personnel is required. The necessary infrastructure for forest and wildlife management like roads, outposts with staff houses and communication facilities will have to be established. In addition the reserve’s boundaries will have to be demarcated in the field. For the protection and management of the reserve an adequate number of forest guards and game scouts has to be recruited and equipped. For the management of wildlife in the Muhuwesi Forest Reserve in conjunction with the recommended Mwambesi GR the WD will have to appoint a Project Manager. Given the number of recommended WMA’s in Tunduru District the DGO would have work all full capacity as there are insufficient resources to manage these two reserves. Lukwika/Lumesule and Msanjesi GR Both reserves were already established in 1995 but were more or less dormant till a very active and innovative PM improved the management. Beside improvements of the reserve he carried out a complete resource inventory including fauna and flora himself and initiated the first CBC activities with communities adjacent to the reserve. Furthermore the reserves were leased as one hunting block to a professional hunting company, which most probably runs the best quality and most ethical hunting operations in the far south of Tanzania. Since then the infrastructure of both game reserves was developed. New staff houses were constructed, a management road system established and the boundaries demarcated. Only some access roads need improvement. With the extension of Msanjesi GR into Nachingwea District the survey, mapping and gazettement of the new area as well as the border demarcation will be necessary. The new area will have to be opened up with adequate management roads. Because the number of scouts is by far not sufficient for the management of both game reserves additional trained game scouts will have to be recruited. A GMP for both reserves has to be developed. The details of each of the 43 parcels of land that are referred to on the land management concept map are summarised in tabular format below.

No. NAME STATUS SIZE (Square Kilometres)

MANAGEMENT

MBINGA DISTRICT 1 • Liparamba Game Reserve (GR) 610.7 Ministry of Natural Resources

and Tourism - Wildlife Department (MNRT –WD)

2 • Lipembe Proposed VLFR 101.1 Village Council(s)

SONGEA DISTRICT 3 • Muhukuru/Ndongosi Recommended

WMA 1771.1 Authorised Association(s)

(AA) 4 • Nakatuta Waterfalls Proposed Site for

Hydropower Dam 0

5

• Irrigation Scheme village Namatuhi Private Land 54.2 Individual Farmers

22

No. NAME STATUS SIZE (Square

Kilometres) MANAGEMENT

NAMTUMBO DISTRICT 6 CBCTC Community Based

Conservation Training Centre

0 MNRT - WD

7 • Mbarangandu WMA under establishment

3183.4 CBO of 7 Villages is about to to be registered as AA to declare area as a hunting bloc with management under MNRT - WD

8 Selous ( Sector station in Likuyu) GR 47669.02 MNRT - WD has established a series of hunting blocs

9 • North East Undendeule National Forest Reserve (NFR)

3130.8 Ministry of Natural Resources + Tourism Forestry and Beeking Department (MNRT –FBD) but managed by Wildlife Department for conservation and tourist hunting.

10 • Project extension area Recommended WMA

427.1 AA

11 • SNWC Project Area Planned WMA 6996.0 9 villages

TUNDURU DISTRICT 12 Selous ( Sector station in Kalulu) GR 47,669.0 MNRT - WD has established a

series of hunting blocs 13 • Mwambesi Recommended GR 1729.2 MNRT - WD 14 • Msunda Falls Proposed site for

hydropower dam 0 Within protected areas of

Mwambezsi FR in Tanzania and Niassa GR in Mozambique

15 • Nalika WMA under establishment


16 • Muhuwesi National FR/?GCA 1746.6 MNRT – WD and FBD as a hunting bloc.

17 • Extension Muhuwesi National FR 828.4 MNRT – WD and FBD as a hunting bloc.

18 • Ngapa Recommended WMA

600.2 AA

19 • Project Area for Wildlife Corridor Selous - Niassa MNRT/GEF/UNDP/GTZ-IS

Planned WMA and Participatory Forest Management (PFM)

1869.4 4 adjacent villages joint management agreement with Forest Department on Sasawara Forest Reserve

20 • Sasawara Forest Reserve Hunting Block PFM focused on conservation

418.3 Currently MNRT – FBD but proposed in the future for a JJMA between Pvt Sector and MNRT-FBD, which also involves the establishment of a hunting bloc with mngmt under MNRT-WD

21 • Nandembo VLFR that is proposed for PFM

42.4 Village Council(s).

22 • Mwambesi West Recommended WMA

626.2 AA

23 • Farm Estates 34.0 Private Sector 24 • Mululima Waterfalls Planned Irrigation

Scheme 0 Private Sector

25 • Mwambesi East Recommended WMA

1042.5 AA

26 • Crucial Area For The Establishment Of A Eastern Wildlife Corridor

47.10 District Council Land Use Plan required

23



MASASI DISTRICT 27 • Lukwika Lumesule GR 467 MNRT – WD as a hunting

bloc. 28 • Msanjesi GR 1898.7 MNRT – WD as a hunting

bloc. 29 • Ndechela Forest Reserve 68.7 MNRT - FBD 30 • Ndechela/Ruvuma Recommended

WMA 380.9 AA

31 • Lumesule Recommended WMA

94.7 AA

NACHINGWEA DISTRICT 32 Lionja National FR 264.9 MNRT - FBD 33 • Mbondo Chibedenga Prop. Village Land

Forest Reserve 437.4 Village Council(s)

34 • Kipindimbi Proposed Extension of Msangesi GR

155.3 At present Nachingea District Council but after gazettement it will revert to MNRT-WD

35 • Mbondo Proposed Village Land Bee Reserve (VLBR)

140.6 Village Council(s)

36 • Kilimarondo Recommended WMA

1061.5 AA

LIWALE DISTRICT 37 • Selous

(Sector station in Liwale town) GR 47669 MNRT – WD as a hunting

bloc. 38 • Nyera Kiperere National FR 1063.9 MNRT - FBD 39 • Angai VLFR (Muhima

CBO) 1415.5 Natural Management

Resources Committees of 13 Villages and the Union Muhima

40 • Magingo WMA under establishment

4186.6

CBO of 9 Villages is about to to be registered as AA to declare area as a hunting bloc with management under MNRT - WD

41 • Muhuwesi/Selous Recommended WMA

1628.8 AA

42 • Extension of Mbondo Chibedenga Proposed VLFR 123.5 AA 43 • Extension of Angai VLFR 18.8 AA

Integration Of The Tourism Concept With The WMA Concept In terms of the specific focus of the project, that of “investigating the possibility of developing the Ruvuma River as the anchor destination that could provide the pivot to link the “Lake to Coast’” routes on either side of the river, it is difficult to see the Ruvuma River as playing the role of anchor destination, for the following reasons: It is very remote from any major centres or tourism gateways; Access to the river will require dedicated tourism roads to be built from the main routes, which

will be difficult to justify for tourism alone; The main Mtwara-Mbamba Bay road in Tanzania is unlikely to carry large numbers of tourists for

the foreseeable future because of the substantial distances involved (about 850 km lake-to-coast); All-weather tourism roads along the river would be extremely costly due to the number of bridges

required and the sandy substrate;

24

The sandy floodplain does not appear to be very suitable for lodge construction; The river is shallow and only navigable by shallow-draft boats and there are stretches of water

characterised by heavy rapids; While it can provide an attractive river experience, there is not much to differentiate it from a

range of other African rivers; and, The miombo woodland surrounding the river is interesting, but generally has low carrying

capacity, resulting in a limited game-viewing experience. The best tourism development prospects appear to be in developing the individual game reserves next to the Ruvuma River as destinations in their own right, as part of a broader transbourndary initiative, especially where basic infrastructure has been established for hunting, and tourism can extend the season during which these camps are used. Indeed, as these remote areas open up and the need to respond to tourism pressures, the development of a coherent regional access network will become a pre-condition for promoting tourism in the following priority locations (a) The Liparamba GR, (b) the Lupilichi Wilderness Area, (c) the Mwambesi GR (next to Lumesule-Lukwika GR), (d) the Gomba Wilderness Area, and (d) the Lukwika-Lumesule GR. The tourism concept is illustrated in schematic form below.

Economic Opportunities Associated With The WMA Concept The latter part of the final section of the report builds out the preferred conservation and land management concept by profiling the costs, revenues, jobs and government revenues that could be created by implementing these proposals. It is stressed that this section is illustrative in nature.

Selous GR

Niassa GR

Mecula Section

Mafia Island

Kilwa

Mtwara/ Mnazi Bay

Palma/ Mocimboa da Praia

Pemba

Gomba Section

Lukwika/ Lumesule

GR

Rufiji R Section

Mkunja Section

Western Corridor

Eastern Corridor

Rovuma R

Selous-Niassa TFCACoastal Road

Mbamba Bay

Metungula

Songea

Lichinga

Liparamba

Luplilichi

Njombe Road

Unity Bridge 2 Unity Bridge 1

25

The section draws heavily on a report entitled “Economic Opportunities In Wildlife Management Areas” prepared by K. Christophersen, R. Hagen and G. Jambyia in June 2000 for the Wildlife Division of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism under the USAID/GTZ cofinancing Environmental Policy and Institutional Strengthening Indefinite Quantity Contract (EPIQ). In summary, the breakdown for each NRM activity is as follows: Bee Reserves is estimated at 174 km2; Forest Reserves is estimated at 9,660 km2; Game Reserves is estimated at 50,830 km2; Wildlife Management Areas is estimated at 26,860 km2; and, Total area under potential natural resource management from which an income stream can be

derived is estimated at 86,840 km2. A simple linear application of the hypothetical WMA of 1,100 km2 to the 26,860km2 of proposed area under WMA’s is substantial as the figures in the table below suggest.

Summary of Benefits and Costs Of Proposed WMA’s In The Study Area

Jobs Created Based On Proposed WMA’s in Study Area

Over a 10 year period at total income of approx. USD 36,7 million could be realised as follows: - USD 8,7 million from beekeeping (23.5%); - USD 21,7 million from hunting (59%); - USD 6,1 million from tourism (16.5%); and, - USD 0,6 million from national forestry management (1%).

However, over a 10 year period total costs of managing the WMA’s are estimated at USD 29

million are incurred or which USD 6,9 million accrues to central and USD 2,8 million accrues to local government in the form of taxes. This yields a net cash flow of approx. USD 7,65 million for the private sector partner, which means an average of approx. USD 300,000 or USD 30,000 p.a from each WMA. It is estimated that an estimated USD 10,1 million would be available for community projects, which translated into approx USD 1 million p.a or USD 40,000 per WMA p.a. It should be noted that a high quality investor is required and would have to participate in a group (e.g., 10) of WMA’s to make it attractive enough, given that even under the good conditions assumed under the model the investor would have to carry the investment for the first 5 years of WMA operation, without any return on capital invested.

Over A 10 Year Grand TotalPeriod # Jobs Days/Yr Years Eq. # Jobs Days/Yr Years Eq. # Jobs Days/Yr Years Eq. # Jobs Days/Yr Years Eq. Years Eq.

Total - Single WMA 900 28800 111 135 35000 135 56 46480 179 200 365700 1407 1831Total - 25 WMA 22500 720000 2775 3375 875000 3375 1400 1162000 4475 5000 9142500 35175 45775

Beekeeping NFM Collection Centers WMA HQ (AA)

Available for

Over A 10 Year Collection Tourism Non-Cons. Total Central District WMA Net Community

Period Centers Hunting Tourism NFM Benefits Government Council Costs Cash Flow Projects

Total - Single WMA 349,403 868,337 243,815 6,563 1,468,118 277,595 112,524 1,161,944 306,173 401,955Total - 25 WMA's 8,735,063 21,708,434 6,095,380 164,063 36,702,939 6,939,868 2,813,106 29,048,602 7,654,337 10,048,875

Benefits Costs

26

Over a 10 year period at total jobs of approx. 45,775 could be realised as follows: - 22,500 from beekeeping; - 1,400 from collection centres; - 3,375 from forestry; and, - 5,000 from WMA management and administration..

Although somewhat dated (2000) the core conclusions and recommendation of the EPIQ study are still highly relevant today, particularly in providing strong caveats to the realisation of the potentials described in the tables and map above. Conclusion 1: The overall conclusion drawn is simply a strong affirmation of the recently adopted WPT and WMA concept, which is now a reality. Devolving the management of wildlife to the local communities under WMA designation will increase the economic well being for all stakeholders, the government, the districts, and the local communities. In fact, the implementation of this option is probably the only realistic avenue available to the WD given its lack of adequate funding to carry out its mandated task to conserve wildlife and its habitat. Conclusion 2: Although the results indicate that the economic opportunities analysed are strongly feasible, there is a gap of some four to five years during which the revenues collected with WMA designation by government stakeholders fall short of the revenues collected without the WMA. This revenue gap may, by itself, prove to be the downfall of WMA’s unless due attention is paid to this particular problem early in the process.

Conclusion 3: Although the results indicate that the economic opportunities analysed are strongly feasible, this is only the beginning, or probably the low end of the net benefits that a WMA designation will be able to generate. Other economic opportunities above the core ones discussed in the model do exist and will likely be highly applicable in many potential future WMA’s. With the analytical approach developed here, it would be a simple matter to add the analysis of opportunities as they emerge. Given the above criteria for feasibility, any new opportunity proven feasible will, by definition, add to or further strengthen, the aggregate feasibility results reported here.

27

1.0 Introduction This report aims to support ongoing conservation, eco-tourism, community development and natural resource management initiatives in a manner that aids and abets the evolving dialogue on increased dialogue between the United Republic of Tanzania and the Republic of Mozambique on the potentials for establishing a Selous-Niassa Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFCA).

1.1 The Mtwara Development Corridor Initiative The Southern African Transport and Communications Commission (SATCC) of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) included the Mtwara Transport Corridor in the SADC Transport and Communications Study in 1992. In 1996, the South African Department of Trade and Industry (RSA-DTI) launched its Spatial Development Initiatives (SDI) Programme. This programme is a technical assistance facility that provides resources to develop the case for regional integration of infrastructure networks along identified transport corridors to enhance economic development in un/underdeveloped regions, and to identify bankable projects for investment at targeted sectors and locations that will increase traffic demand to support the case for investment in the necessary infrastructure. The SDI Programme is well placed to develop an integrated case for the Mtwara Development Corridor (MtDC), which is one of fifteen SDI’s currently are being implemented within the SADC region. The Governments of Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania and Zambia adopted the SDI concept, process and methodology in relation the SADC Protocol on Transport and Communications, in the form of a letter of intent (LoI) initialled by representatives of all four governments in May 2002, in which they committed themselves to the preparation and establishment of the MtDC. The signing of the MtDC Agreement on The 15th December 2004 in Lilongwe, Malawi by the respective Heads of State subsequently ratified the LoI. One of the “anchor” projects identified under the process, as key to unlocking the undoubted potentials of southern Tanzania and northern Mozambique, is the Selous-Niassa Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFCA).

1.2 The Selous Conservation Programme And Community Wildlife Management Project

The Tanzanian Wildlife Division and German Agency For Technical Cooperation (GTZ) jointly administer the Selous Conservation Programme (SCP). The SCP started in 1987 as a bilateral cooperation agreement between the German and Tanzanian Government. The SCP focused on the assistance in the rehabilitation and management of the Selous Game Reserve (GR) in Tanzania and establishment of a programme of community based conservation in the buffer zone adjacent to the Selous GR in cooperation with the local population. The activities of the SCP extended from strengthening the Selous GR administration to the implementation of a Community Conservation Programme in at present 50 villages around the Reserve. The objectives of the SCP were (a) to safeguard the existence and ecological integrity of the Selous GR as a conservation area and (b) to significantly reduce conflicts between the Selous GR and the local population by implementing a programme of sustainable wildlife utilisation by local villages. To achieve these objectives, it was agreed that the SCP should focus on (a) assist in the rehabilitation and management of the Selous GR and (b) establishing, in cooperation with local villagers, a programme for sustainable wildlife utilisation in buffer zones adjacent to the Selous GR.

28

These activities of the SCP were phased out at the end of 2003 but assistance to Village Wildlife Management Areas (WMA’s) around the Selous GR will be continued by the CWMP, which is funded by GTZ in collaboration with the Wildlife Division (WD). In addition a new set of activities linked to the Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor (SNWC) Project is also being initiated. The governments of Tanzania and Mozambique have had preliminary discussions to use this project to explore the possibilities of integrating the Selous GR in Tanzania and the Niassa GR in Mozambique.

1.3 National Forest Programme Implementation Support Project Within the Forestry and Beeking Division (FBD) of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, support is being provided by a combination of donors, notably FINNIDA (Finland) to advise on an NFP-ISP. A key component of the overall programme is participatory forestry management, which is being promoted by FBD at the village level and is similar to WMA’s but covering the forestry sub-sector. The programme has expressed an interest to pilot the initial integration of wildlife and forestry sub sectors with the view to combining community level forestry and wildlife implementation at the local level in the Mtwara, Lindi and Ruvuma regions of southern Tanzania. Specifically, the sustainable use of forest-based resources, including e.g. timber, honey, beeswax, charcoal, firewood, medicinal plants, edible plants, nuts, roots, and other non-timber forest products, is one of the main sources of rural cash and non-cash income for villagers. The sustainable community-based management and use of forest-based resources provides still a larger potential for income generation to the local communities. The management and use of forest resources need to be planned and coordinated with the management and use of wildlife resources. There is a need for increased cooperation and coordination between sectors, which can be explored in more detail in this pilot study.

1.4 Selous-Niassa Transfrontier Conservation Area The Selous GR in Tanzania and the Niassa GR in Mozambique have been identified as a potential TFCA. This is considered the key “anchor project” that promotes conservation and eco-tourism because of its conservation merits, its linkages to the coast and the lake along the Ruvuma River and its ability to act as a bridge between the “Southern Tourism Circuit” in Tanzania and the “Lake to Coast”/“Swahili Coast” tourism routes in Mozambique. These attributes combine to make it a potential (major) focal point for bilateral cooperation on transfrontier natural resource management (TNRM), which in turn could serve to highlight the importance of other key TNRM issues, notably, the Mnazi-Bay-Quirimbas Transfrontier Marine Park, the Miombo Ecoregion and the Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa Ecoregion. The Selous GR is one of the highest profile reserves on the Continent and a World Heritage Site. It encompasses an area of approx. 50,000 km2 and attracts between 4-5,000 visitors per year to its camps. In the Selous GR a tourism circuit has been developed in the north, based on the Rufiji River and its lakes. Most of the reserve, however, is divided into trophy hunting concession areas. This utilisation of abundant natural resources provides the necessary revenue that makes the conservation of such a huge area sustainable, and self-supporting. Although the Niassa GR is largely undeveloped it represents one of the most important components of the Mozambique’s government national strategy for the rehabilitation of the war torn parks and reserves. It was established in 1964. During the war, people fled the area and poaching in the reserve and surrounding areas increased. With the peace agreement in 1992, people have begun returning to the area and the reserve has a population of about 21,000 people, who rely on harvesting natural resources to survive. The Niassa GR encompasses approx. 43, 000 km2, 24,000 km2 of “core” zone, designated for “eco-tourism” activities and 19,000 km2 of buffer zone, designated for hunting activities. The Niassa GR is one of the largest protected miombo forest ecosystems in the world

29

supporting a remarkably rich and diverse wildlife that has survived years of conflict. It is the largest conservation area in Mozambique and has the greatest concentration of wildlife in the country. In 2000, the government established the Sociedade para Gestao e Desenvolvimento da Reserva do Niassa (SRN) as the administrative structure for the management of the Niassa GR. SRN is based on an innovative partnership between the public and private sector, where the government retains ownership of the land and wildlife resources but the day-to-day management of the park is the responsibility of SRN. In summary the Selous-Niassa ecosystem covers about 154,000 km² and is potentially the largest single transboundary ecosystem in Africa. However, there is a critical gap between the two blocks of protected areas consisting of two sparsely settled, but wildlife-rich, potential corridors, that stretch for about 160 km between the southern border of the Selous and the Ruvuma River. Between these two potential wildlife corridors is a large block of land around the town of Tunduru that is heavily populated, well developed for agriculture and gemstone mining, that holds no potential for wildlife occupation but may hold some potential for eco-tourism activities adjacent to the river system.

1.5 Report Focus The Governments of Tanzania and Mozambique have had preliminary discussions to integrate the Selous and Niassa GR, via the proposed SNWC Project. Its objective is to secure the future of a western corridor (see map overleaf) that lies between Tunduru, Nantumbo and Songea Rural districts so that it can continue to function as a natural genetic bridge between the populations of animals in the two protected blocks, Selous GR in the north and Niassa GR in the south. The project is planned by the Tanzanian Government as a development cooperation project financed by a grant of USD 1,060,000 from the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) in cooperation between the Wildlife Department and the Districts of Songea and Tunduru. Whereas the northern part of the corridor bordering the Selous GR is well protected by a buffer zone composed of village wildlife management areas, the southern part (3000-4000 km2) towards the Ruvuma River has not received any attention in the past. Illegal over utilisation of the natural resources, in particular poaching of wild animals and poisoning of fish, destructive wildfires and unplanned farming has lead to habitat degradation and loss in biodiversity. The obstruction of the movements of large herbivores, such as the African elephant, will ultimately result in increased human – wildlife conflicts. Therefore, the project seeks to protect the southern part of the wildlife corridor through a network of Village WMA’s, a move initiated by villagers of the area concerned. In the western corridor about 8,000 km² of communal land would be involved, and if the proposed eastern corridor is found to be feasible a further 8,000 km² of communal land could be involved. The imperative to initiate a feasibility study for the eastern corridor is highlighted by the high suspected incidence of poaching, measured by an audit of animal snares, from the Masunguru (under cover from Lukwika/Lumesule GR) and Mkonona (under cover from Mbangara FR) wards in Tanzania into the Niassa GR in Mozambique. This would bring the total area in which free movement of animals is possible to 154,000 km². Not only the conservation status of both corridors would be improved, but also the local communities will be offered the opportunity for economic development using the area for eco-tourism and sport hunting.

30

Map 1: Selous-Niassa TFCA Is At The Center Of MtDC NRM And Tourism Potentials

Western Eastern C/Border

31

The eastern corridor defined in this study includes the Lukwika/Lumesule GR in Masasi District and areas of Tunduru, Nachingwea and Liwale districts. The proposed eastern corridor could include the Lukwika-Lumesule and Manjesi GR’s, the Mwambesi, Muhuwesi, Mbangara and Ndechela FR’s and communal land in the form of Village WMA’s as connections between the formally protected areas. The Ruvuma River is both the international boundary and the northern boundary of the Niassa complex. The stretch of river that forms the border with the Niassa GR runs for almost 500 kilometres and therefore represents the longest and possibly the most important cross-border interface along the MtDC (see box) below. The environmental qualities of this river basin are considerable but the catchment management framework has not yet been put in place and therefore is subject to a number of pressures such as an unplanned settlement, poor delivery of basic infrastructure and services, land degradation, deforestation, over fishing, deterioration in water quality, poaching of wildlife, soil erosion, climate change, poor environmental awareness and unregulated economic activities.

Box 1: Environmental Dimensions Of The Ruvuma River Basin

The international boundary between Tanzania and Mozambique follows the Ruvuma River for most of its length. The river, stretching for around 730 kilometres from source to the Indian Ocean, drains an area of about 155 400 km2 with a total average discharge of 28 km3/year. It is lined with important wetlands and has a substantial estuary and delta including a large area of mangroves. The basin supports the livelihoods of many thousands of people, mainly through providing the natural assets for subsistence farming. The area includes patches of lowland coastal forest and diverse types of woodland but its biological diversity is largely undescribed although thought to be of regional importance. The basin is at the interface of the Southern and Eastern African bio-geographical regions and the river is likely to have a fish fauna with elements from the nearby Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa. Wildlife is an important component of the natural resource base and there are several protected areas for wildlife in both countries, in or near the basin. The estuarine and coastal biodiversity is significant and Mnazi-Bay Ruvuma Estuary Marine Park was recently gazetted on the edge of the Ruvuma delta in Tanzania. There are also plans for integrated coastal zone management and marine biodiversity conservation in the Quirimbas archipelago. As indicated above the Peace Parks Foundation has proposed the Selous-Niassa and Mnazi Bay-Quirimbas reserves as Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCA’s) and the WWF-SARPRO has included Selous-Niassa ecosystem as one of the areas of importance for biodiversity conservation in the Miombo Eco-region. Temperatures in the basin are expected to increase by 1.7 degrees over the next 100 years causing a 5-20% decline in rainfall resulting in major losses in run off, with profound impacts on the existing ecosystem and livelihoods of people residing within the catchment (IUCN, 2002). The need to develop a strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of the Ruvuma Catchment linking natural resource management to sustainable rural livlihoods is becoming increasingly urgent given the rising developmental pressures on this catchment. Given the limited resources available to and the focus of the MtDC process, which is to identify and package projects aimed at attracting private sector investment, the MtDC Project Manager, the Project Leader for the GTZ funded CWMP and the FINNIDA funded NFP-ISP Facilitator agreed to co-finance what is now referred to as the Prefeasbility And Environmental Baseline Study For The Ruvuma Interface. The four reasons for this include: From the MtDC Perspective: To support the Tanzanian government efforts, through the

Department of Tourism (MNRT) to identify and package potential tourism routes and associated projects, which are consistent with the National Tourism Master Plan, notably the “Southern Tourism Circuit” and which are consistent with the Mozambique government’s efforts, through the Department of Tourism to strengthen the “business case” for the “Lake to Coast” and “Swahili Coast” tourism routes detailed in the National Tourism Strategy for Mozambique.

From the CWM Perspective: To support the Tanzanian governments efforts, through the

Wildlife Division, in the MNRT and Department of Regional Administration and Local Government, in the Presidents Office, to develop the wildlife corridors, principally through the establishment of wildlife management areas (WMA’s);

32

From the NFR-ISP Perspective: To support the Tanzanian governments efforts, through the

Forestry and Beekeeping Division, in the MNRT and Department of Regional Administration and Local Government, in the Presidents Office, to pilot the integration of community based natural resource management (CBNRM) areas, principally through the initial focus on integrating CBNRM activities in the wildlife and forestry sub sectors;

From Overall Perspective: To crowd in limited resources through, (i) RSA-DTI funding of the

MtDC SDI to assist with the team leader, socio-economic, geographic information system, tourism and infrastructure aspects of this prefeasbility study, (ii) GTZ funding of experts to assist with the institutional and legal, biodiversity, wildlife and land use aspects of this prefeasiblity study and (iii) FINNIDA funding of a local forestry and beekeeping experts to assist with the forestry and beekeeping aspects of this study.

The “core” study area (defined in detail in section 2.1.2) includes the areas south of the Mtwara-Mingoyo-Masasi-Tunduru-Nantumbo-Mbinga and Mbamba Bay road to the Tanzanian-Mozambique border, which is principally the Ruvuma River. The entire nothern border of the Niassa GR as well as the proposed Lupilichi Wildeness Area in Mozambique forms a “shadow” focus area to ensure adequate integration of related work that is currently underway in Mozambique. Having clearly located this support package within the wider MtDC process (RSA-DTI) and its linkages to specific ongoing activities of CWM (GTZ) and NFP-ISP (FINNIDA), the next section details the structure of the report.

1.6 Report Structure The consultant team was asked to prepare a prefeasbility and environmental baseline study for the NGR-Ruvuma River Interface. The aim of these terms of reference (see Appendix 3) is to frame the baseline understanding of the legal/institutional, socio-economic/infrastructure, biophysical, wildlife, tourism and forestry/beekeeping profile of the study area. The MtDC GIS facility should be the integration point for as much information as possible and that the information gaps should be filled to present the findings of the report in a clear concise manner. The structure of the report is as follows: Section 2 presents in summary form a report prepared by Mr. Rudi Hahn of GTZ (CWM) on the

Status Of The Legal And Institutional Arrangements1 vis-à-vis natural resource management relevant in Tanzania and applies this set up to the study area;

Section 3 presents in summary form a report prepared by Mr. Pascal Malesa of MtDC (NDC) on

the Village Socio-Economic Profile for the study area; Section 4 present in summary form a report prepared by Dr. Donald Mpanduji of GTZ (CWM) on

the Biodiversity Issues and Recommendations within the study area; Section 5 presents in summary form a report prepared by Mr. C.C. Mahundi of GTZ (CWM) on

the Wildlife Issues and Recommendations within the study area;

1 Sections of the report prepared by Mr. Bariki Kaale of FINNIDA (NSP-ISP) on the Forestry Issues and Recommendations also include a legal/institutional overview and are not repeated as the relevant issues for forestry have been adequately considered in the section compiled by Hahn. His section, however will be augmented by inputs taken from a dicussion paper coordinated by Mr. Tom Blomley, an Advisor to the Participatory Forestry Management (PFM) Programme, funded with assistance from the World Bank, FINNIDA and DANIDA, on “Private Sector-Community Partnerships in the Sustainable Management of Miombo Woodlands in Tanzania”.

33

Section 6 presents in summary form a report prepared by Dr. Peter Norton of DTI-RSA (MtDC-RSDI Support) on the Tourism Issues and Recommendations within the study area;

Section 7 presents in summary form a report prepared by Mr. Bariki Kaale of FINNIDA (NFP-

ISP) on Forestry Issues and Recommendations in the study area2; and, Section 8 presents in summary form a report prepared by Mr. Rudi Hahn GTZ (CWM) the

Integrated Spatial Development Framework, with particular emphasis on identifying “opportunity spaces” for key natural resource management interventions within the study area.

A GIS Consultant, Mr. Rombout Verwimp of DTI-RSA (MtDC-RSDI Support), was on hand to provide all data and mapping support to the study and the Team Leader, Mr. Graham Smith of DTI-RSA (MtDC-RSDI Support) provided technical and management support from concept to handover.

2.0 Legal and Institutional Overview

2.1 Background 2.1.1 Towards A Selous-Niassa Trans-Frontier Conservation Area The Selous-Niassa miombo woodland eco-system of southern Tanzania and northern Mozambique is the largest trans-boundary natural ecosystems in Africa. With an area of more than 154,000 km2 it is most significant for the global biodiversity. Through a network of protected areas of various categories of protection, an area of 110,000 km2 of this ecosystem is presently under conservation. Two Game Reserves are critical for the protection of this globally important area; the Selous Game Reserve, which covers approx. 47,000km2 making it the largest single protected area in Africa, and the Niassa Game Reserve, Mozambique’s largest protected area covering 42,400 km2. Taking these facts into consideration a Selous-Niassa TFCA would be a key to unlock the undoubted economic potentials of southern Tanzania and northern Mozambique.This study on the legal and institutional environment in conjunction with a study on biodiversity3 and wildlife4 was commissioned through the GTZ- CWM project in Tanzania. 2.1.2 Study Area This study of the Ruvuma interface was carried out in Tanzania only. With a size of 64,000 km2 it includes the administrative areas of seven districts out of three regions. There are the Districts Mbinga, Songea, Namtumbo and Tunduru of Ruvuma Region, Masasi District of Mtwara Region and the Districts Nachingwea and Liwale of Lindi Region (see map overleaf). The boundaries are defined as follows: “…From the Liparamba GR in the west it stretches about 350 km along the river Ruvuma, which is the international boundary of Tanzania and Mozambique, until it reaches the Lukwika-Lumesule GR in the east. The main road from Mbinga town till Masasi town demarcates in general the northern boundary. The Selous GR is the northern boundary regarding studies for the linkage of the Selous and Niassa GR’s via wildlife corridors..”.

2 The report on Beekeeping Issues And Recommendations was rejected due to the general and consequently rather unhelpful nature of the commentry and concerns about the integrity of key baseline statistics at the district level. 3 Dr. D. Mpanduji of SUA Morogoro carried out the biodiversity study. 4 Mr. C.C. Mahundi, Principal of the CBCTC Likuyu/Namtumbo carried out the wildlife study.

36

2.1.3 Approach And Methodology The approach and methodology consisted of four different elements: Field research in the study area as a team with the biodiversity and wildlife specialists; Interviews with key informants at departmental, regional, district, ward and village level as well

as with protected area officials and resource users; Literature research on legislation, regulations, guidelines, documents and reports pertaining to

CBC and Natural Resources Management and the relevant focal points in Tanzania; and, Analytic map studies, processing of spatial data and production of thematic maps in cooperation

with the GIS specialists.

2.2 The Legal And Institutional Environment 2.2.1 The Legislation Governing Natural Resources Management In Tanzania The relevant legislation for natural resource management (NRM) and their use-rights is shown in the following table:

Table 1: NRM Legislation In Tanzania

Natural Resources Legislation Remarks Wildlife Wildlife Conservation Act No

12 of 1974, Subsidiary Legislation and Regulations

The wildlife act is presently under review; a Ministry draft of anew Act exists and has been discussed with the stakeholders

Forestry Forest Act, 2002 Subsidiary Legislation and Regulations

Bee-keeping Beekeeping Act 2002 Regulations for its implementation are presently under review

Fisheries Fisheries Act No 22 of 2003 Regulations for its implementation are presently under review

National Parks Ordinance Cap.412

National Parks

Ngorongoro Conservation Ordinance Cap. 413

Ngorongoro Conservation Area

37

2.2.2 Natural Resources Management Focal Points The governmental NRM focal points are illustrated in the following table:

Table 2: NRM Focal Points

National Government Ministry of Natural Resources & Tourism

Department of Wildlife Department of Forestry&

Bee-keeping Department of Fisheries Department of Tourism

Ministry of Natural Resources & Tourism

Government Agencies Tanzania National Parks

(TANAPA) Ngorongoro Conservation

Area Authority (NCAA) Regional Administration Cluster: Economic Development

and Services

Technical Advisers for Natural Resources Agriculture & Livestock Cooperatives Trade

District/Local Authority Department: Natural Resources

Sectors Wildlife Forestry Bee-keeping Fisheries

2.2.2.1 Land Tenure The Land Act, 1999 and Village Land Act, 1999, govern the land in Tanzania. For the spatial analysis of the study area important sections of the relevant Act about the classification and tenure of land are quoted. Under the Land Act, 1999, Part III, Classification and Tenure of Land is as follows: 4. (1) All land in Tanzania shall continue to be public land and remain vested in the President as

trustee for and behalf of all citizens of Tanzania; and, 4. (4) For the purpose of the management of land under this Act and all other laws applicable to

land, public land shall be in the following categories: a. General Land: Means all public land, which is not reserved land or village land and includes

unoccupied or unused village land; b. Village Land: Means the land declared to be village land under and in accordance with

section 7 of the Village Land Act 1999 and includes any transfer or land transferred to a village; and,

c. Reserved Land: Land reserved, designated or set aside under the provisions of the following Forest Act 2003 (before Forest Ordinance); National Parks Ordinance; Ngorongoro Conservation Area Ordinance; Wildlife Conservation Act, 1974; The Marine Parks and Reserves Act, 1994; and, Land declared by order of the Minister, in accordance with the provisions of this Act to

be hazardous land5. 5 Hazardous land, according to the Village Land Act 1999, is land the development of which is likely to pose a danger to life or to lead to the degradation of or environmental destruction and includes for example mangrove swamps and coral reefs, wetlands and offshore islands in the sea and lakes, land within 60 metres of a river bank or the shoreline of an inland lake, land which should not be developed on account of its environmental significance.

38

2.2.2.2 NRM On Reserved Land - National Government And Local Authority The management of reserved land is either mandated to the National Government or the Local Authority. The different categories of reserved land are shown in the table below. However the Forestry and Beekeeping Act allows also joint management agreements with various stakeholders regarding the management of the natural resources and the reserves. The management of the National Parks and Ngorongoro Conservation Area are mandated to agencies of the National Government. They are the Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA) and the Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority (NCAA) respectively.

Table3 : NRM On Reserved Land In Tanzania

Natural Resources

National Government Local Authority (District)

Wildlife Game Reserves Game Controlled Areas

Not Applicable

Forestry Forest Reserves Or Nature Forest Reserves

Local Authority Forest Reserve

Beekeeping National Bee Reserve Local Authority Bee Reserve Fisheries Not Applicable For This Study Not Applicable For This Study

2.2.3 Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) Focal Points With the change of policies CBNRM was officially adopted. Since then the laws or regulations were or are on the way to be amended accordingly. The focal points for CBNRM vary according to the type of natural resources and are briefly explained below. Due to the fact that all legal and institutional changes happened quite recently it can be expected that a lot of coordination and communication between the different departments on all levels will be necessary in order to achieve a smooth implementation. 2.2.3.1 Wildlife Although the Wildlife Conservation Act of 1974 is not yet amended the “Regulations for the Establishment of Wildlife Management Areas (WMA’s)6 were launched in 2003 for 16 pilot areas. After a test phase of three years an assessment on the performance of the regulations will be carried out. Guidelines, giving more detailed information about the establishment and management of WMA’s have been developed to assist the implementation of the Regulations. 2.2.3.1.1 Institutions, Structures And Instruments For Managing WMA’s The institutional linkages for the management of a WMA and the private sector are illustrated in the diagram overleaf. The establishment of a WMA and its management through an Authorised Association (AA) is briefly explained as follows: One or several villages prepare a constitution and register a Community Based Organisation

(CBO) with the purpose of the management of a WMA; Identification of a suitable area for a WMA on village land by undertaking a land-use plan; Preparation of a General Management Plan (GMP) for the WMA; If the CBO qualifies to be declared AA to manage a WMA a certificate of authorisation shall be

issued by the Minister, which leads to the gazettment of the WMA; The AA is entitled to utilise wildlife resources after the Director of Wildlife has granted the user

rights; and,

6 WMA’s refers to an area declared by the Minister to be so and set aside by a village government for the purpose of biological natural resource conservation.

39

Registered trustees, duly authorised by the constitution of the CBO, shall sign all contracts or agreements on behalf of an AA.

2.2.3.1.2 Utilisation Of Natural Resources In A WMA The utilisation of resources according to the guidelines relates to the consumptive and/or non-consumptive use of biological and/or non-biological resources in a manner that does not interrupt the ecological processes of that ecosystem, is for the benefit of the communities in a WMA and conservation of biodiversity. The AA may issue a permit for the utilisation of the following resources in a WMA: Hunting for meat by the AA under Regulation 51; Resident hunting under Regulation 52; Tourist hunting under Regulation 53; Live animal capture under Regulation 56; and, Non-consumptive tourism under Regulation 61.

The AA may issue a permit for utilisation of the following resources, subject to licences issued by the responsible authorities, in a WMA: Forestry products (trees) under Regulation 58 (Refer: Forest Act, 2002); Bee resources under Regulation 59 (Refer: Beekeeping Act, 2002); Fish resources under Regulation 60 (Refer: Fisheries Act, 1970 and 2003);

The following are restricted types of resource utilisation in a WMA: Mining, subject to Regulation 62 (Refer: Mining Act, 1998); Wildlife Cropping; and, Wildlife Farming and Ranching.

2.2.3.1.3 Investments And Joint Venture In WMA’s Investment in WMA will be done for the purpose of utilising wildlife resources and will be capable of being done by the following: - An AA with user rights; An investor under an Investment Agreement with the AA; and, Joint Venture Agreement between the AA and an investor (Refer to Regulations 39(4), Part VIII

of the Regulations and the Twelfth Schedule to the Regulations). Investments in WMA’s shall be subject to the following parameters: Investment in WMA’s will involve development or improvement of infrastructure and services in

WMA; All investments shall be subjected to EIA and shall conform to the GMP or RMZP; The District Natural Resource Advisory Body shall provide to the AA guidance and advice on

matters relating to agreements, investments, and development in a WMA; Joint Venture and Investment Agreements shall not involve the management of natural

resources or allocation of hunting blocks; Joint Venture and Investment Agreements shall be operative upon approval by the Director of

Wildlife;

40

Investment Agreements shall conform to the format prescribed in the Twelfth Schedule to the Regulations;

An Investment Agreement that will provide for the development of village land for ultimate physical use and occupation of land by the investor shall be supported by a derivative right approved by the respective Village Council under the Village Land Act, 1999;

The Village Council may grant a customary right of occupancy to the AA for purposes of enabling the AA to create derivative right in favour of an investor;

The Village Council shall enable the AA and the investor to acquire customary certificate of title and derivative title respectively, in order to facilitate financing of activities in WMA;

The term of the derivative right to be granted to the investor shall run concurrent with the term provided in he Investment Agreement;

Joint Venture Agreements shall be governed by the Companies Ordinance, Cap 212; Law of Contract, Cap 443; the Village Land Act, 1999, the Local Government (District Authorities) Act 1982 and other relevant laws;

There shall be formed a Joint Venture Management Committee which shall be responsible for the management of joint venture activities in the WMA. (Refer: Regulation 65); and,

The Minister will set the minimum payable rate of fees; and, The parties to the Investment Agreement (i.e. the AA and the Investor) will be at liberty to

negotiate on whether or not the rate of fees for utilisation of wildlife in a WMA as set by the Minister should be increased. (Refer: regulation 47).

2.2.3.2 Forestry The recently (2004) enacted Forest Act 2002 provides the legal basis for the introduction and implementation of Participatory Forest Management (PFM). PFM refers to the establishment of village forest reserves, community forest reserves and Joint Forest Management (JFM) agreements and associated cost and revenues/benefit sharing arrangements. However, the regulations do not provide for the necessary guidelines on how to make these arrangements operational. Due to the fact that PFM is at present not underpinned by a set of clear rules and regulations the concept of the PFM and the focal points are only introduced here. Given the purpose of PFM as described in the Forestry Act, PFM describes an agreement between different partners, be this between villages and the National Government, or between community groups and villages or between private individuals/companies and Local Authorities and so forth. Depending on the nature of the contract and the parties involved these contracts could be in the form of a lease, a concession, a service agreement or a joint venture. Whatever form the contract takes, in its basic form it needs to stipulate rights and duties of both parties and sanctions or penalties in case of non-adherence to contractual obligations by one or both parties and/or infringements on rights by third parties. It is general accepted that PFM consists is articulated either through a Joint Forest Management Agreement or in the form of Community Based Forest Management.

41

Figure 1: Institutional Linkages For The Management Of WMA's

Local Government

Ministry of Natural Resources & Tourism Wildlife Department/ CBC-Unit

District Natural Resources Advisory Body

Authorized Association (Community Based Organisation, CBO)

Employment Village Game Scouts

Wildlife Management Area, WMA

Village Branch of Authorized Association

(CBO)

Village Branch of Authorized Association (CBO)

Village Assembly Village Assembly


registered village


registered village

Village Council Village Council Village Natural Resources

Committee Village Natural Resources

Committee

MANAGEMENT of Wildlife & Tourism Forest Beekeeping Fisheries

Private Sector

42

The table below gives an overview of the different possibilities under the different types of Forest Reserves, declared or gazetted, as mentioned under Article 16 of the Forest Act.

Table 4: Different Types Of Forest Reserves

Land Reserved Land Village Land

National Forest

Reserve

Local Authority

Forest Reserve

Village Land Forest

Reserve

Community Forest

Reserve

Private Forests

Mandate/ Owner

Manager

National Government

Local Authority Village Community

Group Private legal entity

National Government *

Local Authority *

Village Council CBFM

Community Group CBFM

Private Sector * **

* Article 33 (1)(c) of the Forest Act, **Article 44 (1)(a) of the Forest Act The term Village Land is only applicable to those areas where villages have been surveyed and demarcated as per the stipulations under the Village Land Act (1999). In terms of forests on village land the lawmaker recognises the following categories: Village land forest reserves; Community forest reserves created out of village forests; Non-reserved forests; and, Private forests, either under customary right of occupancy or a granted right of occupancy or

lease. A village land forest reserve can either be a declared village land forest reserve or after three years of management and application to Director of Forestry, a gazetted village land forest reserve. A village council declares an area of village land to be a village land forest reserve and negotiates a Joint Management Agreement with the Director of Forestry. 2.2.3.2.1 Community-Private Sector Participation In The Forestry Sector This section details the legal mechanisms for the development of partnerships between villages and the private sector in the management of communally-owned forest resources, leading to both sustainable forest management and local economic returns. It complements and supports the implementation of a range of national policies, plans and laws relating to land, forests and environment, as well as directly contributing to the achievement of goals of the recently formulated National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (NSGRP). The Village Land Act (1999), The Local Government Act (1982) and Forest Act (2002) provide the legal basis for villages to own and manage forest resources on village land in ways that are both sustainable and profitable. The Forest Act further provides tangible incentives to rural communities to progressively “reserve” large areas of unprotected miombo and coastal woodlands currently on general land, estimated to be in excess of 20 million hectares. These incentives include the following:

43

Waiving state royalties on forest produce. This means in principle that villages are not bound

by inflexible (and low) royalty rates and can sell their produce at prevailing market rates (Forest Act: Section 78 (3)).

Exemption from local government taxes (“cess”) on forest produce from village forest management. This means that produce harvested from Village Land Forest Reserves is not liable for local government taxes during transportation. (Local Government Act, Section 10.

Exemption from the “reserved tree species list”. This is a mechanism under the Forest Act which protects commercially important or endangered tree species on unreserved land, and entrusts their management (and commercial use) to the district forest officer. Once under village management, decisions about harvesting are transferred to the village. administration. Forest Act, Section 65 (3).

Delegating forest management responsibility to an external service provider. Villages with secured rights to forest ownership and management (for example with declared or gazetted (Village Land Forest Reserves) may enter into JMA’s with any person or organization in the public or private sector providing for the management by that village council” (Forest Act Section 16, (1) (b).

The popular term for delegated management of forest resources on village land is Community Based Forest Management, and to date over 1.2 million hectares have been placed under local management in over 1500 villages. Much of the CBFM experience to date has focused on areas of woodland between 100-1000 hectares per village. Under such conditions, village institutions appear capable of effectively managing the forest area as well as revenues and expenditures. In the last two to three years, however, a number of villages are either in the process of obtaining (or have obtained) legal rights over much larger areas of high quality of miombo and coastal woodlands. Given the particular demands of managing such large and potentially valuable forest areas on both a sustainable and profitable basis, concerns have been raised about local capacity to undertake this role effectively. One potential solution may be found with creative and innovative partnerships between village institutions and responsible private sector players. This model could be applied in a number of areas where communities have full community-based forest management rights (under the Forest Act), where forest resources are extensive and have a high value, and where local stakeholders have an express interest in forging collaborative partnerships with responsible private sector players. However, before any discussion about community-private sector partnerships can begin, it is necessary that the villages concerned have full legal rights to manage the forest area. This usually takes place through the establishment of Village Land Forest Reserves. The minimum legal requirement for this to occur is as follows: 1. Villages must have legal tenure over their land. In other words it must be classified by the

Ministry of Lands and Human Settlement as “Village Land” and not “General Land”. Section 7 of the Village Land Act provides a range of ways in which villages may define the limits and status of their village area/village land. This may be based one or more of the following: - The area described when the village was first registered; - The area designated as village land under the Land Tenure (Village Settlements) Act of

1965; - The area demarcated under any procedure or programme since then, and irrespective of

whether this has been formally approved or not; - The area as agreed between the village council and neighboring village councils; - The area as agreed by the village council with the Commissioner of Lands, the District

Council, the Town Council or Forestry/Wildlife Division or any other body in charge of land which borders the village land; and,

44

- the Ministry of Lands has issued a “Certificate of Village Land” (CVL) and the village area is clearly described in the District Register of Village Land7.

2. Once they have obtained the legal rights over their land, villages must establish a “register of

village land” which clearly shows individual land (this is given through a certificate of customary tenure) and communal land (e.g. Village Land Forest Reserves (VLFR), WMA’s etc). Any VLFR must be included in the Register of Communal Village Land.

3. The villages must then develop a management plan for their village forest land. This will be

developed by a small group of villagers, perhaps the Village Natural Resource Committee (VNRC) which is a sub committee of Village Council, or an ad-hoc planning team appointed by the Village Assembly. The plan should be simple and well understood. It should be presented by the VNRC to the Village Council and finally the Village Assembly for approval

4. The village must prepare bylaws that support the management plan (fines, sanctions, etc) and

these must be approved by the full village assembly too. 5. The management plan, the bylaws, the minutes and membership details of the VNRC, must

then be forwarded to the district for ratification by the District Council. Once this has been passed, the Village Land Forest Reserve is then “declared”. This means that: - Villagers can enforce rules and bylaws to protect the forest; - Villagers can levy fines and retain them at village level; - Villagers can harvest forest produce for their own use; - Villagers can sell forest produce to outsiders and retain 100% of revenue at village

level; and, - Forest produce from the village land forest reserve is exempt from district cess (local

tax). 6. If after three years, the villagers have managed the forest reserve in accordance with the

management plan, they may request (through the district forest officer) formal “gazettment” of a village forest reserve. This is done by Director, Forestry and Beekeeping and is OPTIONAL. The Forest Act provides the requirements for gazettment applications in Section 35 (2)(a) – (i). In real terms it does not give any more or less security of tenure, but many villagers like it as it is signed by central government.

7. The Forest Act allows for villages which share the management of large contiguous forest area

to establish a “joint village forest management committee” (Section 38 (3)), comprising not more than five persons elected from each village council, which then assumes overall management responsibility for the forest area. However, this arrangement can only be done following official “gazettement”. During declaration, an ad-hoc committee can operate, but management responsibility rests at individual village levels. Clearly, these arrangements will require harmonization with Wildlife Management Area regulations and institutional structures.

The development of forest concessions in VLFRs have the following two additional issues to consider:

7 Village Councils do not need to wait for issue of a CVL in order to start managing land. Any village that has already agreed boundaries with its neighbours or has a document such as Village Title Deed which describes the boundary may be regarded as already having received CVL.

45

1. Tendering Arrangements: According to section 20 (3) of the Forest Act, if the forest area is in

excess of 200 hectares, any concession arrangement shall be submitted to the Minister for “decision and approval”. Furthermore, the concession must be published in “one or more newspapers circulating widely in the country” (Section 20 (7)). The Act goes on to describe the content of any concession application in detail including aspects such as forest area, content, use and management agreements, local community benefits, duration of concession.

2. Environmental Impact Assessment: Under Section 18 of the Forest Act, any proposed

development (including commercial logging and forest industry developments in an area exceeding 5 hectares) taking place in a forest reserve (including village land forest reserve) is subject to an EIA. The proposer of such a development (in this case the village council) shall prepare and submit an EIA to the Director of Forestry. These requirements may change and will be detailed under the EIA regulations and guidelines developed under the Environmental Management Act (EMA) of 2004.

The proposed steps in developing a collaborative partnerships on VLFR’s are as follows: 1. Development Of Village Level Forest Management Plans: This management plan will clearly

spell out the uses and zonation of the forest resources present on village land; 2. Development Of Forest Resource Assessment: Based on the results of the resource assessment

a detailed harvesting and utilization plan can be developed; 3. Development Of Local Forest Management Bylaws; 4. Development Of Forest Level Management Institution: This either merges with or

complements that being developed for wildlife management; 5. Submission Of Plans, Bylaws And VNRC Committee Information: This information is

submiteed to the District Forestry Officer and District Council for approval, leading to declaration of a VLFR;

6. Preparation Of Environmental Impact Assessment for proposed forest concession(s); 7. Preparation Of Concession Announcement, legal tender document and guidelines for bidders; 8. Approval Of Final Concession Applicant By Minister; and, 9. Implementation And Monitoring. 2.2.3.3 Bee-Keeping The recently enacted Bee-keeping Act 2002 provides the legal basis for community based bee-keeping. A bee reserve may be: A private bee reserve; A national bee reserve; A local authority bee reserve; and, A village land bee reserve.

Either a JMA for the management of a gazetted bee reserve can be made by a village council or a group or any person or organisation in the public or private sector for the whole or a part of, or some specific matter within a bee reserve or, a village council may declare an area of village land under its jurisdiction a Village Land Bee Reserve. A committee established by the village council is responsible for the management of the reserve. The local authority is responsible for the supervision of the management. 2.2.3.4 Fisheries The recently enacted Fisheries Act 2003 provides the legal basis for community involvement in fisheries. Regulations and guidelines for its implementation are still under review. The relevant sections are Part V Section 17 Fisheries Act 2003, which state that the Minister shall by notice published in the Gazette impose conditions that are necessary for the proper management of fisheries. Among others this is to:

46

Facilitate the formation of community management units and authorized association8 for the purpose of protecting and conserving fishery resources; and,

The Director may enter into a JMA with beach management units9 of the whole or part of or some specific fishery matter or activity within any water body or with any one or more local authorities having jurisdiction within the vicinity of any water body and deriving the whole or a part of their livelihood from that water body.

2.2.4 Summary Mosaic Of Legal/Institutional Set-up For NRM The entire study area is a mosaic and a mixture of different and overlapping land-utilisation, land tenure and user rights on natural resources. Beside established protected areas on reserved or village land of different categories other land and natural resource uses, which are relevant for sustainable natural resources utilisation and conservation are in the process to be established or at present in the planning process. Most villages of the study area have never carried out a land-use plan except those trying to establish WMA’s or Village Land Forest Reserves (VLFR’s). For the entire study area applies that all land with the exception of reserved land, urban areas and private land has the legal status of village land. The input report by Hahn details the present situation in each district10 and a mosaic of the issues are summarised on the map overleaf, which should be interpreted in conjunction with the table on the subsequent pages. The next section presents in summary form a report prepared by Mr. Pascal Malesa on the Village Socio-Economic and Infrastructure Issues and Recommendations within the study area.

3.0 Socio-Economic Profile This section of the report provides a summary overview of the key socio-economic aspects11 of the study area12. The main aspects that are reviewed include: Number of households, Number of people, Number of villages and the associated Settlement

hierarchy; Sources of income with particular emphasis on natural resource13 harvesting, growing of food

and cash crops and engaging in mining activities are measured by access to mineral resources, forests, fisheries and the cash crop production; and,

Access to social services14 with particular emphasis on access to secondary schools, hospitals, police stations, border posts, potable water and road access.

8 An Authorized Association means any body of persons incorporated or not incorporated and includes a beach management unit. 9 A Beach Management Unit means a group of devoted stakeholders in a fishing community whose main function is management conservation and protection of fish in their locality in collaboration with the government. 10 Administratively the study area includes the Districts Mbinga, Songea, Namtumbo and Tunduru of Ruvuma Region, Masasi District of Mtwara Region and the Districts Nachingwea and Liwale of Lindi Region 11 Detailed information sheets on these socio-economic can be found in the report prepared by Mr. Malesa. 12 For the purposes of this section is limited to those areas of the Mbinga, Songea Rural, Nantumbo and Tunduru districts in the Ruvuma region and Masasi district in the Mtwara region that lie between the Mbamba Bay-Mbinga-Songea-Nantumbo-Tunduru-Masasi-Mingoyo-Mtwara road and the Tanzanian –Mozambique border, which for most of its length is the Ruvuma (Rovuma) River. 13 Wildlife was not included as there was a separate report on Wildlife Resources which is summarised in section 5 of this report. Access to natural resources is limited to a descriptive accout of whether a village dervies a livlihood from a particular natural resource or not. Those villages with access are then noted by a tick on the detailed spreadsheet and the number of villages represented by a # are totalled up. 14 Access to secondary schools, hospitals, police stations and border posts are simply measured by the number of facilities represented by a # . Access to water is measured by the number of villages that do not have a source of potable water divided by the total number of villages. Access to roads is measured at a district level where the number of roads in fair or poor condition are divided by the total number of roads in the district.

48

Table 5: Status Of Each Parcel Of Land Identified On Map 2









Hydropower Dam 0

5




0 MNRT - WD







427.1 AA











600.2 AA




49



TUNDURU DISTRICT (Cont) 20 • Sasawara Forest Reserve

Hunting Block PFM focused on conservation





626.2 AA




1042.5 AA






WMA 380.9 AA


94.7 AA








1061.5 AA







4186.6



1628.8 AA


50

3.1 Summary Profile – All Districts

The above table summarises the situation for the whole study area covered by the socio-economic and infrastructure report. The key highlights are as follows: There are a total of 191,000 households, 780,000 people living in 362 villages in the study area, rendering a household size of 4,1 persons per household; Most villages are small in size ranging from 1,000 to 3,000 people (240 or 66% of total), although this is highly variable across districts; Most villages had access to at least 2 natural resources (245 or 68%), typically agricultural land and forestry resources, but one of the reasons for the number of small

villages was the trend towards the dispersal of settlement as people cleared forests to open up agricultural fields, although this too was highly variable across districts; Almost half of all villages had access to at least one cash crops (176 or 48%), which was typically the district specialisation, notably coffee in Mbinga, tobacco in

Songea, tobacco in Nantumbo, cashew in Tunduru and cashew in Masasi. As there are villages in Mbinga that don’t grow coffee and villages in Songea that don’t grow tobacco there are a minority of villages (30 or 8%) that have no income from one of the main cash crops. Conversely, as there are villages in Songea that grow cashew in addition to tobacco, villages in Tunduru that grow tobacco in addition to cashew and villages in Masasi that grow sesame in addition to cashew a majority of villages (245 or 68%) derive an income from 2 cash crops;

A minority of villages (22 or 6%) derived a source of income from mineral resources, which were limited to gold mining in Mbinga district and gemstone mining in Tunduru district;

Access to social facilities is low and variable, for example, 1 secondary school per 13 villages, 1 hospital per 24 villages, 1 police station per 36 villages and 1 border post per 33 villages; and,

Access to basic services, represented by access to potable water and access to markets via good roads, is highly variable between districts but in aggregate terms access to potable water is good with only 17% of villages without at least a water pump but access to markets via good roads is limited with almost 60% of all roads being classified in either “fair” or “poor” condition.

A L L D IS T R IC T S


1 9 0 ,9 6 9 7 7 9 ,6 1 1 M in e ra ls S S H o P o B P W a te r R o a d sS iz e # V i l la g e s # N R 's # V i l la g e s # C ro p s # V i l la g e s # V i l la g e s

> 1 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 3 0 2 2 2 7 1 5 1 0 1 1 1 7 % 5 9 %5 -1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 6 9 2 1 5 64 -5 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 4 5 1 1 7 63 -4 0 0 0 3 9 1 4 8 0 3 02 -3 0 0 0 9 4 0 0 3 6 21 -2 0 0 0 1 4 6 3 6 20 -1 0 0 0 6 1




N a tu ra l R e s o u rc e s C a s h C ro p s

51

3.2 Summary Profile – Mbinga District, Ruvuma Region

The above table summarises the situation in Mbinga district, Ruvuma region, south of the main Mbamba Bay-Mbinga-Songea-Nantumbo-Tunduru-Masasi-Mingoyo-Mtwara road and the Tanzanian-Mozambique border. The key highlights are as follows: There are a total of 67,400 households (35%), 207,000 people (26%) living in 77 villages (21%) in the study area, rendering a household size of 3,1, which is

substantially smaller than for the average of 4,1 for the study area as a whole, reflecting the relative abundance of land for human settlement; Most villages are small in size ranging from 1,000 to 3,000 people (54 or 70%), similar to the average (66%) for the study area; Most villages had access to at least 2 natural resources (53 or 69%), typically agricultural land and forestry resources, but one of the reasons for the number of small

villages was the trend towards the dispersal of settlement as people cleared forests to open up agricultural fields; Two-thirds of all villages had access to only 1 cash crop (52 or 67%), notably coffee, whilst the other third (25 or 33%) had no access to a cash crop and were reliant on

subsistence agricultural production; Almost one quarter of all villages (18 or 23%) derived a source of income from mining activities, notably gold and gemstone mining near the Mozambique border close

to Lupilichi but only 4 out of 18 villages who were engaged in mining activities did not grow coffee, the principal cash crop in the district, but all 18 villages typically produced maize, beans and sorghum, which are staple food crops;

Access to social facilities is low, for example, 1 secondary school per 19 villages (higher than the overall average of 13), 1 hospital per 38.5 villages (higher than the overall average of 24), 1 police station per 77 villages (higher than the overall average of 36) and 1 border post per 77 villages (higher than the overall average of 33); and,

Access to basic services was low with 45 villages or 58% of all villages without access to potable water and access to markets via good roads is poor with almost 55% (compared to 59% for the whole study area) of all roads in the district being in either “fair” or “poor” condition.

M B IN G A D IS T R IC T - R U V U M A R E G IO N


6 7 ,3 5 7 2 0 6 ,6 1 7 M in e ra ls S S H o P o B P W a te r R o a d sS iz e # V i l la g e s # N R 's # V i l la g e s # C ro p s # V i l la g e s # V i l la g e s

> 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 1 8 4 2 1 1 5 8 % 5 4 %5 -1 0 0 0 0 3 3 6 2 04 -5 0 0 0 2 2 5 3 1 5 23 -4 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 8 0 2 52 -3 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 7 71 -2 0 0 0 3 0 7 70 -1 0 0 0 8

V i l la g e s 7 7

M a in C a s h C ro p s

S O U R C E S O F IN C O M E

# V i l la g e s P o o r A c c e s sN a tu ra l R e s o u rc e s

A C C E S S T O S E R V IC E S

# S o c ia l F a c i l i t ie s

52

3.3 Summary Profile – Songea Rural District, Ruvuma Region

The above table summarises the situation in Songea Rural district, Ruvuma region, south of the main Mbamba Bay-Mbinga-Songea-Nantumbo-Tunduru-Masasi-Mingoyo-Mtwara road and the Tanzanian-Mozambique border. The key highlights are as follows: There are a total of 12,350 households (6.5%), 56,000 people (7.2%) living in 26 villages (7.2%) in the study area, rendering a household size of 4,5, which is slightly

higher than for the average of 4,1 for the study area as a whole, reflecting the relative shortage of land for human settlement in spite of the size of the district; Most villages are small in size ranging from 1,000 to 3,000 people (18 or 69%), similar to the average (66%) for the study area; Most villages had access to 3 natural resources (14 or 58%), typically agricultural land, forests and fisheries, with the latter activity making this district better off than

others in the study area but over fishing of the inland watercourses is undermining this key resource and fuels the trend towards the dispersal of settlement as people as forests are cleared to open up new agricultural land to replace fishing an a source of livelihood;

There was an even distribution of villages who had access to either tobacco or cashew (10 or 38%) as opposed to villages who has access to both tobacco and cashew (11 or 42%), which was in stark contrast to the remaining one third of villages (25 or 33%) that had no access to a cash crop and were reliant on growing food crops such as cassava, paddy, maize, sorghum and sunflower;

No villages derived an income from mining activities; Access to social facilities is variable, for example, 1 secondary school per 8 villages (lower than the overall average of 13) but there is no hospital in this areas and people

have to travel to Songea town, 1 police station per 26 villages (lower than the overall average of 36) but 1 border post per 13 villages (lower than the overall average of 33) but this is expected here as this area is close to highly trafficked routes to Mozambique; and,

Access to basic services is also variable with all villages having access to potable water but access to markets via good roads is poor with almost 50% (compared to 59% for the whole study area) of all roads in the district being in either “fair” or “poor” condition.

S O N G E A D IS T R IC T - R U V U M A R E G IO N


1 2 ,3 4 2 5 5 ,9 8 6 M in e r a ls S S H o P o B P W a te r R o a d sS iz e # V i l l a g e s # N R 's # V i l l a g e s # C r o p s # V i l l a g e s # V i l l a g e s

> 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 % 5 0 %5 - 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4 2 1 14 - 5 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 1 03 - 4 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 52 - 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 61 - 2 0 0 0 7 2 60 - 1 0 0 0 3

V i l l a g e s 2 6

S O U R C E S O F IN C O M E A C C E S S T O S E R V I C E S

N a tu r a l R e s o u r c e s M a in C a s h C r o p s# S o c ia l F a c i l i t i e s # V i l l a g e s P o o r A c c e s s

53

3.4 Summary Profile – Nantumbo District, Ruvuma Region

The above table summarises the situation in Nantumbo district, Ruvuma region, south of the main Mbamba Bay-Mbinga-Songea-Nantumbo-Tunduru-Masasi-Mingoyo-Mtwara road and the Tanzanian-Mozambique border. The key highlights are as follows: There are a total of 11,930 households (6.3%), 54,000 people (6.9%) living in 24 villages (6.6%) in the study area, rendering a household size of 4,5, which is slightly

higher than for the average of 4,1 for the study area as a whole; Most villages are small in size ranging from 1,000 to 3,000 people (18 or 71%), higher than the average (66%) for the study area; Most villages had access to 3 natural resources (15 or 63%), typically agricultural land, forests and fisheries, with the latter activity making this district better off than

others in the study area but over fishing of the inland watercourses is impacting on this key resource and is likely to accelerate the trend towards the dispersal of settlement as people clear riverine or inland forests to open up new land for subsistence agricultural production;

This problem is compounded by the fact that all villages only had access to tobacco or cashew as a source of income from cash crops; No villages derived an income from mining activities; Access to social facilities is variable, for example, 1 secondary school per 8 villages (lower than the overall average of 13) but there is no hospital in this areas and people

have to travel to Songea town, 1 police station per 24 villages (lower than the overall average of 36) and the border post was recently closed in spite of the area being near highly trafficked routes to/from Tanzania/Mozambique; and,

Access to basic services is also variable with all villages having access to potable water but access to markets via good roads is very poor with 86% (compared to 59% for the whole study area) of all roads in the district being in either “fair” or “poor” condition.

N AN T U M B O D IS T R IC T - R U V U M A R E G IO N

P O P U L AT IO NH ouseho lds P opu la tion

11 ,930 53,692 M inera ls S S H o P o B P W ater R oadsS ize #V illages #N R 's # V illages #C rops # V illages #V illages

> 10000 0 4 0 3 0 0 3 0 1 1 0% 86%5-10000 0 3 15 2 04-5000 1 2 9 1 243-4000 4 1 0 0 02-3000 11 0 0 241-2000 6 240-1000 2V illages 24


N atura l R esources M ain C ash C rops# S oc ia l F ac ilit ies #V illages P oor A ccess

54

3.5 Summary Profile – Tunduru District, Ruvuma Region

The above table summarises the situation in Tunduru district, Ruvuma region, south of the main Mbamba Bay-Mbinga-Songea-Nantumbo-Tunduru-Masasi-Mingoyo-Mtwara road and the Tanzanian-Mozambique border. The key highlights are as follows: There are a total of 49,670 households (26%), 232,000 people (30%) living in 97 villages (27%) in the study area, rendering a household size of 4,7, which is

considerably higher than for the average of 4,1 for the study area as a whole, reflecting the relative shortage of land for human settlement; Most villages are small in size ranging from 1,000 to 3,000 people (18 or 71%), which higher than the average (66%) for the study area but what also makes this district

different from the others is that over one third of all people (79,000 or 34.5) live in just 11 villages (11%) reflecting nucleation of settlement south of Tunduru town; Most villages had access to 2 natural resources (50 or 51.5%), typically agricultural land and forests but fisheries again was a key additional activity in another 17

villages (17.5%), with the latter activity making this district better off than others in the study area but over fishing of the inland watercourses is undermining this key resource and fuels the trend towards the dispersal of settlement as forests are cleared as a source of livelihood in their own right but also to open up new village and agricultural land to replace fishing an a source of livelihood;

This problem is compounded by the fact that the majority of villages (87 or 90%) only had access to cashew as a source of income from cash crops but there were an additional 10 villages (9.7%) closer to Nantumbo that also grew tobacco as a cash crop;

A small minority of villages (4 or 4.1%) derived an income from mining activities, although this may well be an underestimate as much of the Lumesule river is currently being mined by small-scale miners looking for gemstones and selling them to dealers in Tunduru town;

Access to social facilities is variable, for example, 1 secondary school per 19 villages (higher than the overall average of 13), and only one hospital in this area (much lower than the overall average of 24 villages However, it is a missionary hospital at Mbesa and serves a wide catchment area that includes people from the towns of Mantodavela and Mavago in nothern Mozambique. There is only one police station for the entire area (higher than the overall average of 36) but 1 border post per 32 villages (same as the overall average of 33) but this is expected here as this area is close to highly trafficked routes to Mozambique; and,

Access to basic services is good with all villages having access to potable water and access to markets via good roads is good with 31% (compared to 59% for the whole study area) of all roads in the district being in either “fair” or “poor” condition.

T U N D U R U D I S T R I C T - R U V U M A R E G I O N

P O P U L A T I O NH o u s e h o l d s P o p u l a t i o n

4 9 , 6 7 0 2 3 1 , 6 5 8 M i n e r a l s S S H o P o B P W a t e r R o a d sS i z e # V i l l a g e s # N R 's # V i l l a g e s # C r o p s # V i l l a g e s # V i l l a g e s

> 1 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 3 0 4 5 1 1 3 0 % 3 1 %5 - 1 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 7 2 1 04 - 5 0 0 0 5 2 5 0 1 8 73 - 4 0 0 0 7 1 3 0 0 02 - 3 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 9 71 - 2 0 0 0 3 5 9 70 - 1 0 0 0 1 9

V i l l a g e s 9 7

# S o c i a l F a c i l i t i e s # V i l l a g e s P o o r A c c e s s

S O U R C E S O F I N C O M E A C C E S S T O S E R V I C E S

N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s M a i n C a s h C r o p s

55

3.6 Summary Profile – Masasi District, Ruvuma Region

The above table summarises the situation in Masasi district, Mtwara region, south of the main Mbamba Bay-Mbinga-Songea-Nantumbo-Tunduru-Masasi-Mingoyo-Mtwara road and the Tanzanian-Mozambique border. The key highlights are as follows: There are a total of 59,000 households (31%), 248,000 people (32%) living in 138 villages (38%) in the study area, rendering a household size of 4,2, which is almost the

same for the average of 4,1 for the study area as a whole, which is not surprising since almost one-third of the total population in the study area live in this district; Most villages are small in size ranging from 1,000 to 3,000 people (91 or 66%), the same as the average (66%) for the study area but in spite of this there are only 4 large

villages accommodating 27,000 people (11%) in sharp contrast to neighbouring Tunduru where there were three times as many people living in large villages; Most villages had access to 2 natural resources (121 or 87%), typically agricultural land and forests but fisheries again was a key additional activity in another 17 villages

(12.3%), with the latter activity making this district better off than others in the study area but over fishing of the inland watercourses is undermining this key resource and accelerates the trend towards the dispersal of settlement as forests are cleared as a source of livelihood in their own right but also to open up new village and agricultural land to replace fishing an a source of livelihood;

This problem is compounded by the fact that the majority of villages (135 or 98%) had access to both cashew and sesame as a source of income from cash crops, both of which have been crops in high demand from buyers who come from the port town of Tara, which is connected to Masasi by a good tarmac road;

No villages derive and income from mining activities; Access to social facilities is good, for example, 1 secondary school per 11.5 villages (lower than the overall average of 13), 1 hospital per 11.5 villages (much lower than

the overall average of 24 villages), 1 police station per 23 villages (lower than the overall average of 36) but 1 border post per 34.5 villages (similar to the overall average of 33) but this is expected here as this area is close to highly trafficked routes to Mozambique; and,

Access to basic services is variable with only 29% of villages not having access to potable water but access to markets via good roads is poor with some 86% (compared to 59% for the whole study area) of all roads in the district being in either “fair” or “poor” condition.

M A S A S I D IS T R IC T - M T W A R A R E G IO N


5 8 ,9 5 4 2 4 7 ,5 5 8 M in e ra ls S S H o P o B P W a te r R o a d sS iz e # V i l la g e s # N R 's # V i l la g e s # C ro p s # V i l la g e s # V i l la g e s

> 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 0 1 2 1 2 6 4 2 9 % 6 8 %5 -1 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 7 2 1 3 54 -5 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 1 33 -4 0 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 02 -3 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 1 3 81 -2 0 0 0 6 8 1 3 80 -1 0 0 0 2 9


A C C E S S T O S E R V IC E S


S O U R C E S O F IN C O M E

N a tu ra l R e s o u rc e s M a in C a s h C ro p s

56

A discussion of some of the major planned infrastructure investments follows the socio-economic profiling at the district level.

3.7 Major Planned Infrastructure Investments Within the study area three major planned infrastructure investments have been prioritised under the Mtwara Development Corridor process. These are (a) the Dar-es-salaam-Kilwa-Kibiti-Ndundu-Somanga-Nangurukuru-Lindi-Mingoyo-Mtwara road; (b) the Mtwara-Masasi-Tunduru-Songea-Mbamba Bay Road, (c) the Unity Bridge 1 across the Ruvuma River at Ntambaswala, Masasi district, Mtwara region in Tanzania and Negomano, Meuda district, Cabo Delgado province in Mozambique and (d) the Unity Bridge 2 across the Ruvuma River at Kivikoni, Songea Rural district, Ruvuma region in Tanzania and Lupilichi, Luplichi district, Niassa province, in Mozambique. Each of these are discussed briefly below: 3.7.1 Dar-Es-Salaam-Kilwa-Kibiti-Ndundu-Somanga-Nangurukuru-Lindi-Mingoyo-Mtwara

Road The road from Dar es Salaam to Mtwara is being reconstructed and upgraded at present, and a new bridge (the Mkapa Bridge) has been built over the Rufiji River. The road will be completed from Dar es Salaam to Somanga by 2007, and the entire road should be completed in about 2009. The Kilwa-Lindi section is still unfunded but funding should be obtained without difficulty. The Dar es Salaam-Mtwara road is described by section in the box below. Description of Dar es Salaam-Mtwara Road Section Description Dar es Salaam-Kilwa The new bridge over the Rufiji (the Mkapa Bridge) has transformed this

route, but it is still largely of poor standard over much of its length of 298 km. Trip time is about six hours. A long stretch in the middle of the route is rough road after good tarmac near Dar es Salaam. There are many tedious sections of bumpy road over rough drifts parallel to new construction. The last part north of Kilwa is new tarmac road, and more will be coming into use soon. The entire new road is scheduled for completion in December 2006, except for a 25km section south of the Mkapa Bridge near Somanga.

Dar es Salaam-Kibiti 135 km of which last 80 km not yet rehabilitated. Kuwait/Opec Funds – only Kuwait Fund active, problem of flow of funds. Unlikely to finish 2004/05 financial year (July-June).

Kibiti-Ndundu (Rufiji River)

43km. Completed, including bridge over Rufiji.

Ndundu-Somanga 70km. Opec Fund. Design for rehabilitation to be done. Somanga-Nangurukuru 54km. Under construction by Ministry of Works. Completion end 2006. Kilwa-Lindi This remains a poor road for the most part, and it is wise not to try to drive

from Dar es Salaam to Lindi in a single day. Advise a stop at Kilwa, which has a number of different places to stay at varying prices. New road is being built but there are constant drifts and soft sand for quite long stretches, especially for the first part of the route. Total distance 179 km likely to take the best part of five hours.

Nangurukuru-Mingoyo 179km. Under construction for completion end 2006. Government funding.

Lindi-Mtwara Quite a good road, mainly tarmac. Last bit into Lindi is under construction; hence expect a constant succession of drifts. Distance 99 km of which the last 18 km are rough road. Duration 1.5 hours.

Mingoyo-Mtwara 81km. Already bituminised but road narrow. Source: Tanzanian Roads Authority

57

The Dar es Salaam-Mtwara road project design does not continue further south than Mingoyo. Between Mingoyo and Mtwara there may merely be some improvements to the existing road. However, this road needs to avoid Mikindani village, as this is one road in the Mtwara area with considerable tourist potential. In order to preserve the historical attractions of the village, this road needs to be rerouted behind the hills, and Mikindani needs to be demarcated as a high-potential tourist location. 3.7.2 Mtwara-Masasi-Tunduru-Songea-Mbamba Bay Road The Government, with the support of donors has been implementing the Integrated Roads Project (IRP) since 1990. Rehabilitation and upgrading of the trunk and regional roads including the essential district and feeder roads, is among the objectives of IRP. Whilst significant progress has been made under the 1RP priorities have only recently shifted to regions that fall within the ambit of the MtDC. Indeed, a lack of funds for the rehabilitation and upgrading of the Southern Corridor is the major constraint in connecting the other MtDC partner states to the Mtwara Port. The Government has, in the effort to speed up the development of the Tanzanian component of the MtDC, granted an Exclusive Mandate to the NDC to develop, co-ordinate and implement key “anchor” projects that will accelerate the development of the MtDC. Within the study area for this particular study the key road infrastructure that has been identified for rehabilitation and upgrading includes the Mtwara-Masasi-Tunduru-Songea-Mbamba Bay Road. The total cost of improvements in USD for all sections of this road is estimated at between USD 64-105 million. The table below breakdown the respective costs for each of the key sections of this road15.

Table 6: Costs Of Mtwara-Masasi-Tunduru-Songea-Mbamba Bay Road.

Section

From

To

Total Length Kilometres

Total Improvements Costs USD

Alternative 116

Alternative 217

1 Mtwara Masasi 200 11,327,593 18,358,138 2 Masasi Tunduru 190 14,535,000 25,555,000 3 Turduru Songea 257 20,077,728 35,186,877 4 Songea Mbamba Bay 169 17,798,314 25,954,319 TOTAL

817

63,738,635

105,054,335

15 (see TAEP-DIWI JV in Association with Co-Architecture-Final Feasbility Report Mtwara-Mbamba Bay Road, Executive Summary, March 2004 for details. 16 Alternative 1 refers to the following:

For bridges and box culverts the “recommended upgrading option”, estimated at USD 3,602,523, which is included in the overall estimate; and,

For the various road sections, improvement of unpaved sections to gravel roads and the upgrading of paved sections by improving the pavement condition of exsiting roads (overlay).

17 Alternative 2 refers to the following:

For bridges and box culverts the “preferred upgrading option”, estimated at USD 6,407,230, which is included in the overall estimate; and,

For the various road sections, improvement of unpaved sections to paved roads and the upgrading of paved sections by improving the pavement condition of exsiting roads (overlay plus local reconstruction and widening).

58

With the exception of the Tunduru-Nantumbo road link, the Songea bypass and the Mbinga-Mbamba Bay road link, most of the proposed improvement options are economically viable. For the paved roads, the overlay solution (alternative 1) is more feasible than the overlay plus local reconstruction and widening (alternative 2) solution. The unpaved 447-kilometre portion of the southern corridor between Masasi-Tunduru-Nantumbo-Songea needs to be considered carefully. The paving of the Masasi-Tunduru and Natumbo-Songea links are indicated to be feasible but the Tunduru-Nantumbo link is marginal. Taken overall, the paving of the Masasi-Songea road section would be feasible given some small scale cross-subsidisation of the Tunduru-Nantumbo link. If the feasibility threshold for this portion of the southern corridor were taken to be 8% rather than 12%18, then the paving of the whole stretch from Masasi to Songea would be economically viable. The analysis also confirms that the construction of a bypass road around Songea would be highly premature. 3.7.3 The Unity Bridge 1 Status Of Project: An Agreement has been signed by the Heads of State between the Governments of Mozambique and Tanzania, and a technical committee has been appointed to commission feasibility studies into the design and siting of the bridge. Description Of Project: Construction of an international standard road transport bridge linking the Mtwara and eastern portions of the vast Ruvuma region in Tanzania to the province of Cabo Delgado in Mozambique, and also facilitating the creation of the continents principal North-South road transport route. The present political accord signed between the two countries envisages a siting approx. 200 km inland from the mouth of the Ruvuma River and access to the bridge from the Tanzanian side will be obtained via a road from Algoma, which is situated 38 km west of Masasi on the proposed Mtwara-Mbamba Bay trunk road, to Ntambaswala, the crossing point from Tanzania. Access from the Mozambican side will be obtained from the EN1 at Diaca, which is 50km west of Mocimboa da Praia, via an upgraded road that runs 140km west of Meuda, through Nazombe to Negomane, the crossing point from Mozambique. Alternative sitings which would be more attractive from a commercial and environmental view point would place the bridge at Ngapa in Mozambique linking Mueda via an 80km upgraded road to the bridge and on to Newala in Tanzania. However, around Nangade no road access to the river currently exists from the Tanzanian side and a 20km road would have to be constructed. Access from the Mozambican side would require the construction of around 8 km of access road to the river from Nangade, and the upgrade of 90 km of road from Nangade to the point at which it joins the Mueda-Mocimboa da Praia EN1 trunk road, 20km west of Diaca. Target Market: Facilitation of regional tourism between Northern Mozambique and Southern Tanzania. Facilitation of regional commerce, especially link Northern Mozambique to lower cost suppliers of manufactured goods via Dar Es Salaam and Zanzibar, which are principally sourced from the international commercial hub of Dubai. The bridge might also serve as a strong “anchor” project for the MtDC, if it were to link with a recent coal discovery on the Lugenda River. If commercially and environmental feasible, coal would most likely be mined here and transported by road over the bridge to meet up with the proposed Mchuchuma – Mtwara railway at the free port proposed at Masasi. Envisaged Capital Investment: Capital investment is approx. USD 80 million. 3.7.4 The Unity Bridge 2 Location Of Project: Bridge across the Ruvuma River, linking Kivikoni, Songea Rural district, Ruvuma region in Tanzania to Lupilichi, Lupilichi district, Niassa Province, Mozambique

18 The discount rate used in public sector investment appraisal is supposed to relfect the opportunity cost of capital in the country but in most developing countries this is not known. The 12-15% discount rates used in transport studies in the developing world is more an estimate of the minimum economic rate of return that IFI’s are prepared to accept for lending on public sector projects. However, donors may consider lower threshold rates, say 8%, and have done so in the past but this is usually the outcome of a bilateral negotiation between the donor and recipient country governments.

59

Status Of Project: This project is very much at early concept stage, although there is apparent significant political interest in promoting the project in Tanzania. Description Of Project: Unity Bridge 2 is sited 180 km south of the town of Songea in the Ruvuma region of Tanzania and approx 200 km north of the provincial capital of Lichinga in the Niassa province in Mozambique. Access to the bridge from the Tanzanian side will be obtained by upgrading approx. 180 km of existing road from Songea via Kivikoni to Limpambara (near Mitimoni). Access to the bridge from the Mozambican side is envisaged by upgrading approx. 150 km of existing road from Unango via Macaloge to Lupilichi. Target Market: It would facilitate regional tourism between Northern Mozambique and Southern Tanzania, especially the Lake to Coast route in Mozambique linking the Lake to Coast route in Tanzania and across to northern Malawi or southern and western Tanzania. It could also facilitate regional commerce. It would especially link Ruvuma region in Tanzania to Niassa and Tete Provinces in Mozambique to lower cost suppliers of manufactured goods via Dar es Salaam and Zanzibar to the international commercial hub of Dubai. Depending on the sting of the bridge it could also help to facilitate Mozambique’s access to its gold reserves at Lupilichi. This would require a bridge over the much smaller Messinge River, and a second bridge in Tanzania. Envisaged Capital Investment: Capital investment is approx, as follows (a) Low cost asphalt roads @ USD 20 million; (b) Bridges @ USD 10 million; and, (c) Total USD 30 million. A lower cost bailey bridge with customs posts could be short term alternative, which would allow the demonstration of traffic volumes which good access could provide. The likely costs for such access from Mozambique, would likely be as follows: (a) Bailey Bridge @ USD 300,000; (c) Customs Posts and Housing @ USD250, 000; (d) Gravel Road @ USD 50,000 and (e) Total USD 600,000.

3.8 Implications For Use/Management Of Natural Resources This section summarises the implications for the use and management of natural resources within the study area arising from the overview of the socio-economic characteristics and current status on the provision of infrastructure provision in the study area. Population growth is still a major driver in the study area and manifests itself principally in the dispersal of settlement into small villages each seeking access to agricultural land and forestry resources to grow the main cash crop in the district or to grow a staple food crop and to have access to fuel wood. For example, only 8% of villages did not grow a cash crop and 13% only has access to land. However, there appears to be a trend for dispersal to occur along trunk and district roads so it is likely that as roads are improved they will continue to attract more people creating ribbons of development along their route. With the majority of villages dependent on a single cash crop there is a rising dependence on natural resources, particularly land for agricultural production, forests for fuel wood, fisheries and wildlife for protein it will be necessary to initiate, where possible, community based natural resource management (CBNRM) practices in main villages and extend to as many sub-villages as possible, to limit the size of the ecological footprint on natural resources proximate to villages. In addition, this tendency for settlement to disperse will make it increasingly difficult to provide social facilities and basic services to the rural poor, which could deepen problems around sustainable delivery of social facilities and basic services. This could be addressed by encouraging people to settle in small concentrations along major roads, like beads along a string, as this will allow for small enough spatial units to organise CBNRM initiatives that are directly related to natural resources harvesting within a defined ecological footprint, but will also allow for critical mass of scale economies for the sustainable delivery of social facilities, basic services and marketing platform(s) for

60

cash crops and will also ensure a certain permeability within the rural landscape to allow for the movement of wildlife along designated migration paths. Efforts focussed on removing barriers to agricultural production, marketing and trade and to diversity local economies by building up new economic activities will need to continue to be encouraged. In this regard the need to integrate cross-border movements at points and lines of high accessibility across the Ruvuma River, away from environmentally sensitive areas and close to centres of commercial activities, should be mainstreamed into the development of a region-wide infrastructure network. The following section begins to pick up some of these themes by presenting in summary form a report prepared by Dr. Donald Mpanduji of GTZ (CWM) on the Biodiversity Issues and Recommendations within the study area.

4.0 Biodiversity Issues And Recommendations

4.1 Introduction The present study on biodiversity was aimed to provide base line information to the broader environment base line data of the study area. Other studies undertaken under this broad context covered the institutional setups and wildlife status. The GTZ-CWM commissioned this component of the study. The study objectives included the following:

1. To examine all known research and gather sufficient information about the natural environment like geology, broad soil patterns, hydrology, rainfall, climate and vegetation;

2. To identify catchment areas, wetlands and other hot spots of biodiversity that will need to be addressed if the area is to be promoted as a tourist destination;

3. To determine the conservation and resource utilisation value and its sensitivity to disturbance; and,

4. To identify areas whose value important for the conservation of the biodiversity or soil/water conservation is already disturbed.

A number of villages and field visits were carried out in the four districts of Mbinga, Songea, Namtumbo, Tunduru in Ruvuma Region and two districts Masasi and Nachingwea in Mtwara and Lindi Regions. The fieldwork and data collection activities commenced on the 29th of October to the 6th of November 2004. The following section of this report reviews the salient findings on a range of biodiversity issues within the study area.

4.2 Biodiversity Issues The river Ruvuma, its tributaries and the associated catchments should be viewed as an important hot spot area for Biodiversity Conservation because of the presence of the diverse species of fish, many of which are not yet characterized. The associated ox-bow lakes in many tributaries especially Lukimwa/Ruvuma deltas), are rich in diverse fish species, Crocodile and Hippo’s habitats as well as breeding and nesting area for the number of bird species (Non–migratory and intercontinental migrations). It is therefore essential to view the river Ruvuma and its many islands as an area with untapped biodiversity potential and important bird area in Tanzania.

Riverine forests along many major rivers draining into the river Ruvuma, the small tributaries and catchments were identified as essential year round habitats for elephant and other mammalian species. The Riparian forests and the entire miombo forests are important for the general river ecosystem as they protect the riverbanks from erosion, prevent flash floods are thus important for the water balance and environmentally act as a carbon sink. The Nakatuta, Nsunda and Malilima waterfalls found along the upper banks and middle section of the river Ruvuma and river Ligoma tributary in Tunduru district, may contain unique micro-ecosystems, which are yet to be characterized.

61

In terms of natural resource utilization, both legal and illegal natural resource utilization were realised. The legal utilization of natural resources included consumptive wildlife utilization in terms of trophy hunting, village quota hunting and residential hunting programmes. Crocodile cropping is carried out mainly along the Ruvuma River while trophy hunting is carried out mainly in protected areas namely the Mwambesi FR/GCA, Muhuwesi FR/GCA Lukwika Lumesule/Msanjesi GR and in areas designated as WMA,s; the Mbarang’andu and Nalika CBO’s in Namtumbo and Tunduru Districts respectively. Plans are also under way to start tourist-hunting activities in the newly established hunting blocks of Magwamira Open Area and Sasawara FR in Songea and Tunduru Districts respectively. Mining is another form of resource utilization, which is extensively carried out along the rivers Muhuwesi, Lumeme and Lunyere in Tunduru and Mbinga Districts. Subsistence fishing along the major rivers and tributaries and to some extent honey collection from the forest are other forms of natural resource use, which form the basis of the livelihood of many people residing along the Ruvuma River basin.

Currently, more than 140 mining claims have been issued in Tunduru district. But still some few isolated cases of illegal mining activities are reported to occur in some areas along the Muhuwesi River and its tributaries, and along the Ruvuma River especially on areas near Lukwika-Lumesule GR. Illegal fishing is very extensively practised along the Ruvuma River and its associated tributaries, lakes and swamps. Poaching is widely spread in all open areas where there exists not any form of wildlife protection. The greater reliance on bush meat as source of protein to these people is aggravated by the lack of livestock in southern Tanzania. However, the extent and intensity of these illegal activities is not fully elucidated because of insufficient data.

Because of unsustainable methods of exploring and utilization of the natural resources, the following threats to biodiversity and wildlife conservation were noted: • Destruction of catchment forests, mainly by expanded human development activities such as

settlement, agriculture, and logging; • Destructive fishing activities (Net/fish traps/fence and fish poisoning); • Destruction of riparian forests and increased human activities around ox-bow lakes, which are an

essential habitat for migratory birds; • River encroachment by miners, and the suspected water and environmental pollution by mercury

during gold amalgamation process. The health of the people and animals consuming mercury contaminated fish and other products may be in great danger. Accumulation of mercury in human and animal body is known to cause neurological disorders and in extreme cases death occurs;

• Mining along the river banks and river beds may accelerate the soil erosion process, the fine soil particles may in turn decrease the aeration and increase the siltation of the river, which threatens the aquatic species life downstream;

• Extensive poaching for bush meat and ivory especially on areas south of the Songea-Tunduru main road, is an important cross border issue, which needs to be addressed; and,

• Blockade of elephant migration routes through expanded agriculture and human settlement in areas south of the SNWC and in areas between Mkowela (Tunduru) and Nandembo villages (Masasi). These areas are critical potential bottlenecks.

It was also realized that, the Lisinje River (which is in Mozambique side), the Lumeme and Lunyere River flowing through the Liparamba GR and discharges water into the Ruvuma River might be affected/polluted by mercury from gold mining activities. The Muhuwesi River whose catchments extend from the central section of the SNWC to Muhuwesi FR/GCA might also be affected by gemstone mining down stream. It was therefore speculated that, the mining activities carried out on its banks and floor may result in severe soil erosion, which may in turn affect the life of aquatic and terrestrial organism and the entire river ecology down stream.

The ox-bow lakes south of the village Nambendo (Ruvuma/Lukimwa Luhwile) also appear to be affected by human presence and fishing activities, which interferes the breeding or nesting of the migratory and non-migratory birds, fish, turtles, and other aquatic flora and fauna.

The following section provides a summary of the key recommendations to emerge from a consideration of the biodiversity issues.

62

4.3 Biodiversity Recommendations The present study earmarked a number of catchments and hotspot areas considered important for biodiversity conservation. However, most of these places are not under any form of official protection and suffer from unsustainable human exploration and encroachments. The following steps are therefore suggested in order to safeguard the biologically important areas in the study area:

• The specific areas in the study area, which are essential for migratory birds as resting or breeding areas, should be identified and accorded a high protection status as per Bonn Convention on conservation of migratory species of wild animals. The convention of Bonn about migratory species was also ratified in Tanzania. This convention aims to provide strict protection for migratory species of wild animals. Currently, the SNWC project aims to protect the habitat and elephant migration routes between Tanzania and Mozambique by establishment of the wildlife management areas.

• To create awareness on the need to involve people living in close proximity to these biologically important areas, to participate fully in the process of planning, management, conservation, and utilization of the available resources in a sustainable manner by encouraging the establishment of the WMA’s.

• To encourage the multidisciplinary and multi-sectoral cooperation among the stakeholders such as agriculture, forestry, game, fishery and mineral sector in order to avoid conflicts and disputes. Thus, participatory land use planing should be encouraged and strengthened starting at the village to the national level.

• The law enforcement activities should be strengthened to protect the existing forest reserves; most of them serve as catchments and habitats for a number of wild animal species. Most of these forests are severely affected by human encroachments.

• To encourage EIA’s, especially on gold and gemstone mining areas, and on Nakatuta waterfalls where the investor proposes dam construction for irrigation agriculture and possibly hydroelectric power production.

• The crocodile hunting be restricted in river stretches where there are two protected areas on both sides and human life is not threatened (CITES listed species).

• To encourage alternative source of protein by developing micro agriculture like cane rat husbandry. This will decrease the poaching pressure, as there is currently insignificant number of livestock in most of the survey areas. Cane rat meat is a delicacy consumed by most of the people not only along the Ruvuma but also in many places of Tanzania. Cane rats are easy to catch and adopt very quickly in captive condition as reported by a number of studies from West Africa.

The following section of this report builds on this section by presenting in summary form a report prepared by Mr. C.C. Mahundi of GTZ (CWM) on the Wildlife Issues and Recommendations within the study area.

5.0 Wildlife Issues And Recommendations

5.1 Introduction The wildlife conservation in Tanzania dates back to1891 when laws controlling hunting were first enacted under German rule. These laws regulated the off-take, the hunting methods and the trade in wildlife, with some endangered species being fully protected. The first Game Reserve was established in 1905 by the Germans in the area, which now forms, the Selous GR. Game Reserves were chosen mainly because of concentrations of big game rather than their biological biodiversity. In 1921 the British Government established the Game Department followed by gazettement of the first Game Reserve, the Selous GR in 1922. The roles of the Game Department were to administer the Game Reserves, enforce the hunting regulations and protect people and crops from raiding animals.

63

Later on, the then Ngorongoro Crater closed and Serengeti GR were established in 1928 and 1929 respectively. Tanganyika was always famous for its variety of big game, wildlife numbers and diversity of landscapes and in those early days, attracted a steady stream of wealthy hunters. The tourist hunting industry dated back to 1946 when GCA’s were established and divided into hunting blocks, where professional hunters and their clients could hunt trophy animals. The present framework of Wildlife Protected Areas (PA’s) in Tanzania comprising of National Parks, Game Reserves and Game Controlled areas started after the Second World War. In 1951 the Serengeti National Park, which incorporated the Ngorongoro Crater, was gazetted followed by several National Parks (NP’s) and Game Reserves (GR’s). In 1961 there were three (3) National Parks and nine (9) Game Reserves and the Ngorongoro Conservation Area. After independence the extension of the Game Reserves and National Parks and many new parks and reserves were gazetted. At independence, Tanzania showed its commitment to wildlife conservation when the then president of Tanganyika released a statement, the famous “Arusha Manifesto” as quoted here under:

“The survival of wildlife is a matter of grave concern to all of us in Africa. These wild creatures amid the wild places they inhabit are not only important as a source of wonder and inspiration but are an integral part of our natural resources and of our future livelihood and well being. In accepting the trusteeship of our wildlife we solemnly declare that we will do everything in our power to make sure that our children’s grandchildren will be able to enjoy this rich and precious inheritance. The conservation of wildlife and wild places calls for specialist knowledge, trained manpower and money and we look to other nations to cooperate with us in this important task the success or failure of which not affects the continent of Africa but the rest of the world as well”.

Mwalimu J. K Nyerere 1961

The “Arusha manifesto” has been used as a guideline for wildlife conservation in Tanzania to date.

5.2 The Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor The Government of Tanzania and Mozambique have had preliminary discussions to integrate the Selous and Niassa GR’s via the SNWC project. Its objective is to secure the future of a wildlife corridor, that lies between Tunduru and Songea so that it can continue to function as a natural genetic bridge between the populations of animals in the two protected areas, Selous GR in the north and Niassa GR in the South. The project was planned by the Tanzanian Government as a development cooperation project financed by a grant of USD 1,060,000 from GEF in cooperation between SCP/GTZ, the Wildlife Department and the Districts of Songea and Tunduru. The SNWC seeks to protect the Southern part of the wildlife corridor through a network of village WMA’s, a move initiated by the villagers of the area concerned. The proposed eastern corridor as defined in this study could include the Lukwika-Lumesule and Msanjesi GR’s, the Mwambesi, Muhuwesi, Mbangara and Ndechela FR’s and communal land in the form of village WMA’s as the connecting links between the formally protected areas. The Ruvuma River is both the international boundary and the northern boundary of the Niassa complex. The stretch of river that forms the border with the Niassa GR runs for almost 500 kilometres and therefore represents the longest and possibly the most important cross border interface along the MtDC. The environmental qualities of this river basin are considerable, but the catchment management framework has not yet been put in place and therefore is subject to a number of pressures as for western and eastern SNWC. These pressures includes unplanned settlement, poor delivery of basic infrastructure and services, land degradation, deforestation, over fishing, deterioration in water qualities, poaching of wildlife, soil erosion, climate change, poor environmental awareness and unregulated economic activities.

64

The objectives of this consultancy was to profile the nature and extent of wildlife resources along the NGR-Ruvuma River Interface, in the context of the MtDC, through examining existing research on wildlife environment, reviewing existing or proposed WMA’s, GR’s, GCA's and FR’s. Profile legal/illegal utilization of wildlife resources; determine wildlife conservation resource utilization as well as sensitivity to disturbance and finally to contribute to mapping of key natural resources. The work mainly based on baseline information on wildlife resources from each of the six districts found within the study area. This was supplemented with literature from management of the protected areas in place. The consultant summarizes the baseline information on wildlife resources from the six districts (Mbinga, Songea, Namtumbo, Tunduru, Masasi and Nachingwea) and highlighted the current status of wildlife, current/proposed protected areas and their management status, wildlife resource utilization, possible migration routes and examined human-wildlife conflicts situation south of the trunk road, NGR-Ruvuma River Interface. This report is meant to be baseline information to all those interested in investing and undertaking wildlife and related research south of the trunk road.

5.3 Wildlife Issues In pre-colonial times, conservation was achieved through culture and traditions and without any written decrees or formal institutional framework. German and British colonialists successively began the process of reserving the protected areas and of promulgating legislations that instituted central control over wildlife resources. The process of reserving protected areas continued after independence and these efforts were helped considerably by other national policies such as villagisation that drew people into more centralized settlement. Tanzania now has one of the most extensive protected area networks in Africa and some unrivalled wildlife resources.

5.3.1 Wildlife Status The study area is among the potential areas in Tanzania as far as wildlife resources are concerned. However, the area is unknown and very little research has been done to reveal the situation. And thus the following were observed during the study in respect of the wildlife status. Six core-protected areas exist. These are the Liparamba GR, which is located in Mbinga district. Others include; Sasawara FR, Mwambesi FR/GCA and Lukwika-Lumesule/Msanjesi GR, Ndechela FR in Tunduru and Masasi districts respectively. With the exception of the Liparamba GR, these areas are rich in wildlife species. The key wildlife species found in these areas include: Elephant, Sable Antelope, Eland, Waterbuck, Buffalo, Crocodile, Guinea fowl, Horn bill, with various species of fish (Clarius, Tilapia, Eel, Prawn) and Insects. However, no detailed species inventory is available, except for the Lukwika-Lumesule and Msanjesi GR’s. Mbarangandu and Nalika which are in Namtumbo and Tunduru districts respectively are the WMA’s found in the study area, while the open areas are restricted to Lipembe proposed community forest reserve, Litumbandyosi open area (OA), Magwamila open area, south and eastern side of Mtelamwahi WMA’s (Namtumbo district), the area between Mwambesi FR/GCA on the eastern side/across Muhuwesi river to the western side of Lukwika-Lumesule G.R down to Ruvuma river (Tunduru- Masasi), the area east of Imani village adjacent to the western side of Mwambesi FR/GCA (Tunduru), Kipindimbi proposed game reserve and Kilimarondo proposed community forest reserve (Nachingwea).These areas out of the core PA’s are also rich in wildlife species contiguous to species found in the first category of the protected areas mentioned above, and those from the Selous GR.

65

Table 7: Current/Proposed Protected Areas And Their Management In The Study Area

Nos Name Status Size Management

1. MBINGA DISTRICT • Liparamba • Lipembe • Litumbandyosi

• Game Reserve • Proposed Comm. FR • Proposed GR

571Km² NA NA

Central Government Mbinga District Council Mbinga District Council

2. SONGEA DISTRICT • Magwamila (West) • East & West Matogoro

• Open are/ H/Block • Forest Reserve (FR)

2,270Km² 19Km²

Songea District Council Central Government

3. NAMTUMBO DISTRICT • Mbarangandu • Selous • North East Undendeule

• WMA • G.R • F.R

1,500Km² 50,000Km² 3055Km²

CBO of 7 villages Central Government Central Government

5. TUNDURU DISTRICT • Mwambesi • Nalika • Muhuwesi • Sasawala • Nandembo

• FR/GCA • WMA • FR • FR & H/Block • Proposed FR

1040Km² 1500Km² 1700Km² 400Km² 100Km²

Central Government CBO of 10 villages Central Government Central Government Central Government/Tunduru District Council

6. Ndechela Open Area

Extension of the Lukwika – Lumesule G.R H/Block

NA Masasi District Council/Central Government

7. MASASI DISTRICT • Lukwika - Lumesule • Msanjesi • Ndechela • Ndachela/Ruvuma Area

• G.R • G.R • FR • Extention of the Lukwika – Lumesule G.R H/Block

444.2Km² 220.25Km² 62Km² NA

Central Government Central Government Central Government Masasi District Council

8. NACHINGWEA DISTRICT • Lionja • Kilimarondo • Kipindimbi

• FR • Proposed comm. FR • Proposed G.R/

NA NA NA

Central Government Nachingwea District Council Nachingwea District Council/Central Government

9. Mbondo Proposed Bee Reserve NA CBO 10. LIWALE DISTRICT

• Angae • Magingo

FR/

1400Km²

Liwale District Council

Source: DGO, Mbinga/Ag, PM Liparamba G.R; DNRO/DGO-CWMO, Songea/Namtumbo; DGO/CWMO, Tunduru; Mpanduji, PM Lukwika Lumesule/Msanjesi G.R & DNRO Nachingwea District, 2004.

5.3.2 Wildlife Resource Utilization Two types of wildlife utilizations are practised in the study area. This includes legal and illegal utilization. Legal utilization which concur with the current principal legislation in Tanzania (Wildlife Conservation Act, 1974) includes consumptive use, such as hunting by tourists along the Ruvuma River, (crocodile hunting), hunting of different animal species inside the Mwambesi GCA, Lukwika- Lumesule/Msanjesi GR and village quota hunting in Mbarang’andu and Nalika WMA’s. Meanwhile substantial resident hunting was reported in open areas of Tunduru district, small-scale fishing concentrated along the major rivers and tributaries and subsistence honey collection are mostly done in

66

the forest. Illegal utilization of wildlife resources is also widely practised especially in areas outside protected areas. However, the intensity and extent of these activities are not well elucidated because of insufficient number of wildlife staff to carry out the surveillance e.g. Anti-poaching Unit and District game scouts.

Table 8: Number Of Poachers Apprehended 2000 – 2004 With Their Respective Areas

Year

# Of Poachers Apprehended

Areas Where Poachers Arrested

2000 10 • Liparamba (2) – Mbinga district • Mwambesi (8) – Tunduru district

2001 5 • Amani (1) & Mwambesi (4) – Tunduru district 2002 12 • Magwamila – (2) – Songea District

• Mwambesi (1) & Nasomba (1) – Tunduru district • Msanjesi (5) & Lukwika – Lumesule (3) – Masasi district

2003 53 • Ligunga (1) & Lusewa (9) – Namtumbo district • Njenga (1) – Tunduru district • Lukwika – Lumesule (42) – Masasi district

2004 - - Source: APU, Southern Zone – Songea, 2004.

Graphically, the poaching trend is an undulated for the year 2000 – 2002. However, trend raised and dropped dramatically for the year 2003 and 2004 respectively, simply because of the availability of anti-poaching equipment and facilities supplied to the anti-poaching Units within that period by the Director of Wildlife as the continuity process of combating poaching within his Directorate. The frequency of poaching is mostly found in Tunduru district according to the results of the above table but most of the poachers arrested in Lukwika-Lumesule GR were those dealing with mining activities. Nevertheless, cross border poaching cases on large wild animals were reported by warumba (traditional hunters) to exist along the Ruvuma River. However, no official transboundary anti-poaching activities have been established between Tanzania and Mozambique. 5.3.3 Beekeeping Activities Most of the areas in the study area are potential for beekeeping activities. However, the communities are not sensitised on the potential of beekeeping as a source of income. Only few people reported to have involved in honey collection from the forests (traditional honey collection). Areas earmarked for the beekeeping activities include; Liparamba GR and Lipembe proposed community forest reserve (Mbinga), the area with plenty of

water in the miombo forest reported to have stinging and sting-less bees; Namwinyu and Misechela (Tunduru), whereby twelve (12) beekeeping groups have been

established, using traditional beehives; and, Kilimarondo division encompassing four villages of Mbondo, Kiegei, Nanjihi and Nahimba in

Nachingwea district practise beekeeping. Four beekeeping groups have been formed and had established a Bee Reserve of about 140 Km².

5.3.4 Critical Areas For Wildlife Conservation These are protected areas identified as core areas for wildlife conservation as most of the wildlife species are concentrated in these areas. Areas adjacent to the core protected areas that should be managed as buffer zone/WMA’s where sustainable utilization by the adjacent community can be allowed. Ultimately, this will increase confidence and willingness to conserve the wildlife resources in the core areas by the respective communities.

67

Identified core areas for wildlife conservation in the study area include; Liparamba GR, Sasawala FR, Mwambesi FR/GCA, Lukwika-Lumesule/Msanjesi GR, Ndechela FR and proposed Kipindimbi game reserve. In addition, the following were the suitable buffer zone/dispersal areas /migration routes, identified as crucial areas for wildlife conservation in the study area. These are: The East side of the Liparamba GR encompassing the proposed Magwamila hunting block (buffer

zone/migration route eastwards to SNWC); The SNWC (buffer zone to Sasawala FR and an essential habitat for the resident and migratory

Elephants moving between the Selous GR and the Niassa GR; The area east and west of Mwambesi FR/GCA and Lukwika (identified buffers to Mwambesi

FR/GCA and Lukwika-Lumesule GR); and, Areas on the eastern side of the Mwambesi FR/GCA and the western side of the Lukwika

Lumesule GR are important areas to animals migrating northwards towards Msanjesi and Selous GR’s. However, the current problem, which hinders free migration of wild mammals from these areas northwards is the outcropping or sprouting of unplanned human settlements and subsistence farming between Mkowela village in Tunduru district towards Nandembo village in Masasi district.

5.3.5 Possible Migration Routes Of Wildlife And Human-Wildlife Conflicts Two major types of migration routes have been realized during the study. These are; Confirmed migration routes are the SNWC, which is confirmed in the sense that research has been conducted to justify this movements of wild mammals, Hofer et al. (2004) movements of Elephants and other wildlife in the SNWC, southern Tanzania. GTZ/TÖEB, Eisenbach, Germany; Mpanduji DG (2004) population structure, movement and health status of Elephants in the SNWC, southern Tanzania, PhD Thesis, FUB, Berlin Germany; Mpanduji et al. (2003) movement of Elephants and other wildlife in the SNWC. Pachyderm 32; (pg 1 – 18). Assumed migration routes (Accepted to be true before there is proof) according to the

explanations from the local communities, traditional hunters and natural resource’s personnel. The following migration routes were reported to exist though not scientifically proven; o Mozambique – Liparamba G.R; o Liparamba – Lukimwa – SNWC; o Niassa – Mwambesi FR/GCA; o Niassa – Lukwika Lumesule G.R; o Mwambesi FR/GCA – Lukwika Lumesule – Msanjesi – Selous G.R; o Mwambesi FR/GCA – Lukwika Lumesule – Msanjesi – Kipindimbi – SGR; and, o Msanjesi – Angae F.R.

Three main forms of human – wildlife conflicts reported in the study area, namely: Crop Damage By Wildlife: The wildlife species involved include, Elephants, Sable Antelope,

Baboon, Monkey, Bush Pigs, and Hippos, damaging crops such as Cashew Nuts, Rice, Maize, Banana, Cassava and Beans. This damage is widespread throughout the study area.

Livestock Depredation: Livestock depredation is done mainly by Lion, Leopard, Crocodile and

Hyena on goats and dogs, in Songea, Tunduru and Namtumbo districts. Human Injuries And Death: Mainly caused by Lion, Leopard and Crocodiles and the areas

affected mostly include Tunduru, Namtumbo and Songea districts.

68

5.3.6 Wildlife Recommendations The study area is among the potential areas in Tanzania as far as wildlife resources is concerned. However, the area is unknown and very little research has been done to reveal this situation and status. Following this pre-feasibility study the following has been observed: • Six core protected areas, two WMA’s and a number of open areas rich in wildlife species, such as

Elephant, Eland, Sable Antelope, Buffalo, Waterbuck, Warthog, Crocodile, Guineafowl, with various species of fish and insects are present. However, no detailed species inventory is available, except for the Lukwika-Lumesule GR and Msanjesi GR. Some areas are potential or crucial for wildlife conservation, such as Litumbandyosi and Kipindimbi proposed GR's in Mbinga and Nachingwea districts respectively, still their management status is low and thus very vulnerable to poaching.

Illegal utilization of wildlife resources in the study area is widely practised in areas outside of the

protected areas especially in Tunduru and Masasi districts. Scarcity of source of protein and low living standard reported to be the main reasons for this situation. On the other hand, legal utilization of wildlife resources are directed mainly on consumptive use based on Tourism, Resident and Village Quota hunting in accordance to the Wildlife Conservation Act, 1974.

Only few people have been reported to be involved in Beekeeping activities using traditional

honey collection, although the area is potential for beekeeping. Migration routes, which are essential, function as a natural genetic bridge between the populations

of animals in the ecosystem, were identified as confirmed (scientifically the ecosystem proven to exist) exemplified by the SNWC and the assumed (not approved scientifically), which were numerous narrated.

Finally, human-wildlife conflicts situation focused mainly on human injuries and death, caused by

lion leopard and crocodile is rampant in Tunduru, Namtumbo and Songea to be the giant of crop damage in the study destroying a large area within a limited time.

Given the above situation and condition, it is recommended as follows: More research is needed to open an eye on the potentiality of the area in respect of wildlife

resources; Critical wildlife conservation areas, such as Litumbandyosi, Kipindimbi, which are outside of the

protected areas, their status has to be raised and gazetted so as to rescue the wildlife species therein;

WMA’s and self help projects have to be established, as a long term solution for improving health and living standard for the communities of the study area;

Local communities in high potential areas have to be sensitised on the possibilities of beekeeping as a source of income to reduce poverty;

Local and intercontinental migration identified, which function as natural genetic bridge between the populations of animals in the particular protected areas or ecosystem has to be maintained and secured for the continued existence of various wildlife species; and,

Short and long-term solutions on human- wildlife conflicts in the critical areas such, as Tunduru and Masasi, have to be sought out! However, the study noticed that, most of villages in problematic areas, are either very close to the protected areas or are in isolated/scattered settlements.

In concluding this section on wildlife, then; Tanzania has to be successful in establishing protected area (PA) network, which is a basis for

conserving its country’s biological diversity as well as, for the growth of its wildlife industry. The

69

long-term wildlife conservation perspective is to maintain great biological diversity, which contributes to healthy environment, and increases its contribution to the country’s economy from the present level of about 2% to 5% of the GDP by the year 2017.

In order to maintain this goal, the wildlife sector puts emphasis on maintaining and developing the

wildlife PA network and involving all stakeholders in the conservation and management of the resource, especially the local communities and the private sector.

The role of the Government focuses on regulating, facilitating and promoting sustainable

utilization of the wildlife resources. The Government also acts as service provider in the case of problem animals and extension services to the rural community. Furthermore, the Government through the responsible MNRT/WD will continue to facilitate the establishment of a new category of PA known as WMA, whereby local people will have full mandate of managing and benefiting from their conservation efforts, through community based conservation programmes, being promoted capacity building wise by the CBCTC Likuyu Sekamaganga. The private sector will be encouraged to invest in the wildlife industry, taking advantage of the prevailing political stability and sound investment policies.

The Government has to set clear transparent and simple procedures for participation in the wildlife

based tourist industry and investment in other wildlife related activities. In safeguarding the sustainable use of wildlife resources, the Government again through the responsible MNRT/WD will strengthen its capabilities of carrying out law enforcement functions.

In fulfilling its obligations, the Government will continue to administer the present, and if

necessary gazette ones, through designated wildlife Institution whose functions are differentiated by the purpose of conserving the respective PA’s.

In order to monitor the wildlife resources effectively, the Government will institutionalise the

research and information management, extension services and conservation education activities. The government will co-operate with neighbouring countries (as is the case with Tanzanian and

Mozambican discussions on the integration of the Selous and Niassa GR’s via the SNWC Project) in the conservation of migratory species and trans-boundary ecosystems and will promote and welcome support on wildlife conservation from the international, regional and local stakeholders and co-operate with any party interested in wildlife conservation.

The following section uses the preceding analysis to present in summary form a report prepared by Dr. Peter Norton on the Tourism Issues and Recommendations within the study area.

6.0 Tourism Issues And Recommendations

6.1 The Ruvuma River As A Tourism Destination 6.1.1 Characteristics Of The River The river travels more or less directly eastwards just below the 11°S parallel. There appears to be some debate on the origin of the river in its upper reaches. Communities in the Songea Rural district consider it to be the river that rises close to Songea and heads directly southwards to join other tributaries and turn abruptly eastwards at Mitomoni. The whole East-West part of the river forms the border between Mozambique and Tanzania. Where the river turns northwards at Mitomoni the border goes directly westwards approx. 50km through the mountains past Liparamba to Lake Nyasa. According to some studies the river is one of the most pristine major rivers in this part of Africa. Unfortunately this appears to be changing fast, with substantial clearing for agriculture leading to soil

70

erosion and the evidence of muddy brown water at Kivikoni village at the proposed Unity Bridge 2 site. However, the impact of soil erosion lessens further down the river as the water is relatively clear at Lukumbule village, due south of Tunduru. Most of the river is a typical African river, several hundred metres wide and only one or two metres deep, with large sand banks, at least in the dry season. There is some gallery forest of large water-loving trees, but not as well developed as one might expect. Reasons could be the chopping down of large trees to make dugout canoes, and erosion of riverbanks leading to large trees being carried away by floods. Outside the riverine zone the vegetation is almost entirely miombo woodland, except where this has been cleared for cultivation. There are a very large number of small and large tributaries along the length of the river. The combination of these rivers and the sandy substrate makes it very difficult to build roads and bridges for a road along the river, although there are dry season management tracks in places. The few roads that there are at present almost all travel directly away from the river up the ridges. 6.1.2 Landscape And Habitat Characteristics Of Different Sections Of The River In a number of sites there are large granite outcrops close to the river, which provide spectacular vantage points and possible sites for lodges or camps. In addition to this next to the river are a number of large nature reserves and conservation areas. From the west these are:- • Liparamba GR (571 km2) being developed by the Tanzanian Wildlife Department of the Ministry

of Natural Resources and Tourism; • Lipilichi Wilderness Area, a large area on the Mozambican side proposed by a private consortium; • Western Corridor of the Selous Niassa TFCA, planned as a WMA with GEF funding; • Niassa GR (23400 km2) and surrounding hunting concessions, managed by a joint venture (SRN); • Mwambesi FR (1040 km2) and surrounding proposed PFM Reserve, plus proposed Mwambesi

East link to Lukwika-Lumesule GR; and, • Lukwika-Lumesule GR (444 km2) and surrounding extensions managed as a hunting concession

by Miombo Safaris. For most of its length the river is a tranquil African river, with great opportunities for bird watching, photography, and some game viewing, although game populations appear to be low in most areas. A key characteristic of the river is the large granite inselbergs that rise abruptly out of the miombo woodland. In the area of the Western Corridor there are at least six large inselbergs within a kilometre or two of the river, mostly on the Tanzanian side. In the Eastern Corridor there are a large number of generally smaller inselbergs on both sides of the river. This combination of inselbergs, a wide sandy river and adjacent miombo woodland is probably the defining feature of the river from a tourism perspective. There are a few areas with rapids, especially SE of Tunduru, which may be suitable for white-water rafting. For example, according to SRN staff several successful river rafting trips have been made down the Lugenda River. The river can be divided into a number of zones, according to landscape and/or habitat characteristics, with different levels of suitability for tourism.

Table 9: Landscape And Habitat Characteristics Of Different Sections Of The River

Section Conservation areas (or proposed)

Landscape/ habitat

Score Notes on attractiveness for tourism

Liparamba area

Liparamba Dissected landscape; miombo woodland Nakatuta Falls

++ Attractive hilly terrain; game carrying capacity may be low

Mitomoni – Niassa GR boundary

N: Magwamire Hunting Block S: Lipilichi Wilderness Area (proposed)

Relatively flat to undulating floodplain; extensive clearing for agriculture

+ Probably gets waterlogged in wet season; limited suitable lodge sites

NGR boundary –

N: Western Corridor (planned WMA)

Undulating or dissected landscape; at least 5 major

+++ Attractive hilly terrain with relatively pristine miombo woodland

71

Chamba S: Niassa G R granite inselbergs <2km from river ; miombo woodland

Inselbergs may be ideal viewpoint and/or lodge sites

Chamba – Chipupupa

N Mwambesi F R in East; Proposed Mwambesi West S Niassa G R

Relatively flat floodplain with few small inselbergs; extensive agriculture

+ Probably waterlogged in wet season; riverine forest attractive, but lands not v. attractive

Chipupupa – Gomba

N Mwambesi F R; Msechela Hunting Block; Lukwika – Lumesule G R S Niassa G R

Hilly; lots of granite inselbergs Msunda Waterfall and rapids

+++ Attractive inselberg scenery; sites for viewpoints and lodges Proposed hydropower dam removes much of tourism value

Gomba – Beginning of estuary

S Niassa G R (beginnig) Proposed wildlife corridor N various forest reserves

Very flat; drop only 300 m in 240 km

+ Wide meandering river should be attractive, but may be limited away from river Floodplains probably waterlogged in wet season

Estuary N Mnazi Bay Rovuma Estuary Marine Park

Flat sandy estuary High ground to S & N

++ Some value for tourism, but see MBREMP tourism proposals Floodplains waterlogged in wet season

6.2 Tourism Routes To Integrate The River 6.2.1 The “Lake To Coast” Routes The route through southern Tanzania is presently in a poor state of repair but the prefeasbility and detailed design studies are now well underway and the road is scheduled for completion within the next five years. Nonetheless, in the short term large stretches of road will only be suitable for high clearance vehicles in the dry season, and 4x4 in the wet season. The state of the road, as well as attractiveness of the scenery for tourists, is shown in the table overleaf. 6.2.2 Present Road Access To The Rovuma River At present the Ruvuma River appears to be a “dead end”, both at the sub-continental level and at the local level. At the sub-continental level the main routes northwards in this part of Africa are either through Zambia or through Malawi. The only linkage between Mozambique and Tanzania is the ferry at Kilambo (Tanzania) and Namoto (Mozambique), but only operates at high tide and the condition of the road from Namoto to Palma is in very poor condition. At the local level on the Tanzanian side, some attempt at maintaining roads has usually been made up to the last village, which are typically several kilometres north of the river. From there are only bicycle tracks down to the river, so the river is a “dead end” for vehicular traffic at the local level. Apart from the ferry at Kilambo, there is considerable local trade across the river, but only in quantities that can be carried across in dugout or bark canoes, and then transported further on foot or on bicycles. In southern Tanzania there is a good tarred road down the western side of the country, from Makambako via Njombe to Songea. On the eastern side the road from Dar es Salaam southwards to Mtwara is presently in poor condition, requiring at least a high clearance vehicle in the dry season, and four wheel drive in the wet season. However, this road is in the process of being constructed (see section 3.7.1).

72

Table 10: Distances, State Of Road And Attractiveness For Tourism Of The “Lake To Coast” Route

Road Section Km Present State Of Road Score Notes On Attractiveness For Tourism Liuli - Mbamba Bay (10) Good gravel +++ Beautiful drive along lake shore; views up coast

and out to islands; look-out points; beaches Mbamba Bay - Mbinga 63 Recently resurfaced

gravel to top of pass; thereafter v.rough & muddy

++

+

Attractive route up through miombo to top of pass, with great views Stretch over to Mbinga pleasant, with plantations and agric.fields in valleys

Mbinga - Songea 105 Rough + Mostly cultivated; Reasonable Songea - Namtumbo 75 Initial part good

Thereafter reasonable + Reasonable; plantations; rather scruffy in parts

Namtumbo - Tunduru 204 V rough; 4x4 in wet +

+++

First and last section pleasant but scruffy in patches Central section beautiful pristine miombo, with great views

Tunduru - Nangomba 161 Good gravel 0 ++

Mostly cashew plantations & scruffy fields Sections with granite koppies

Nangomba - Masasi 41 Tar, but broken up in places

+/0 Villages reasonably attractive with coconut palms; fields often scruffy

Masasi - Mingoyo 124 Tar, but broken up in places

+/0 Villages reasonably attractive with coconut palms; fields often scruffy

Mingoyo - Mtwara 81 Good tar +/0 Villages reasonably attractive with coconut palms; fields often scruffy

TOTAL ROUTE 854 The so-called Southern Corridor road from Mbamba Bay to Mtwara is in good condition in a few places, reasonable in others, and poor in large sections, requiring at least a high clearance vehicle in the dry season, and four wheel drive in the wet season. However, pre-feasibility and detailed design of this road is now well advanced (see section 3.7.2). The Southern Corridor road is around 100 km north of the Ruvuma River in the western section, and 40-50 km away between Tunduru and Masasi. Unless the access roads are substantially improved, this means quite a long drive to get to the river in the western section. Indeed, the two main routes to the proposed Unity Bridge 1 (see section 3.7.3) and Unity Bridge 2 (see section 3.7.4) need significant improvements on both sides of the river in Tanzania and Mozambique, with the exception of the access roads from Lichinga to Secundo Congresso, which were recently upgraded to an engineered gravel road by Development Cooperation Ireland. This combined with the low cost of the Unity Bridge 2 suggests that a new link connecting Songea in Tanzania to Lichinga in Mozambique would open up a trade and tourism route that would open up areas that were previously locked up by poor regional access networks. 6.2.3 Tourism Support Services Air Access: There is a good airport at Mtwara, which already receives schedules flights (jets) from Dar es Salaam. Songea and Masasi also have airports with good surfaces (tarred at Songea), but there are no scheduled flights. There is a grass airstrip at Mbamba Bay and a good gravel strip at Mbatimila in Niassa GR. Medical Facilities: Medical facilities in the Ruvuma area generally fall far short of the level that would be expected by international tourists. There is a government hospital at Mtwara, which was not visited. The two best hospitals were St Joseph’s Mission Hospital at Peramiho west of Songea and the Mbesa Mission Hospital southwest of Tunduru. Discussions with doctors at St Josephs showed that there are five specialists and three other doctors at this large hospital, which attracts patients from a very large area. Although their equipment is somewhat outdated, they should be able to handle lower level emergencies, even for tourists.

73

Services: There is a good range of shops in Dar as Salaam, but even the main centres of Pemba and Mtwara had limited by Western standards. Customs and immigration were experienced at Tunduru and at Mtwara. Although well presented and polite some attention will have to be given to procedures, since in both places members of the party were asked for their passports, even though they were travelling within Tanzania. This type of behaviour may seem innocuous for seasoned travellers, but would be seen as a very negative experience by newcomers to Africa. 6.2.4 The Reserves As Tourist Attractions 6.2.4.1 Liparamba GR This picturesque 571 km2 reserve protects the only remaining intact miombo forest ecosystem of the Mbinga District, and was established in 2000. It is also very important to the cultural and traditional beliefs of the local communities, since traditional rainmakers and traditional healers are allowed to enter the reserve frequently for the purpose of ritual prayers and collection of medicinal material. The wildlife populations were considerably reduced due to illegal hunting, but rigorous protection measures are leading to signs of recovery. Trained personnel, radios, roads and infrastructure are in the process of being installed. Emphasis is being placed on making the reserve financially viable, with tourism being a contributory revenue stream. However, it is likely to be some time before meaningful numbers of tourists can be expected, and linkages to Metungula in Mozambique and Mbamba Bay in Tanzania and across the lake will need to be developed. In addition to the pristine miombo woodland, the reserve contains the Nakatuta Waterfalls, which has been subject to a dam and hydroelectric scheme proposal by KfW in the past but these plans are no longer featuring as a priority in regional and sectoral development plans. The location of this game reserve is strategically located to be integrated into a tourism circuit that straddles the proposed Unity Bridge 2 that would be constructed to link Songea to Lichinga (see section 3.7.4). One of the main tourism projects that complement the Liparamba GR is the ongoing work currently being done to create the Lupilichi Wilderness Area south of the river in Mozambique. 6.2.4.1 Lupilichi Wilderness Area This project is located in Northern Sanga District, Niassa Province. The principal investor is Paul Mann a UK based business tycoon. The project envisages the creation of a 4-500,000 ha wildlife complex in Northern Sanga district, which will include nine tourist lodges with associated fly camps for hunting safari’s and non-consumptive ecotourism activities. The status of the project is that a detailed feasibility study has been completed. The project has just completed one of the most extensive game counts in Mozambique by helicopter. The registration of company is also complete. The sponsors are currently lobbying the Council of Ministers. A base has been constructed at Macalodge with 2km airstrip. The hilly South-western area will be developed for ecotourism, while the South Eastern area less accessible and poached will be reserved as a wilderness block for eco-adventures. The Northern area will be developed for hunting safari’s, with plans to concession areas to six professional operators. Interest has been shown by HHK Safari’s one of Africa’s largest safari companies in investing in the project together with a Zambian company. International company Inspirational Places has shown interest in investing in a hotel in the non-consumptive area. Due to heavy poaching the area has less game than anticipated. In addition to hiring antipoaching expertise from Kenya a programme of wildlife breeding and stocking is being considered.

74

The supply base for this investment is Macalodge, where the company intends building a five star demonstration lodge. The company is considering contracting EDM to run a spur power line to Macalodge. The company intends to set up a joint venture with the local community to manage and share in the profits of this venture based on the Lemco model in Zimbabwe. It is proposed that 35% of the company will be owned by the community, 10% by Mozambican investors with 55% held by Lupilichi holding company. Two community leaders will be present in the company’s board of directors. It is proposed that 100% of hunting fees are invested in the communities living in the area. It is proposed that this will be done through a community association in which three of the ten members will be management staff of the company the remainder being community representatives. The capital investment is envisaged at USD 30 million, with a total of USD 5 million committed to date. 6.2.4.2 Western Corridor Of The Selous Niassa TFCA The SNWC will soon be realised. It consists of 8000km2 of sparsely settled miombo woodland, and is a significant biological link between the Selous GR and the Ruvuma River, directly across the river from the Niassa GR. It has been established during a long-term and thorough participatory process, supported by GEF funding, and will lead to the establishment of a number of WMA’s, for the proceeds of hunting, eco-tourism and other natural resource harvesting, to benefit the communities and persuade them to conserve the habitat and the animals living in it. It consists mostly of undulating hills and valleys with granite inselbergs especially close to the Ruvuma River, beautiful rivers, and grand views of the miombo woodland, especially in the spring. While the carrying capacity of game is unlikely to be high, large animals particularly elephants move through the area regularly. There are many sites that will give visitors a true wilderness experience, such as Mtongwe Mountain, but it is not clear whether there will be adequate game-viewing to provide a viable wildlife safari product, and tourism positioning may need to focus more on the wilderness aspects. There is no obvious focus for development, except along the Ruvuma River, where the inselbergs close to the river may give opportunities for look-out points and possibly even lodges, once the broader access infrastructure has been put in place. The river is more than 100 km from the main Songea – Tunduru road in places, which will require rather expensive investment in roads if vehicle-based tourism is to be developed. 6.2.4.3 Niassa GR This very large reserve of 23,400 km2, surrounded by hunting concessions of a further 19,000 km2, was established in 1964, and has the greatest concentration of wildlife in Mozambique. It is home to more than 13,000 elephants, has over 9,000 sable antelope, and several thousands each of buffalo, Lichtenstein’s hartebeest, eland and zebra. It also has a rich diversity of birds, and the granite inselbergs have been identified as “biodiversity hotspots” with a range of endemic species of smaller animals. Since the end of the war in 1992, local communities have been returning, and there is now a population of over 20,000 people living within the boundaries of the reserve. Locals moving about on the reserve on foot and by bicycle do impact on the “game park” atmosphere of the reserve, and some zoning of activities will need to be incorporated in management plans. The reserve is managed by a Public Private Partnership (SRN), which manages the hunting concessions, and is working hard to make the reserve self-sufficient. Twenty percent of all income goes directly to local communities. Very limited tourism planning has been carried out, and most attention has been given to the establishment of viable hunting concessions, which are now yielding substantial returns. Aerial game censuses have shown that the main game concentrations are in the north-east of the core area (in the Gomba Section), and to the west of Mecula Mountain, as well as along the Lugenda River. However, game visibility can be low in the miombo woodland, and the viability of game drives in the reserve still need to be evaluated. The most striking feature of the reserve from a tourism perspective is the large granite inselbergs, which provide very special opportunities for views out over the miombo, sunset sites, and possibly even meditation. These are not evenly spread throughout the reserve, and it is recommended that a detailed tourism master plan be drawn up to evaluate the viability of game drives in relation to koppie habitats, availability of water and proximity to the main centres on the coast. From discussions with field staff it appears that the Gomba Section may hold the best potential for more intensive ecotourism development.

75

6.2.4.5 Mwambesi FR This 1040 km2 Forest Reserve is currently used as a hunting block, although there has been limited hunting over the last few seasons. It has been suggested to upgrade its conservation status to a game reserve, but it is clear that, if it is to survive in the long term, its management and returns from hunting and/or photographic tourism will need to be improved. Some of the reserve is on rather flat or gently undulating floodplains, with limited landscape attraction for tourism, but the north-eastern parts have granite inselbergs and are very attractive. The road network is limited, and the lack of bridges makes it impossible to drive along next to the Ruvuma River. It is clearly an important conservation area because of being across the river from Niassa GR, and could play an important role in the development of a higher density ecotourism node by linking it to Lukwika-Lumesule GR via the proposed Mwambesi East WMA. 6.2.4.6 Lukwika-Lumesule GR This is a relatively small game reserve (444 km2) on the northern bank of the Ruvuma River. It has reasonable miombo woodland with some open plains, but poor grass quality at this stage. It supports 500-1000 elephants and some plains game, but only enough for three safari hunts per year. The concessionaires Miombo Safaris, are interested in extending the use of their camp from the 63 days a year it is presently used for hunting. Miombo Safaris says that it provides good walking, but limited game viewing at present, due to low game numbers. Miombo Safaris has played a role in getting approval for other hunting areas adjacent to the GR, called Ndechela/Ruvuma Open Area, which are planned to upgrade into proper WMA’s. The landscape is beautiful, with granite inselbergs and rapids in the Ruvuma River. In spite of low game numbers at present, this area may hold potential as a higher density ecotourism node to provide bush experiences for visitors to the beaches at Mtwara and Mnazi Bay. 6.2.4.7 Additional Attractions There are several additional attractions that could play a role in development of the tourism product in the Ruvuma sub-region. Elephant Migration Routes: Quite a lot is known about the migration routes of elephants (see section 5.3.5), which mostly move in a north-south direction from the Selous GR to the Niassa GR and across the Ruvuma River. Given that the “largest elephant range in Africa” is a key theme for the TFCA, it would be very useful if some of the elephant research could be focussed on finding opportunities where visitors could have an experience related to elephant migrations. This could be a viewpoint were elephants can usually be seen at a particular time of the year, or a regularly used river crossing point, or a well-trodden elephant trail that could be followed on foot, by bicycle or by vehicle (horses may be a problem because of tsetse fly). Cultural Resources: A thorough inventory of cultural sites and resources in southern Tanzania would be useful, to evaluate whether these could be turned into tourism experiences. Some information or sites discovered during the fieldwork were: - The large mission church and mission hospital at Paramiho just west of Songea (the hospital is

also an important resource for tourism); The rich Makonde culture and well-known wood-carvings; and, The “sacred forests” of Liparamba.

6.2.5 Conclusions Regarding The Ruvuma River As A Tourism Destination In terms of the specific focus of the project, that of “investigating the possibility of developing the Ruvuma River as the anchor destination that could provide the pivot to link the “Lake to Coast’” routes on either side of the river, it is difficult to see the Ruvuma River as playing the role of anchor destination, for the following reasons:

76

It is very remote from any major centres or tourism gateways; Access to the river will require dedicated tourism roads to be built from the main routes, which

will be difficult to justify for tourism alone; The main Mtwara-Mbamba Bay road in Tanzania is unlikely to carry large numbers of tourists for

the foreseeable future because of the substantial distances involved (about 850 km lake-to-coast); All-weather tourism roads along the river would be extremely costly due to the number of bridges

required and the sandy substrate; The sandy floodplain does not appear to be very suitable for lodge construction; The river is shallow and only navigable by shallow-draft boats and there are stretches of water

characterised by heavy rapids; While it can provide an attractive river experience, there is not much to differentiate it from a

range of other African rivers; and, The miombo woodland surrounding the river is interesting, but generally has low carrying

capacity, resulting in a limited game-viewing experience. The best tourism development prospects appear to be in developing the individual game reserves next to the Ruvuma River as destinations in their own right, as part of a broader TFCA initiative, especially where basic infrastructure has been established for hunting, and tourism can extend the season during which these camps are used. However, it must be stressed that the introduction of tourism activities should be seen as a medium to longer term potential. It is one thing to zone land for a GR, GCA or WMA for the purposes of hunting/tourism activities but the nature, scale and intensity of those activities needs to be defined by existing environmental carrying capacities as well as the costs of establishing and maintaining the institutions that are required to manage GR’s, GCA’s and WMA’s. There is little evidence, at this time, of examples of how this is going to work in practice. A key element of the planning for GR’s, GCA’s or WMA’s is to develop realistic “business models”, in collaboration with the key stakeholders, including the private sector, who will either make or break development proposals. Nonetheless, as these remote areas open up and the need to respond to develop tourism attractions within individual game/forest reserves intensifies in the medium to long term the need to integrate these areas into a coherent regional access network as illustrated in schematic form below will become a necessary pre-condition for promoting tourism activities in the following locations;

The Liparamba GR; The Lupilichi Wilderness Area; The Mwambesi GR (next to Lumesule-Lukwika GR); The Gomba Wilderness Area; and, The Lukwika-Lumesule GR.

77

Figure 2: Tourism Potentials Along The Ruvuma River

The next section of the report presents in summary form a report prepared by Mr. Bariki Kaale of FINNIDA (NFP-ISP) on Forestry Issues and Recommendations in the study area.

7.0 Forestry Issues And Recommendations

7.1 Introduction The main aim of the study is to support ongoing conservation, eco-tourism, community development and natural resource management initiatives in a manner that aids and abets the evolving dialogue on increased dialogue between the United Republic of Tanzania and the Republic of Mozambique on the potential for establishing a Selous Nissa Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFCA). The Wildlife Policy (1998) and the Forest Policy (1998) all support active involvement of local communities in sustainable management of natural resources for poverty reduction and improvement of livelihoods. Community participation in the wildlife sector is covered under the WMA programme and in forestry sector under the “Community Based Forest Management (CBFM)” or Participatory Forest Management (PFM)” programmes. The target group for WMA’s and CBFM programmes are villagers hence, the need for joint planning and implementation of wildlife, tourism, fishery, forestry and beekeeping programmes within the MtDC process. To enhance effective implementation of the study preparatory discussions amongst study team members in Dar es Salaam on 29/9/2004 and in Ruvuma on 19/10/2004 before starting the field work that facilitated initial sharing of experiences and best field practices between the experts on the subject matter. The main objective of the forestry/beekeeping sector report was to profile the nature and extent of forestry and beekeeping resources within the area. Data or key information required according to terms of reference includes:

Selous GR

Niassa GR

Mecula Section

Mafia Island

Kilwa

Mtwara/ Mnazi Bay

Palma/ Mocimboa da Praia

Pemba

Gomba Section

Lukwika/ Lumesule

GR

Rufiji R Section

Mkunja Section

Western Corridor

Eastern Corridor

Rovuma R

Selous-Niassa TFCACoastal Road

Mbamba Bay

Metungula

Songea

Lichinga

Liparamba

Luplilichi

Njombe Road

Unity Bridge 2 Unity Bridge 1

78

• To identify and map key concentrations of forest-based resources and production centres, both present and potential (tree/timber, beekeeping, non-timber forest resources and products) in the study area;

• To identify potential areas for cooperation/coordination/synergies between wildlife, tourism and

forestry and beekeeping in the study area; • To propose integrated (forestry, beekeeping, wildlife management, tourism) development ideas

and opportunities in the study area; • To propose joint concepts/opportunities for joint strengthening of village and district level

capacities in managing and utilising the natural resources in the study area; and, • To propose concepts/opportunities for supporting/enhancing socially responsible investments by

private sector in the natural resources-based development/industries in the study area. Methodology used for the study included: • Literature review; • Field visits to Songea, Namtumbo, Mbinga and Tunduru districts in Ruvuma region and to Masasi

district in Mtwara region. A brief visit was also made to Selous GR in Liwale District (Lindi region) to explore field experiences on WMA’s and co-operation between the Forest and Wildlife Sectors;

• Interviews with relevant stakeholders during the field visits; and, • Observations on natural resources status during the field visits. The study was conducted within 13 working days inclusive of travelling, data collection and report writing (From 18th October to 5th November 2004).

7.2 Forestry/Beekeeping Issues 7.2.1 Concentrations Of Forest-Based Resources The total area of forest resources in the study districts namely: Songea/Namtumbo, Mbinga, Tunduru and Masasi are 908,729.36 ha. The total recorded forest areas for each district were: Songea/Namtumbo (443,030.31 ha – 48% of the total), Mbinga (64,997.37 Ha – 7% of the total), Tunduru (323,125.00 Ha – 36% of the total) and Masasi (77,576.68 Ha – 9% of the total). The forest resources in the study districts were categorized into three legal types in accordance with the Forest Act No. 14 of 2002 namely: • Central Government FR’s that are legally under the management of the Director of Forestry and

Beekeeping (760,489.77 ha – 84% of the total); • Local Authority FR’s; that are under the management of District Councils (2,350.82 ha – 0,26% of

the total); and, • Community forests that are owned by village governments or private individuals (145,888.77 ha –

16% of the total).

79

7.2.2 Management Of The Forest-Based Resources With exception of community based forest woodlots in Mbinga district and Matogoro Forest Plantation in Songea district the rest of the forest based resources in the study districts in particular Central Government FR were reported to be under poor management or not managed with wide scale illegal harvesting of forest products leading to deterioration of the forest ecosystems or deforestation with negative impact to conservation of wildlife corridors. Poor institutional set-up between the FBD that is responsible for managing Central Government FR and District Councils was indicated to be the main root cause of poor or non-management of forest resources in the study districts. Some of the identified institutional weaknesses of FBD in ensuring sustainable management of Central Government FR that were indicated by district officials included: • Unavailability of legal document showing that FBD has delegated its legal responsibility of

managing Central Government FR to District Councils and resources that will be availed to the District Councils to manage the reserves on behalf of the Central Government.

• Lack or undefined job description to forest workers employed by District Councils outlining their

responsibilities of managing the Central Government FR and resources that will be provided by FBD to facilitate sustainable conservation of the forests.

• Conflicting priorities in managing forest resources between district council and FBD where the

priority of District councils is on revenue collection to meet operational costs while FBD priority is to conserve forest resources by using district staff but without meeting their operational costs.

• Unrealistic expectation by FBD that poor villagers that are struggling hard for their daily survival

will manage Central Government FR through JFM under the PFM programme without realistic and quantifiable short term tangible benefits that will contribute to poverty reduction and improvement of the villagers’ livelihood.

7.2.3 General Status Of Existing Forest Reserves The current status of existing forest reserves in the study districts are not known with confidence due to the existing institutional weaknesses in managing Central Government FR’s that accounts for over 84% of the total reserved forests. District forestry officials reported that due to shortage of transport and finance they have failed to visit and contribute to the management of the Central Government FR’s. The assumed status and weaknesses of managing forest reserves that were reported by district officials in the study area included: • Lack of short or medium term management plans for the Central Government and Local Authority

FR’s with exception of Matogoro Plantation in Songea District that has a comprehensive management plan.

• Undefined personnel to manage the Central Government FR’s. For comparison, district officials

indicated that GR’s that are equivalent to Central Government FR and under the same Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism have defined managers and implementation resources in terms of finance and transport in each district. As a result, it was reported that all GR’s in the study district were under satisfactory management. The Wildlife Division ha in Mbinga district that was turned to a game reserve cited Liparamba FR with 57,050.50 as a good example of effective management of forest ecosystem.

• In the field, boundaries of the forest reserves are not known either by district forestry officials or

villagers. It was reported that latest clearing of forest boundaries was conducted in late 1980’s.

80

• Illegal harvesting of forest products is widely taking place in the forest reserves causing

deterioration of tree cover or deforestation. For example Masasi Hills FR has lost coverage of big trees and currently is covered by shrubs and small regenerating trees due to wide scale illegal harvesting.

• Wild annual fires are common in all the reserves. • Uncontrolled small scale mining is increasing in some reserves causing deforestation. However, few successful field practices of managing forest resources exist. For example Chidia Secondary School in Masasi District is contributing to conservation of Kambona Local Authority FR with 1,651.00 ha for water catchment and environmental conservation. Similarly FBD is managing effectively the East/West Matogoro Forest Plantation with 3,723.19 ha. The plantation has a defined project manager, transport and other working facilities like computers and office furniture. Matogoro Forest Plantation is a major source of sawn wood in Ruvuma Region also it is providing employment to hundreds of villagers including women. 7.2.3.2 Forest – Based Products That Underpin Rural Livelihoods The main forest-based products used in the study districts are: timber, poles, firewood charcoal, and non-wood products. 7.2.3.2.1 Timber Pit sawing was reported to be taking place in all the study districts for production of sawn wood mainly for local construction and small scale furniture industries. Pit sawyers are mobile and they are reported to operate both in forest reserves and public land forests. According to data received from Ruvuma Regional Administrative Secretariat Office, registered pit sawyers by October 2004 were: Mbinga district (5), Tunduru district (3) and Songea district (15). However, it was indicated that realistic data on the number of pit sawyers operating in the districts and quantity of timber produced per annum are not available. Nonetheless pit sawing was reported to contribute to income generation and employment opportunities in rural areas. Controlled pit sawing could also enhance wise use of valuable timber trees that are cleared and burned to ashes for agriculture expansion in particular in Songea, Namtumbo, Tunduru and Masasi districts. One sawmill (Heri Partnership Sawmill) and twelve (12) mobile sawmills are producing sawn timber in Matogoro Plantations. It was reported that most of the sawn timber produced at Matogoro plantations is exported to Dar es Salaam and many other towns in Tanzania. Demand of sawn wood timber for softwood was reported to be higher than the current supply potential from Matogoro plantations. It was revealed that out of the existing 12 mobile sawmills, 10 were recently moved from Rongai Plantations in Kilimanaro region due to unavailability of saw logs in Rongai. Observations showed that untreated softwood is used in Ruvuma and Mtwara regions. To increase durability of soft wood it is proposed to establish a soft wood timber treatment plant in Songea. 7.2.3.2.2 Export of Logs Export of indigenous tree logs was reported in Tunduru and Masasi districts. Tunduru officials indicated they had three known log exporters but data were not available for Masasi district. Field observation showed that large quantities of valuable timber logs are burned to ashes during clearing of forest for agricultural expansion. Wise utilization of the cleared logs through export or timber sawing could contribute to economic development in the districts.

7.2.3.2.3 Poles Poles are used for house construction in the study districts. However, data on the amount of poles used annually are not available.

81

7.2.3.2.4 Firewood Firewood is the main source of domestic energy for cooking for over 96 percent of all households in the study districts with no affordable energy alternatives in the foreseeable future. Firewood is mainly consumed in the rural areas, using three stone stoves that are reported to have very low energy efficiency. Low-income households also use firewood for lighting. Data on firewood consumption for domestic purposes are not available. Based on field experience from similar ecoregions, it was estimated that the average firewood consumption per capita per annum in the study district was around 1.5 m3 to 2.0 m3. Observations showed that most of the firewood for domestic purposes consumed in the study districts is collected from farmlands or dead wood from bush lands close to residential areas. As such consumption of firewood for domestic purposes is not contributing much to environmental degradation. Large quantities of firewood are used for brick burning and brewing of local beer in all the study districts. Discussions with some burners of clay bricks in Songea district indicated that on average 2m3 of stacked firewood could fire 1,000 clay bricks. A three bedrooms house requires about 10,000 burnt bricks hence using 20m3 of stacked firewood (common brick size is by length, approx. 215 mm, width approx. 102 mm and thickness approx. 65mm). Firewood for brick burning is mainly collected from miombo woodlands, hence contribution to deterioration of forest ecosystems if uncontrolled. However, data on clay brick production and quantities of firewood used for brick burning are not available. Firewood is used for smoking fish mainly in Mbinga district but data on quantities of firewood used are not available. Firewood is also used for tobacco curing, mainly in Tunduru district but data on quantities of firewood used are not available. However, field observations showed that clearing of miombo woodlands for tobacco production was contributing to deforestation with negative impact to wildlife corridors. 7.2.3.2.5 Charcoal Charcoal is widely used as a source of domestic energy in the urban and peri-urban centres in all the study districts with limited energy option alternatives. Some of the factors influencing the choice of using charcoal instead of firewood in urban areas include: • Charcoal has a higher calorific value per unit weight than firewood (about 31.8 MJ per kg of

completely carbonised charcoal with about 5 percent moisture content as compared to about 16 MJ per kg of firewood with about 15 percent moisture content on dry basis;

• Due to its high calorific value per unit weight, it is more economic to transport charcoal over longer distances as compared to firewood;

• Storage of charcoal takes less room as compared to firewood; • Charcoal is not liable to deterioration by insects and fungi which attack firewood; and • Charcoal is almost smokeless and sulphur free, as such it is ideal fuel for towns. Due to the above factors, charcoal is expected to continue to be a major source of domestic energy in the urban and peri-urban areas of the study districts. Low income by the majority of charcoal users and unavailability of affordable and reliable alternative energy sources will also make people to rely on charcoal. However, observations and reports from the districts indicated that uncontrolled charcoal production is causing irreversible environmental destruction mainly deforestation with negative impacts to sustainable development of wildlife corridors. For example brief field visits to Songea Fuel Central Government FR with an area of 5,180 ha in Songea district revealed that charcoal burners were in the process of clear felling the forest. Also Wino Central Government FR (2,259 ha) in Songea district and Masasi Hills Central Government FR (1,813 ha) in Masasi District have been deforested by charcoal burners. Field observations showed that simple earth kilns with low recovery rate are widely used for charcoal production. As data not available research on charcoal production in other regions of Tanzania was used to estimate that on average one cubic metre of firewood produces 2-3 bags of charcoal by using the earth kilns. Average monthly charcoal consumption per family in Songea and Masasi towns was reported to be around 3 bags of about 30 kg each. Miombo woodlands are the main sources of firewood for charcoal production in the study districts.

82

7.2.3.2.6 Non -Wood Products Main non-wood products used in the study districts include: mushrooms, wild fruits, bamboo, raffia, ropes, thatch grasses, bee products, resin and medicinal plants. However, data on quantities and value of the non-wood products consumed are not available. Observations showed that the non-wood products were contributing significantly to villagers’ livelihoods mainly in rural areas by provision of food, medicines, building materials and income generation opportunities through sale of baskets, mats and other handcrafts. Improvement of villagers’ income through wise use of non-wood products could contribute positively to sustainable management of wildlife corridors by reducing villagers need to hunt wild animals for subsistence income or food. 7.2.3.3 Forest – Based Products To Underpin Private Sector Investment Opportunities Opportunities for private sector investments within the forestry sector along the MtDC include the establishment of large-scale integrated sawmills, establishment of timber plantations and encouragement of small and medium scale forest industries. 7.2.3.3.1 Large Scale Integrated Sawmills The study area has suitable forestry resources that could support large scale integrated sawmills for production of high quality sawn timber for export and local consumption. Through concessions, the FBD could lease most of its productive forest reserves to private timber dealers who could manage and utilize the reserves on sustainable system with production of certified forest products. Potential Forest Reserves identified and their areas in bracket that could support large scale integrated forest industries include: Songea/Namtumbo Districts Undendeule N.E (303,544 ha)

Tunduru District Mwambesi (96,867 ha); Muhuwesi (170,942 ha); and, Sasawala (36,886 ha).

However, concerns have been expressed about the basis for this potential. The report presents figures about the forest area attributed to the land-ownership. There is not much doubt about the figures regarding the central government, local authority and village community forests (only those recently established) but the figures about all other community forest areas are very questionable and seem to be underestimated. Furthermore the absolute size of the various forest reserves does not consequently mean that the total area is covered with forest. It is known that in many cases the forest of the reserves was reduced due to encroachment with farming or other activities. In order to know about the value of the forests and other facts necessary for forest management much more information is necessary (for example: true forest land, type of forest, tree species, growing stock, utilizable timber volume and quality, forest productivity, sustainable yield determination). All necessary data will only be available after a forest inventory was carried out in that area. Therefore his proposal to invest in large-scale sawmills is viewed as being too ambitious at the time. Moreover, the Undendeule Forest Reserve is part of the Selous GR and World Heritage Site. The Sasawara FR has also been identified as the core conservation area for the SNWC and its rehabilitation and conservation is under support of the UNDP/GEF. Consequently, the use of these resources to provide inputs into large-scale integrated saw milling operations is considered and inappropriate land-use and is discarded as a serious proposal.

83

7.2.3.4 Establishment Of Timber Plantations Suitable areas for establishment of large-scale timber plantations exist in Mbinga, Songea and Namtumbo districts on public lands (unreserved areas). To enhance effective conservation of biodiversity and water catchments, establishment of timber plantations will be combined with conservation of indigenous forests. The Kilombero Valley Teak Project (KVT) provides a good example on private establishment of large scale timber plantations in Tanzania that could be replicated along the MtDC. Identified areas for establishment of industrial timber plantation were: Mbinga District (over 20,000 ha) along the Nyassa escarpment and adjacent to Liparamba GR;

and, Songea/Namtumbo Districts (over 40,000 ha) area northwards from river Ruvuma between

Matogoro FR and Sasawala FR. Similarly, concerns have been expressed about the establishment of a large-scale timber plantation (40,000 ha) in Songea/Namtumbo District, between Matogoro FR and Sasawara FR. The proposed location of the timber plantation would be in the heart of the SNWC. After three years of research in cooperation with international and national Tanzanian institutions it was discovered that because of the biodiversity of the intact natural miombo forests and its connectivity between the Selous and Niassa GR’s it is of global importance to conserve this area. Furthermore this area is the main migratory route of elephants and other large mammals. Already this wildlife corridor is internationally known as the flagship for the development of tourism in southern Tanzania. The National and Local Government with funding from the GEF and the Federal Government of Germany (FGR) are developing the sustainable conservation of this corridor. A related point has been made that whilst mentioning the KVTC as a good example for large-scale timber plantations it should be noted that the problems the KVTC have had with migrating elephants damaging parts of the forests. This conflict has emerged because not enough care was taken in establishing timber plantations that straddled elephant migratory routes between the Selous GR and the Kilombero Valley. The same problem would occur if a plantation forest would be established in the SNWC. Whilst acknowledging that there was insufficient time to visit these proposed locations the argument for this proposal has also been queried. The report documents the poor condition of the national Forest Reserves (see section 7.2.2), either natural or plantation forests, and given limited resources the focus should be on the improvement of existing forests rather than to start new timber plantations in areas of intact natural forests. Furthermore, given that other large areas in the south of Tanzania, in particular in Mbinga District, are totally deforested it is considered more suitable to establish plantation forests with re-forestation programmes in this area, which would also support a forestry cluster on the Malawian side of the lake. 7.3 Conclusions Main conclusions from the brief visit regarding forest resources were: • The study districts have huge forest reserves that are not under sustainable management; • Integrated conservation efforts by all sectors of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism

will enhance successful and sustainable establishment of wildlife corridors; • High opportunities for large and medium scale private investments in forest industries exist within

the study districts; and, • Expansion of donor support on PFM in Mbinga, Songea, Namtumbo and Masasi will enhance

successful establishment and conservation along the southern corridor. The final section presents in summary form a report prepared by Mr. Rudi Hahn GTZ (CWMP) the Integrated Spatial Development Framework, with particular emphasis on identifying “opportunity spaces” for key natural resource management interventions within the study area.

84

8.0 Integrated Spatial Development Framework For Natural Resource Conservation And Management

8.1 Introduction This chapter provides options and recommendations for an alternative conservation and land management concept while integrating community based natural resources management according to relevant laws and regulations of Tanzania. In section one recommendations and constraints for the establishment of the eastern wildlife corridor are described. Recommendations for the western side of the Ruvuma Interface, including the Districts Tunduru, Namtumbo and Songea, are explained in section two. Section three gives general recommendations for the natural resources management in the study area. Although the concept development in this section of the report is no more than a proposal it can be assumed that its acceptance by the local people and the District Authorities in its entirety or parts thereof is high. The fact that there are already a large number of villages in the study area ready to establish WMA’s and Village Land FR’s is an indicator of the general acceptance of the concept.

8.2 Eastern Wildlife Corridor Selous – Niassa GR The concept to establish the wildlife corridor is to interlink the existing protected areas with a network of WMAs. This category of protected areas has the advantage to allow the communities to play an active role in conservation with tangible benefits and contribute to the reduction of conflicts with wildlife near other protected areas. Because the utilisation of natural resources is not restricted to wildlife, but includes forestry, beekeeping and fisheries, these areas are economically attractive for the communities and allow more flexibility in management19. 8.2.1 Description Of The Corridor The assumed migration routes of elephants and other mammals in the eastern part of the study area are described in the study on wildlife. The assumptions on the course of the migratory routes are based on observations of resource persons in the field and experience in migration behaviour and habitat requirements of elephants and other larger mammals. The previous chapter gives an overview over the present situation of land-use in the area earmarked for the establishment of a corridor. It can be noticed that the present situation is very complex and migration might takes place between all protected areas. Although animals are migrating at present from north to south, while maybe crossing cultivated areas at night or using some bottlenecks, these migration routes will be increasingly obstructed with the growing number of the human population and its demand for more land. The purpose of a wildlife corridor is not only to conserve migration routes of larger mammals. A corridor should mainly link two or more areas like a genetic bridge in order to allow genetic exchange and conserve the biodiversity of fauna and flora. Because of these reasons a corridor is a conservation area in itself and requires a suitable size of land with natural vegetation. This section will focus on interlinking all the protected areas but it is recommended to carry out further research on the migration routes and details on the present land-use. The WWF Tanzania Programme Office is presently interested to develop the “Eastern Wildlife Corridor” and prepared the report “Ruvuma - Selous Miombo Programme” for presentation to potential finance agencies. 8.2.3 Mining Areas The proposed concept neglects the small and medium scale gemstone mining in the rivers, although it has a destructive impact on the biodiversity (see section 4). But in terms of land-use it has only a short-term impact, whereas the establishment of a wildlife corridor and its conservation is a long-term matter of land-use. Furthermore it appears that the mining activities are already subsiding in the outlined areas, which are mainly located along the rivers.

19 See also chapter III for WMA

85

8.2.4 Most Critical Area The most critical area is the main road from Tunduru to Masasi. The ribbon band development of settlements and cultivation-areas along that road makes it almost impossible to establish a formalised wildlife corridor between the Selous and Niassa GR’s without the translocation of some villages or sub-villages. On the baseline map it appears that the shortest link between Selous and Niassa GR’s would be the connection of the Muhuwesi FR with a new conservation area along the river Muhuwesi. But already major cashew-nut plantations and settlements at the main road prevent the establishment of a continuous corridor. At present the only suitable area for a corridor to cross the main road Tunduru – Masasi would be west and east of the river Lumesule, which is the administrative boundary between Tunduru and Masasi Districts. A possibility to cross the road between the villages Namdembo and Chigweje and Lumsesule villages would be in Masasi District. Presently there are gaps of each two kilometres length with natural vegetation in the ribbon band development along the road. Between the villages Lumesule and Mkwera, which is already located in Tunduru District, are also some minor gaps. But already farming activities between the villages and at the river Lumesule are obstructing the development of a continuous corridor. Recently at least three sub-villages were established along the road between the villages Nakapanya and Mkwera in Tunduru District. In this location the establishment of a corridor crossing the road is not anymore possible unless the development of these settlements is reversed. It also has to be mentioned that the landscape of this most critical area for the entire corridor concept is of stunning beauty because of the shape and size of the surrounding granite outcrops. With presently few small openings allowing the corridor to overcome this bottleneck at the road the idea of an Eastern Wildlife Corridor connecting the Selous with the Niassa GR will not be possible without finding an appropriate solution. 8.2.5 Areas South Of The Main Road Tunduru-Masasi The core areas for conservation are without doubt the Lukwika/Lumesule GR and Mwambesi FR/GCA. Both areas are rich in wildlife and have a direct link to Niassa GR thus allowing cross-border migration. Their riverine forests are of high biodiversity and contribute to the protection of the water catchment areas while representing the characteristic vegetation of the Ruvuma basin. Because of their important role for the establishment of a wildlife corridor it is recommended to upgrade the conservation status of Mwambesi Forest Reserve/GCA to a GR. It is recommended to establish a WMA west of Mwambesi Forest Reserve/GCA along the river Ruvuma. For the purpose of identification on the map it is named “WMA Mwambesi West”. Beside its importance for conservation of the riverine vegetation this WMA could play an important role as a buffer zone for the Mwambesi FR and also Niassa GR. It would be desirable to increase the rather small area of Lukwika/Lumesule GR by adding the extended hunting areas Ndechela/Ruvuma Open Area. But because of the high number of villages located close to the boundaries it is recommended to establish a WMA in order to avoid human/wildlife conflicts in the future. It would be ideal for the establishment of the wildlife corridor if the recommended WMA could be designed in such a way that it would follow along the river Lumesule to the north, where the road will have to be crossed. This area is named for identification purpose “WMA Ndechela/Ruvuma”. Another WMA is recommended to link the Mwambesi Forest Reserve/GCA and Lukwika GR. This will include the hunting area Msechela Open Area and the area west of the river Muhuwesi till reaching the boundary of Mwambesi FR/GCA. This WMA would be an important link for the establishment of the corridor and a buffer zone for both protected areas in Tanzania and Niassa GR. In the northeast the WMA would also have to follow the river Lumesule. Thus, having a band of WMA's on both sides of the river a link to the north could be established. This area is named for identification purpose “WMA Mwambesi East”.

86

8.2.6 Areas North Of The Road Tunduru-Masasi After crossing this road the WMA’s could follow the river Lumesule upstream and open like a funnel in northwest direction into Tunduru District and northeast direction into Masasi District. 8.2.6.1 Continuation in Tunduru District In Tunduru District the villages Ngapa and Luwegula could establish a WMA connecting the river Lumesule with Muhuwesi FR/GCA. For identification purpose named “WMA Ngapa”. Since the northern boundary of Muhuwesi FR/GCA does not incorporate the entire catchment area of the river Muhuwesi it is recommendable to review its boundaries and extend the reserve to the north till it reaches the boundary of Selous GR. This extension of Muhuwesi FR would include another 830 km2. 8.2.6.1 Continuation in Masasi District In the northwest the villages Lumesule and Chigweje could establish a WMA till reaching the northern border of the district. This area was named “WMA Lumesule”. The WMA could be linked with the recommended “WMA Kilimarondo” in Nachingwea District. 8.2.6.2 Continuation in Nachingwea District It is recommended that the villages of Kilimarondo Division establish a WMA in the west of the district, named “WMA Kilimarondo”, which follows along the river Lumesule till reaching the administrative boundary of Liwale District in the North. This WMA could also be linked with the proposed extension of Msanjesi GR, which is called Kipindimbi. The proposed extension of Msanjesi GR would be linked with the Lionja Forest Reserve while establishing the proposed Village Land Bee Reserve and proposed Village Land Forest Reserve. 8.2.6.3 Continuation in Liwale District There are to ways to continue with the interlinking of protected areas, viz:

In the east the proposed Village Land Forest Reserve of Nachingwea District could be linked with the Village Land Forest Reserve “Angai”. With the cooperation of the organisation Muhima the “Angai Village Land Forest Reserve” could be linked with the Nyera Kiperere FR, which borders the WMA Magingo.

On the western side the villages Ngongowele, Ngingo and Lilombe etc. located along the road

to Liwale town could establish a WMA, which borders the recommended WMA’s of the Tunduru and Nachingwea Districts in the south and the WMA Magingo, Selous GR and the extended Muhuwesi FR/GCA in the north and northwest respectively. This area was named “WMA Muhuwesi/Selous”.

8.3 Western Study Area 8.3.1 Namtumbo/Tunduru Districts The establishment of the SNWC in this area will be realised soon. Long-time and thorough planning with all stakeholders involved and a major research project were part of the preparation phase. For the establishment of this corridor the most critical area was also the ribbon band development of settlements along the main road Songea – Tunduru. But member villages of Mbarangandu and Nalika WMA’s prevented any further settlements and farming activities and provided some openings of at least 10 kilometres length each along the road for the continuation of the corridor. A network of new Woman’s, incorporating Sasawara FR, will soon close the link between the WMA’s Mbarangandu and Nalika in the North and Niassa GR in the South. Although wildlife numbers of several species are comparatively low it can be expected that with reduction of poaching activities the area will be restocked in a few years. Natural migration of animals from Selous GR, the Northern WMA’s and Niassa GR as well as the undisturbed growth of some small populations around the rivers Lukimwa/Njuga and the Sasawara Forest Reserve will assist to build up a healthy wildlife population.

87

The area of WMA’s can be extended in the southwest of the District along the river Njuga in the northern direction. This was not planned for the project area of the GEF/UNDP funded wildlife corridor project but would add to the viability of this corridor. This area was named “WMA project extension area”. The district administrations will be the main actors to facilitate the process of developing the wildlife corridor. But since Natumbo District was established only recently the required infrastructure is not yet in place. Although the general district offices are under construction adequate offices for the natural resources management with storage facilities, armoury and communication systems will be needed as well as field equipment. Because Natumbo town is not connected to the national electricity grid and does not have its own power supply at least the offices need electricity to run computers, communication systems and lighting. 8.3.2 Songea District The establishment of a WMA in the south of Songea District would provide an important link with the wildlife corridor in the east and the Liparamba GR in the west. Furthermore there would be also linkages with the Lipilichi Wilderness Area in Mozambique. This area was recently established and is managed by a private enterprise in cooperation with the villages. The recommended WMA would incorporate all villages of Muhukuru and Ndongosi Wards and would extend from the rivers Njuga and Lukimwa in the east till reaching the river Ruvuma in the west following its course in the northern direction. Thus, the WMA would also serve as a buffer zone for Liparamba GR. This area was named “WMA Muhukuru/Ndongosi”. The southern section of the river Ruvuma in Songea District is an important area for migratory birds from Europe and is a stopover place on their flyway route to South Africa20. With the establishment of a WMA the stopover places for migratory birds at the river Ruvuma and its oxbow lakes in Songea District could be protected for the future. The Government of Tanzania ratified and implements the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species. 8.3.3. Other Key Interventions Required 8.3.3.1 Infrastructure Both areas in the south of Songea and Namtumbo Districts count to the remotest places with the least human population density along the entire border with Mozambique. This is also one of the reasons why the habitats for wildlife are in still more or less intact and allow for the establishment of the wildlife corridor and the other recommended WMA’s. But this fact also accounts for the underdeveloped infrastructure (see sections 3.3 and 3.4). Bridges and access roads will have to be rehabilitated or newly constructed in order to assure an all year round transportation between the villages. In order to facilitate the management of the WMA’s a resource inventory, a management and a development plan for the road system including access and management roads has to be carried out and implemented. Furthermore existing airstrips will have to be rehabilitated or new constructed. Radio communication between key villages and the district administrations could widely improve the development of these areas. 8.3.3.2 Community Based Conservation Training Centre, (CBCTC) This national centre for the training of village game scouts and village and CBO executives is located in Likuyu, Namtumbo District. It was developed jointly by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Selous GR and the Selous Conservation Programme/GTZ. With the implementation of the recommended WMA’s of this study a high number of course participants has to be expected. Already the conservation agency of the Niassa GR showed interest to send villagers for training. In order to

20 See evidence of a white stork (Ciconia ciconia) tagged by the Vogelwarte (bird conservation institute) in Hiddensee/Germany, biodiversity report from Dr. Mpanduji

88

increase the capacities of the centre according to the expected demand additional infrastructure like dormitories, classrooms and a secure water supply would be necessary. 8.3.3.3 Natural Resources Utilisation As already mentioned, the status of WMA allows also the utilisation of other natural resources than wildlife. Consequently the local population is not deprived from the use of other natural resources products. The diversification of income generating natural resources products minimises the economical risks to manage their WMA. In order to avoid conflicts and optimise the utilisation of the resources the Community Based Organisations are to produce a management plan for their WMA, which divides the area in different zones of utilisation. 8.3.3.3.1 Wildlife At present the wildlife population of many WMA’s recommended in this chapter is not high enough to carry out sustainable hunting, neither for high value tourist hunting nor for meat hunting for the local population. This might refer to the entire area or to certain species. Also photo tourism focused on wildlife will presently not be an option for income generation because of the same reason. Permanent poaching pressure in the past reduced the number of wildlife substantially and made the remaining animals very timid towards people. But experience in establishing WMA’s under similar conditions proofed that the wildlife population need only three to five years of absolute protection to recover from previous unsustainable utilisation. This can only be achieved with the commitment of the local communities towards conservation and consequently their assistance in law enforcement. In order to increase the efficiency in law enforcement regarding the immanent problem of trans-boundary poaching, a high level of cooperation between the Governments of Tanzania and Mozambique is necessary. Also the areas where wildlife crosses regularly the river Ruvuma should be identified together and should receive special attention and protection. 8.3.3.3.2 Forestry The improvement of the management and conservation of the forests has to be one of the highest priorities. The multi purpose benefits of the natural forests like shelter, construction material, energy, medicinal-plants and other by-products are of extreme importance for the local people, who count to the poorest in Tanzania. Intact natural forests provide the habitat for wildlife and make wildlife management and bee-keeping possible. In conjunction with the sustainable harvest of timber and the utilisation of other by-products the forests contribute to the economic development of the rural areas. With the new Forest Act institutional weaknesses of the past concerning their management and conflicts regarding the utilisation of the forests and land-use constraints can be overcome. Proposed village land forest reserves or those being in the process of establishment were already mentioned in the previous chapters. Also one proposed joint management between the Forest Department of the National Government and the adjacent communities of a National Forest Reserve was pointed out, whereby the management refers to conservation of wildlife and preservation of the forest (Sasawara FR). Other new recommendations for PFM in the sense of the Forest Act were not made, because forestry is already included in the management options of WMA’s. But this does not exclude options to carry out PFM in many other areas outside the proposed WMA’s. 8.3.3.3.3 Beekeeping All recommended WMA’s have a high potential for beekeeping and production of bee-products. During the field research almost everywhere signs of local beekeeping for domestic use could be found. But the production is not yet on a real commercial level due to lack of marketing and other issues. Only in Nachingwea and Liwale Districts beekeepers sell their products on a bigger scale. This management option could be developed within the recommended WMA’s and outside other protected areas, where there is no room to establish a buffer-zone with WMA status. Taking the increased worldwide demand for bee-products into consideration, in particular for honey from areas free of pesticides, bee keeping has an enormous income potential for the communities. But the usual processing and marketing problems will have to be solved first. This can be only successfully done in a joint venture with the private sector.

89

8.3.3.3.4 Fisheries Because of the lack of proteins in most of the southern areas the local communities are very much dependent on this resource. Fishing activities will continue in the recommended WMA’s wherever compatible with other management options. Taking the present status of the fishing activities and fish resources into account it will be necessary to enforce the law regarding the use of poison and other destructive and unsustainable fishing methods and equipment. For the purpose of protecting and conserving the fishery resources in particular at the river Ruvuma the AA’s of the recommended WMA’s will be responsible. In other areas fisheries community management units (beach management unit) with a status of an Authorized Associations could be formed. Since of conservation issues regarding fisheries and wildlife management and as well the development of tourism zones along the river Ruvuma a zoning for fishing activities will be necessary. The river Ruvuma is on its longest stretch a trans-boundary ecosystem with Mozambique’s largest protected area, the Niassa GR, and the Lipilichi Wilderness Area, both having its boundary in the middle of the river. Consequently the zoning for fishing activities in Tanzania will be a matter of discussion and mutual agreement with the Conservation Agencies of these protected areas. Due to the zoning of fishing activities and the improvement of the fishery management a higher yield of fish in the remaining areas might be achieved. But often the attractive sites for fishing and other management purposes coincide leading to conflicts in utilisation. Therefore it is recommended to support the establishment of fishponds in suitable areas outside the WMA’s as a matter of economic compensation for the fisheries community.

8.4 Alternative Conservation And Land Management Concepts The key for the identification of the location of areas are set out in the table overleaf and are summarised on the map entitled, Alternative Conservation And Land Management Concept, overleaf. The major opportunity spaces that require detailed interventions are discussed below: 8.4.1 Liparamba GR The Liparamba GR is in particular locally of great importance. Large areas of Mbinga District have been heavily affected by human development activities such as settlement, agriculture and to some extent mining activities. This resulted in a deforested landscape including higher elevations and hilltops on a large scale. The reserve protects the only remaining intact forest ecosystem of the district. Here, primary Miombo forest and a number of wildlife and bird species represent the biodiversity of the entire District. The reserve is also very important in terms of cultural and traditional beliefs of the local communities. The traditional rainmakers and traditional healers are allowed to enter the reserve frequently for the purpose of ritual prayers and collection of medicinal material. Established in the year 2000, the Liparamba GR counts to the most recent game reserves in Tanzania. With enormous efforts and commitment the District Game Officer and the District Administration are rehabilitating this reserve. The wildlife population, considerably reduced due to illegal off-take before the reserve’s establishment, shows already signs of recovery. At present the main target is to increase the wildlife population by means of protection of the area. To reach this aim an adequate number of trained scouts, the necessary equipment including radio-communication and the essential infrastructure like management roads inclusive bridges, office, outposts and staff housing is required. The borders are presently under way to be demarcated and a few basic management roads are under manual construction. For the management of the reserve it is now getting increasingly important to make this reserve financially viable. In the present situation it appears that the long-term solution would be the combination of beach and wildlife tourism. But as the development of the beach tourism at Lake Niassa is also still in its very infancy it will not be easy to put this reserve on a secure financial base for the coming years.

90

In order to facilitate the development of a General Management Plan (GMP) the project GTZ-CWM, as part of its internship programme, presently provides a Tanzanian graduate temporarily to the reserve to prepare a first draft. According to the results of the GMP a development plan for the road system and eventually a Tourism Master Plan will have to be prepared and implemented. Finally the reserve has to be marketed and promoted as a tourist destination. It also has to be discussed whether to include the Bishawishi mountain range into Liparamba GR. This way the reserve boundary could coincide with the national boundary with Mozambique. 8.4.2 Sasawara FR This reserve protects an important catchment area and was identified as a core area for the establishment of the SNWC. Total neglect of protection and management has already resulted in encroachment with farming activities and serious poaching of wildlife. With the UNDP/GEF funded SNWC project it is planned to conserve the wildlife and to protect the forest as its habitat in this reserve. In order to implement this objective the adjacent villages will establish WMA’s outside the reserve. In addition these villages will conserve and manage the wildlife within the forest reserve while being responsible for the reserves protection. The villages will negotiate a joint management agreement with the FBD for this purpose. This cooperation between the local communities and the FBD will be possible under the new approach of PFM.

Table 11: Key To Map 3 – Numbering Relates To Numbers Annotated On The Map No. NAME STATUS SIZE (Square








Hydropower Dam 0

5




0 MNRT - WD







427.1 AA


92

No. NAME STATUS SIZE (Square Kilometres)

MANAGEMENT










600.2 AA




TUNDURU DISTRICT (Cont) 20 • Sasawara Forest Reserve

Hunting Block PFM focused on conservation





626.2 AA




1042.5 AA






WMA 380.9 AA


94.7 AA

93










1061.5 AA







4186.6



1628.8 AA


Before the implementation of this plan it will be necessary to survey the reserves boundaries and assess the scale of encroachment and deterioration. Based on the results of the survey it might be necessary to take other options for its management into consideration, which might be according to the table below: Results of Survey

Forest Reserve

Management Option

Minor encroachment and deterioration

The reserve will maintain its present boundaries, The boundaries will have to be demarcated

Joint management agreement between communities and Forest Department for the entire forest reserve

Minor - medium scale encroachment and deterioration

Parts of the reserve will have to be de-gazetted. The new boundaries have to be demarcated

Joint management agreement between communities and Forest Department for the remaining forest reserve.

Medium – large scale encroachment and deterioration

The entire reserve has to be de-gazetted.

Communities establish WMA’s on the remaining area.

Another option, which is independent of the results of the survey, would be to de-gazette the entire forest reserve and establish instead WMA’s. In order to facilitate the management, independent of its status of being a WMA or a forest reserve, a resource inventory, a management and a development plan for the road system including access and management roads has to be carried out and implemented.

94

8.4.3 Mwambesi FR/GCA This reserve is presently used as a hunting block. Because of its value as core conservation area in the Ruvuma Interface and Eastern Wildlife Corridor, with reference to the previous chapter, it was recommended to upgrade its status of conservation to a GR. Whatever decision will be prevailing regarding the reserves’ future status, it will be necessary to improve its management and increase the revenue from tourist hunting operations21. It appears that several villages are located in the reserve since its establishment. Since different maps of this area contain contradicting information it is recommended to survey its boundaries and demarcate them in the field. It might be necessary to change the course of its boundaries in certain areas. The number of trained game scouts will have to be increased. At present the two district game scouts, who are based in the hunting camp and in the village Mtwaro, are hardly capable to carry out sufficient patrols and supervise at the same time the hunting activities. It is also necessary to improve the radio communication between the outposts and the district game office in Tunduru town. The road network has also to be improved to facilitate the management of this area. Because of the lack of bridges it is neither possible to cross this area in the south along the river Ruvuma nor to take a shortcut in the north from the village Mtina to Mtwaro. In both cases it is necessary to take the long way via Tunduru town. Necessary outposts and staff-houses have to be constructed and the staff adequately equipped. A resource inventory with adequate maps has to be carried out and a General Management Plan has to be developed and implemented. 8.4.4 Muhuwesi FR/GCA According to different information sources encroachment with farming, mining and logging activities together with poaching are the major threats of this reserve. It will be necessary to survey the reserve’s boundaries and assess the scale of encroachment and deterioration. The recommended extension of the reserve in the northeast to meat the Selous GR boundary will have to be taken into account as well. Furthermore a resources inventory has to be drawn up and mapped. It is recommended to maintain the status of this FR and its present utilisation as a hunting block for tourist hunting. But in addition suitable areas for timber harvesting outside catchment areas have to be zoned and should be utilised. Based on all collected information a general management plan including forest and wildlife management has to be developed. For the management of this reserve a higher level of communication and cooperation between wildlife and forestry personnel is required. The necessary infrastructure for forest and wildlife management like roads, outposts with staff houses and communication facilities will have to be established. In addition the reserve’s boundaries will have to be demarcated in the field. For the protection and management of the reserve an adequate number of forest guards and game scouts has to be recruited and equipped. For the management of wildlife in the Muhuwesi Forest Reserve in conjunction with the recommended Mwambesi GR the Wildlife Department will have to appoint a Project Manager. Given the number of recommended WMA’s in Tunduru District the District Game Officer would have work all full capacity as there are insufficient resources to manage these two reserves.

21 Not one single hunting safari was carried out in the hunting season of 2004

95

8.4.5 Lukwika/Lumesule and Msanjesi GR Both reserves were already established in 1995 but were more or less dormant till a very active and innovative PM improved the management. Beside improvements of the reserve he carried out a complete resource inventory including fauna and flora himself and initiated the first CBC activities with communities adjacent to the reserve. Furthermore the reserves were leased as one hunting block to a professional hunting company, which most probably runs the best quality and most ethical hunting operations in the far south of Tanzania. Since then the infrastructure of both game reserves was developed. New staff houses were constructed, a management road system established and the boundaries demarcated. Only some access roads need improvement. With the extension of Msanjesi GR into Nachingwea District the survey, mapping and gazettement of the new area as well as the border demarcation will be necessary. The new area will have to be opened up with adequate management roads. Because the number of scouts is by far not sufficient for the management of both game reserves additional trained game scouts will have to be recruited. A General Management Plan for both reserves has to be developed.

8.5 Scope For Private Sector Participation In WMA’s This section of the report builds out the preferred conservation and land management concept presented in section 8.4 by profiling the costs, revenues, jobs and government revenues that could be created by implementing these proposals. It is stressed that this section is illustrative in nature. This section draws heavily on a report entitled “Economic Opportunities In Wildlife Management Areas” prepared by K. Christophersen, R. Hagen and G. Jambyia in June 2000 for the Wildlife Division of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism under the USAID/GTZ cofinancing Environmental Policy and Institutional Strengthening Indefinite Quantity Contract (EPIQ). The relevant findings for this study are reproduced in the following section. 8.5.1 Summary Of The EPIQ Model This study on emerging economic opportunities in Wildlife Management Areas (WMA’s) has been a team effort between EPIQ consultants and the Wildlife Division (WD) of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. The topic is of keen interest to the WD because the revenues collected from hunting and tourism on the Game Controlled Areas (GCA's) must be shared with the local communities in the future. At the same time, it is probable that additional economic activities complementary with hunting and photo tourism will emerge for the local communities to pursue once the new Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) become a reality. The key issue is whether the net revenues collected from additional sources by the both the local communities and the District and Central Government under the new system will be at least equal to, or exceed the net revenues collected from one source, trophy and resident hunting, under the old system. The task before the EPIQ Team was to identify economic opportunities emerging as a result of WMA designation and analyse them from the perspectives of the local communities and the Government of Tanzania. The objective was to determine the economic feasibility of these opportunities. Feasibility was confirmed if the following criteria were met: The quantitative results meet or exceed the minimum standards set (i.e., that the net present

value (NPV) is positive and the internal rate of return (IRR) is greater than the returns achievable from alternative investments associated with equal risk without any subsidies);

The opportunities are consistent with the policy orientation of the 1998 Wildlife Policy of

Tanzania (WPT);

96

The opportunities are realistically implementable; and, All opportunities, when implemented in the aggregate, will increase revenues for all

stakeholders, the government, the districts, and the local communities. Four major economic opportunities were analysed out of a long list of some 14 opportunities identified. These were: Tourism (trophy) and resident hunting; Photo (non-consumptive) tourism; Improved beekeeping and collection centres for honey, beeswax and other beekeeping by

products established as wholesale markets for the producers and for quality control purposes; and,

Natural forest management (NFM)

The literature review, fieldwork, and quantitative analysis for this study were carried out during the April 16-May 14, 2000 period with the aid of an economic model constructed on EXCEL’2000. The model includes templates for all of the individual activities and in the aggregate from the perspectives of the AA representing the local communities and the WMA, and the GOT (WD and the districts). The results generated by the model also show the extent to which the different stakeholders (the GOT, districts, the AA itself, and the local communities) gain or lose as a result of the WMA designation. Included among the variables in the model are the revenue-sharing arrangements needed to ensure feasibility among the individual interventions and in the aggregate. These sharing arrangements were also used as calibrating mechanisms in the sense that the WMA management structure, the AA, must be able to cover all costs in order to carry out its mandated tasks. These costs include not only the capital and operating costs of the AA itself, but also the contributions to the GOT, the Districts, and the local villages. The net revenues generated for the AA consist, first and foremost, of the portions of the block, game, and conservation fees previously collected by the government. As the AA now takes a percentage of these revenues, the GOT and District’s revenues must decline correspondingly. To offset these declines, however, the additional economic opportunities identified in this study must generate new revenues for all stakeholders. These activities—photo tourism, beekeeping and collection centres, and NFM, must at least make up or exceed the shortfalls in revenues collected from hunting. The results based on a hypothetical WMA of some 1,100 km2 in size clearly showed that all of the criteria for feasibility were met by the opportunities analysed. The main results are presented below.

Table 12: Results: WMA Economic Opportunities

Opportunities NPV at 25%

TSh IRR WMA (AA) aggregate results 17,298,096 32.6% Trophy and resident hunting 185,026,185 NA Photo tourism 38,490,655 NA Individual beekeepers 326,663 65.6% Collection centre, aggregate 8,370,337 34.7% Natural forest management (NFM) 1,901,4791 NA

97

All of the interventions analysed are strongly feasible from the AA perspective as indicated by the results. From the government, district, and village perspectives, the main results are presented in three graphs below. Beginning with the government revenues, the results indicate that the revenue stream per km2 of GCA with a WMA designation reaches parity with the “without” WMA designation in year 5, after which the revenues will increase by more than 25 percent, from $40 to $51 per km2. The second graph shows that the breakeven parity is reached in year 2, after which the revenues collected “with” overtake the revenues “without” WMA designation. In short, the increased revenues collected from the other activities, photo tourism, beekeeping, and NFM, more than offset the reduced revenues collected from the hunting activities. The key finding here is that the broader base of income- generating activities on the same area allows the government to collect more revenues than was possible from the hunting activity alone, even though the percentage of the revenues collected from hunting has decreased.

98

Both of the above graphs show the “with” and “without” WMA scenarios over time, holding the GOT and district revenue streams constant at the USD 40 and USD 10 per km2, respectively. The implicit assumption here is that the same level of revenues will be generated in the future as has been generated in the past. This is not an unrealistic assumption since the revenues are based on a fixed number of hunting blocks (their size and configuration rarely change), fixed game fees, and a fixed annual permit for the right to the concession. These fixed prices have not changed for several years and there is no evidence that they will change in the future. Hence, the projection of GOT/district revenues are straight lines under the “without” WMA scenario. The last graph shows the extent to which the WMA designation can directly benefit the villages. The Authorised Association (AA) will operate on a for-profit basis in terms of its WMA management; i.e., the activities included for AA support must be proven to be financially and economically feasible. In its function as representing the villages, however, the AA operates as not-for-profit institution in the sense that excess cash flows over and beyond the costs of managing the WMA could be siphoned off to fund community development projects, or used as a source of credit for individual farmers, or simply distributed to the villagers in the forms of cash dividends. It will be for the AA’s to decide how these funds should be allocated. The net revenues generated are far in excess of what the local villages currently receive as a matter of routine budgetary allocations from the District Councils, and possibly from village-level economic initiatives, if there are any. If the AA manages the WMA in accordance with the Guidelines, then, by definition, the results will also be consistent with meeting other development and policies as well, namely: a) the WD policy of wildlife conservation, b) the forestry policy of sustainable forest management, c) the Forestry and Beekeeping Division’s policy of increased and improved honey and beeswax production, and d) the Tourism Division’s policy of providing quality tourism experiences for visitors to Tanzania. The NGO community involvement in the wildlife sector should also be highly supportive of this development for the same reasons. 8.5.2 Application Of The Findings Of The EPIQ Model To Study Area Proposals The table overleaf provides a breakdown on one table of all the discrete parcels of land described in detail in section 8.4 above. In summary, the breakdown for each NRM activity discussed in section 8.4, in aggregate terms, is as follows: Bee Reserves is estimated at 174 km2;

99

Forest Reserves is estimated at 9,660 km2; Game Reserves is estimated at 50,830 km2; Wildlife Management Areas is estimated at 26,176 km2; and, Total area under potential natural resource management from which an income stream can be

derived is estimated at 86,840 km2. For the purposes of this analysis the area under training (area 6) and irrigation (area 5) are not included. Moreover, to be able to demonstrate some illustrative benefits (income, jobs and taxes) the results of the EPIQ model based on their hypothetical WMA (see box below) have been applied to this area.

Box 2: Profile Of A Hypothetical WMA For purposes of the analysis, the Team created a hypothetical WMA of 1,100 km2 in size, all within the jurisdiction of one District comprising several villages. The entire area is converted to a WMA from GCA lands currently occupied by one tourism-hunting block, 700 km2 in size and one resident hunting block of 400 km2 in size. The area is also situated along a national park with a common border stretching for at least 50 kilometres. The topography is assumed to be fairly flat with rolling hills. A few seasonal streams cut across the area. The dominant vegetation consists of grasslands and degraded Mambo woodlands. As in all GCA’s, farming is taking place around and near villages—it has expanded into the hunting blocks for several years prior to the WMA designation. Livestock grazing and wildlife have co-existed in the area for centuries and will continue in the future. Competitive land pressures are increasingly felt by the herders, however, as the herds increase and the pasture declines in quantity and quality. In short, all of the problems and issues discussed above are present, which will have to be resolved through carefully developed LUPs once the AA is in place and operating. The area is delineated from the existing political and administrative boundaries, not ecological parameters. The latter would be a formidable, if not an impossible, task. A smooth transition from GCA to WMA can only be achieved if the current village lands (inside the ex-GCA’s) are retained with minimal disturbance to the existing boundaries. The trade off is that migratory routes between the WMA’s, the game reserves, the national parks and other protected areas will be at greater risk unless other measures are taken outside of a WMA designation to ensure that the corridors remain open. Land swaps between villages or WMA’s are not politically or administratively feasible according to most informants interviewed. Obviously, it would be far preferable to delineate the WMA’s along ecological parameters to ensure continuous corridor migration in perpetuity. Since corridors have already been severely compromised, however, these areas needed will not be included as part of the WMA application. Therefore, their restoration to viability as wildlife corridors must be prioritised for attention by the government and the donor community and be addressed separately. WMA designation cannot be done in isolation from addressing this issue—if the wildlife corridors cease to exist, so eventually will the WMA’s. This hypothetical WMA is considered representative or most of the areas under consideration in this report. A simple linear application of the hypothetical WMA of 1,100 km2 to the 26,840km2 of proposed area under WMA’s is substantial (see summary of benefits and costs overleaf). The results of the application are: Over a 10 year period at total income of approx. USD 36,7 million could be realised as

follows: - USD 8,7 million from beekeeping (23.5%); - USD 21,7 million from hunting (59%); - USD 6,1 million from tourism (16.5%); and, - USD 0,6 million from national forestry management (1%)22.

22 This is considered a vast underestimate but as there is no quality data on the stock of the forestry resources in the Study Area, it is very difficult to make an assessment of the economic value and potential revenue streams from NFM activities within designated WMA’s. This is a large knowledge gap in the general understanding of the forestry resource in the deep southern reaches of the Miombo woodlands in Lindi, Mtwara, Iringa and Ruvuma regions of Tanzania. A key recommendation of this study is the need to undertake a stock assessment of the forestry resource along the proposed Mbamba Bay-Mtwara road, develop a generic “business model” for the sustainable harvesting of this resource, prepare model JV contracts between private sector and community stakeholders to inform the process of setting up WMA’s (or VLFR’s) in the specific areas proposed in this report.

101

However, over a 10 year period total costs of managing the WMA’s are estimated at USD 29

million are incurred or which USD 6,9 million accrues to central and USD 2,8 million accrues to local government in the form of taxes. This yields a net cash flow of approx. USD 7,65 million for the private sector partner, which means an average of approx. USD 300,000 or USD 30,000 p.a from each WMA. It is estimated that an estimated USD 10,1 million would be available for community projects, which translated into approx USD 1 million p.a or USD 40,000 per WMA p.a. It should be noted that a high quality investor is required and would have to participate in a group (e.g., 10) of WMA’s to make it attractive enough, given that even under the good conditions assumed under the model the investor would have to carry the investment for the first 5 years of WMA operation, without any return on capital invested.

Over a 10 year period at total jobs of approx. 45,775 could be realised as follows: - 22,500 from beekeeping; - 1,400 from collection centres; - 3,375 from forestry; and, - 5,000 from WMA management and administration..

8.5.3 Conclusions And Recommendations Although somewhat dated (2000) the core conclusions and recommendation of the EPIQ study are still highly relevant today, particularly in providing strong caveats to the realisation of the potentials described in section 8.5.2 above. Conclusion 1: The overall conclusion drawn is simply a strong affirmation of the recently adopted WPT and WMA concept, which is now a reality. Devolving the management of wildlife to the local communities under WMA designation will increase the economic well being for all stakeholders, the government, the districts, and the local communities. In fact, the implementation of this option is probably the only realistic avenue available to the WD given its lack of adequate funding to carry out its mandated task to conserve wildlife and its habitat. Recommendations Pertaining To Conclusion 1: The successful implementation of the WMA concept, however, is fraught with constraints and caveats that must all be resolved before declaring victory. Some of these are listed below along with recommendations on how to address them: 1. In most rural communities, the capacity for planning and managing business enterprises is

very low. This is not insurmountable, however. The focus must be on the structure of the AA, the needed expertise must be hired from the outside while local capacities are being continually strengthened. The recommendations are as follows: The WMA Guidelines and legislative framework do reflect that the AA’s are free to hire

the best and most competent management expertise to be able to manage the WMA to the maximum benefit of the local member communities within the constraints imposed by the guidelines. Such a structure is costed in the modelling framework developed for this study.

Stakeholders should meet in a series of workshops (with donor involvement) before start up intended to build partnership cohesion and transparency into the WMA creation and operation process, and to identify technical and other support topics in which the intended providers of technical services must be retooled.

2. Although the Guidelines specify what will and will not be allowed under a WMA designation,

the AA’s, the supporting NGO’s, and the government stakeholders in the wildlife sector must receive considerable training in how to maintain a proper balance between wildlife and natural resource conservation and economic objectives.

102

Table 13: Summary of Benefits and Costs Based On Hypothetical WMA

Benefits Costs Available for

Collection Tourism Non-Cons. Total Central District WMA Net Community

Year Centres Hunting Tourism NFM Benefits Government Council Costs Cash Flow Projects

1 0 66548504 0 0 66548504 12053946 4017982 132270938 -65722434 $0

2 0 67179920 14720043 0 81899963 15118494 5530166 57772670 24127293 $30,159

3 3797280 67817651 17154512 0 88769442 16486589 6193923 99672021 -10902579 $0

4 10337040 68461758 19636198 750000 99184996 18563840 7212055 78742405 20442591 $25,553

5 20252160 69112307 23332423 750000 113446890 21410301 8614586 85721398 27725492 $34,657

6 34175520 69769361 23565747 750000 128260628 24367072 10072066 90135648 38124980 $47,656

7 52740000 70432985 23801405 750000 147724390 28253788 11994309 95944607 51779783 $64,725

8 52740000 71103246 24039419 750000 148632665 28429345 12060762 96186618 52446047 $65,558

9 52740000 71780210 24279813 750000 149550023 28606659 12127880 96431049 53118974 $66,399

10 52740000 72463943 24522611 750000 150476554 28785745 12195669 96677924 53798630 $67,248

NPV 17298096

IRR 32.6%

% 23.8% 59.1% 16.6% 0.4% 100.0%

Available for

Over A 10 Year Collection Tourism Non-Cons. Total Central District WMA Net Community

Period Centers Hunting Tourism NFM Benefits Government Council Costs Cash Flow Projects

Total - Single WMA 349,403 868,337 243,815 6,563 1,468,118 277,595 112,524 1,161,944 306,173 401,955Total - 25 WMA's 8,735,063 21,708,434 6,095,380 164,063 36,702,939 6,939,868 2,813,106 29,048,602 7,654,337 10,048,875

Benefits Costs

103

Table 15: Jobs Created As A Result Of WMA Designation Based On A Hypothetical WMA

Beekeeping NFM Collection Centres WMA HQ (AA) Grand Total

Year # Jobs Days/Yr Years Eq. # Jobs Days/Yr Years Eq. # Jobs Days/Yr Years Eq. # Jobs Days/Yr Years Eq. Years Eq.

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 36570 141 141

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 36570 141 141

3 30 960 4 0 0 0 7 5810 22 20 36570 141 167

4 60 1920 7 19 5000 19 7 5810 22 20 36570 141 190

5 90 2880 11 19 5000 19 7 5810 22 20 36570 141 193

6 120 3840 15 19 5000 19 7 5810 22 20 36570 141 197

7 150 4800 18 19 5000 19 7 5810 22 20 36570 141 201

8 150 4800 18 19 5000 19 7 5810 22 20 36570 141 201

9 150 4800 18 19 5000 19 7 5810 22 20 36570 141 201

10 150 4800 18 19 5000 19 7 5810 22 20 36570 141 201

Total 900 28800 111 135 35000 135 56 46480 179 200 365700 1407 1831

Over A 10 Year Grand TotalPeriod # Jobs Days/Yr Years Eq. # Jobs Days/Yr Years Eq. # Jobs Days/Yr Years Eq. # Jobs Days/Yr Years Eq. Years Eq.

Total - Single WMA 900 28800 111 135 35000 135 56 46480 179 200 365700 1407 1831Total - 25 WMA 22500 720000 2775 3375 875000 3375 1400 1162000 4475 5000 9142500 35175 45775

Beekeeping NFM Collection Centers WMA HQ (AA)

104

Conclusion 2: Although the results indicate that the economic opportunities analysed are strongly feasible, there is a gap of some four to five years during which the revenues collected with WMA designation by government stakeholders fall short of the revenues collected without the WMA. This revenue gap may, by itself, prove to be the downfall of WMA’s unless due attention is paid to this particular problem early in the process. Recommendations Pertaining To Conclusion 2: 1. The GOT should seek bridging support to cover this period of revenue shortfall. Herein lies an

excellent opportunity for the donor community (because WMA designation fits perfectly with the conservation, poverty alleviation, governance, gender, and sustainability agendas of most donors as clearly articulated in their policies for assistance). The assumptions made in the model for the base case analysis included staggering the activities to ease the AA management burden during the early years. This means that the revenues generated from some activities are delayed for up to four years with corresponding impacts on the feasibility results. If the donors were to support the AA with training, technical assistance and other support, however, it would be possible to launch all activities during the first year while actively looking for more activities to add to the portfolio much earlier. In this way, the AA’s would be capacitated to manage effectively sooner than later and the net cash flows would be such that the gap could be substantially shortened. Moreover, it is also essential to generate positive cash flows early on to make sure that funding will be available for the villages. A delay of several years before this occurs can derail the process resulting in increased poaching.

2. The four to five year net revenue gap is not only attributable to the AA capacity limitations, it could also be attributable to initially poorly developed markets (for honey, beeswax, charcoal, etc.), poor quality products, and inadequate infrastructure. It takes time for product quality to advance from poor, to adequate, to superior, before markets emerge and supply regularity become well entrenched. Not only is this a matter of investing in the value-added equipment and the like, it is also a matter of working more effectively and producing better products and/or services as a result of capacity building. To this end, it is recommended that: Programs in management, marketing, accounting and economics be launched (perhaps

with donor support); Producers (of honey and related products, fuel wood and charcoal, and other products)

and prospective buyers should arrange to meet for the purpose of discussing regularity of supply, prices, and product quality specifications; and

Investments required by all stakeholders (government, NGO’s, AA, and individuals) be identified and costed throughout the entire marketing and distribution chain.

Conclusion 3: Although the results indicate that the economic opportunities analysed are strongly feasible, this is only the beginning, or probably the low end of the net benefits that a WMA designation will be able to generate. The EPIQ Team identified several economic opportunities in addition to those analysed. These were not included simply because the Team did not have the time nor resources to carry out the needed field visits to document the opportunities in detail. These and other opportunities are real and will likely be highly applicable in many potential future WMA’s. With the analytical approach developed here, it would be a simple matter to add the analysis of opportunities as they emerge. Given the above criteria for feasibility, any new opportunity proven feasible will, by definition, add to or further strengthen, the aggregate feasibility results reported here.

105

Recommendations Pertaining To Conclusion 3: 1. The Guidelines specify that all economic opportunities should be subjected to financial and

economic scrutiny by the government and NGO stakeholder community before being accepted as worthy of support. The capacity within the stakeholder community in Tanzania to carry out such analysis is low, however. The recommendation, therefore, is that the WD, TANAPA, and other government stakeholders agree to prioritise capacity building in this area and to approach the donor community for the needed support.

2. The modelling framework developed for purposes of this study is a significant beginning. It

was, however, developed only in order to generate a report. It is recommended that the model be transformed into a user-friendly tool that WD and others will be able to use directly for decision-making and monitoring. Once the users input credible data, the outputs will provide a reasonably accurate indication of whether the economic opportunity being tested is financially and economically worthwhile. User friendliness simply means that the user will be fully apprised of the meaning and significance of the variable as he or she specifies the inputs, and the results. In its current form, the model contains much more information than is reported in this current document. Additions and modifications to the model could be funded on an as needed basis.

3. Once the current modelling framework has been transformed into a user-friendly version, additional funding should be sought for training in how to apply the modelling framework, including the fundamentals of financial and economic analysis.

106

References − The Land Act, 1999, United Republic of Tanzania − The Village Land Act, 1999, United Republic of Tanzania − The Wildlife Conservation Act 1974, United Republic of Tanzania − The WMA Regulations, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism − The Guidelines for establishment of WMA, − The Forest Act, 2002, United Republic of Tanzania − The Forest Regulations 2004, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism − The Beekeeping Act, 2002, United Republic of Tanzania − The Fisheries Act, 2003, United Republic of Tanzania − The Local Government (District Authorities) Act 1982, United Republic of Tanzania − Fortschrittsbericht zur deutschen bilateralen Entwicklungszusammenarbeit im Waldsektor,

Oktober 2004. Kabinettvorlage des Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung, Datenblatt 15-23003

− Project Support Document for the “Development and Management of the Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor”, final draft 25th November 2004, The Government of the United Republic of Tanzania and the United Nations Development Programme.

− * Reference Manual for Implementing Guidelines for the Designation and Management of Wildlife Management Areas (WMA’s) in Tanzania, March 2003, United Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Wildlife Division

− John Holmes, Natural forest handbook for Tanzania − Stephen Mariki, Vincent Shauri, Catherine Vignon, Bert Koppers, Development of

Guidelines and Regulations regarding the sharing of Costs and Forest Revenues/Benefits in Participatory Forest Management PFM) in Tanzania, First Draft 27th August 2004

− * V. Booth, G. Nangale and H. Majamba, Procedures for communities to enter into joint ventures in WMA’s, Tanzania Wildlife Discussion Paper No. 31

− * Baldus, R.D., Hahn, R., Mpanduji, D.G., Siege, L. et al., 2003. The Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor. Tanzania Wildlife Discussion Paper No. 34, Selous Conservation Programme, GTZ. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

− CIMU, 2001. Aerial census in the Selous-Niassa Corridor, wet and dry season, 2000. Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute, Arusha Tanzania.

− Hahn, R., 2001. Expert meeting: Selous–Niassa Wildlife Corridor information materials. Selous Conservation Programme/GTZ/UNDP/GEF. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, April 2001

− * Hofer, H., Hildebrandt, T.H., East, M.L., Goeritz, F., Mpanduji, D.G., Hahn, R., Siege, L., Baldus, R.D. (2004). Distribution and Movements of elephants and other wildlife in the Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor, Tanzania. Tropical Ecology Support Programme. Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

− C. C. Mahundi, draft wildlife study for the Environmental Baseline Study of the Ruvuma Interface, December 2004

− Dr. D. Mpanduji, draft biodiversity study of the Environmental Baseline Study of the Ruvuma Interface, December 2004

− World Wide Fund for Nature/Tanzania Programme Office (2004). The Ruvuma-Selous Miombo Programme. Report Presented to Potential Finance Agencies.

− Peter Norton and Associates, draft tourism study of the Environmental Baseline Study of the Ruvuma Interface, 2005;

− Rudi Hahn, draft legal and insitutional study of the Environmenal Baseline Study of the Ruvuma Interface, 2004.

− Bariki Kaale, draft forestry and beekeeping study of the Environmental Baseline Study of the Ruvuma Interface, 2004;

− Pascal Malesa, draft socio-economic and infrastructure profiles of the Environmental Baseline Study of the Ruvuma Inteface, 2004.

107

Appendix 1 – Socio Economic Profiles Mbinga District; Songea Rural District; Nantumbo District; Tunduru District; and, Masasi District.

112

Appendix 2 – Infrastructure Profiles ROAD NETWORK: • Mbinga District; • Songea Rural District; • Nantumbo District; • Tunduru District; and, • Masasi District. WATER SUPPLY: • Mbinga District; • Songea Rural District; • Nantumbo District; • Tunduru District; and, • Masasi District.

113

MBINGA ROAD NETWORK Code Name Type Distance

(Km) Make Condition

T1 T2 R1 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 F1 F2

Mbinga-Mkako Mbinga-Mbamba Bay Mbinga-Mpepai-Mitomoni Mbinga-Kitanda Kitanda-Kizuka Mbinga-Kikolo Kilimani-Litindo Nyoni-Liparamba Kilosa-Chiwindi Mkako-Lusonga Tingi-Mpepo

Trunk Trunk Regional District District District District District District Feeder Feeder

Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth

Good Good Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Poor Good Fair Poor

SONGEA RURAL ROAD NETWOK Code Name Type Distance

(Km) Make Condition

T1 T2 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9

Songea-Litola Songea-Liganga Songea-Namatuhi Namatuhi-Nakawale M/Mhalule-Magaura Magagura-Ngahokora Namatuhi-M/Barabarani M/Barabarani-Nakawale Lipaya-Namatuhi Magagura-Kizuka Magagura-Lusonga M/Lilai M/Lilai-Magwamila Mpitimbi A-Litapwasi Namatuhi-Nambenda Songea-Mpingi-Kikunja Songea-Liula-Matimira Utwango-Mdwema-Matimira-Kikunja

Trunk Trunk District District District District District District District Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder

Earth Earth/Tmac Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth

Good Good Good Good Good Fair Good Poor Good Poor Good Good Poor Poor Fair Fair Fair Fair

NAMTUMBO ROAD NETWOK Code Name Type Distance

(Km) Make Condition

T1 T2 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 F1 F2 F3 F4

Namtumbo-Litola Namtumbo-Kilimasera Litola-Nakawale Nahoro-Nakawale Nakawale-Mwangaza Ligera-Njomlole Mwangaza-Ulamboni-Milonji Limamu Road Ligera-Lusewa Lusewa-Magazini Namanguli-Chengena Ligera-Mtelawamwahi Lusewa-Matepwende Magazini-Likusanguse

Trunk Trunk District District District District District District District District Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder

Earth Earth Gravel Earth Gravel Gravel Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth

Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Fair Poor Poor Poor Poor

114

TUNDURU ROAD NETWOK Code Name Road Type Distance

(Km,) Make Condition

T1 T2 R1 R2 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20 F21 F22 F23 F24 F25 F26 F27 F28 F29 F30 F31 F32 F33 F34 F35 F36 F37 F38 F39 F40 F41

Tunduru-Lumesule Tunduru-Kilimasera Tunduru-Wenje Azimio-Kazamoyo Tunduru-Namasakata-Misechela Nalasi-Njenga-Sasawala Kangomba-Misyaje Nandembo-Nampungu Mjimwema-Ngapa Mkowela-Tinginya Chechem-Ligoma-Msinji Sisi kwa sisi-Cheleweni Mkapunda-Ligoma Mwongozo-Mchuruka Tuwemacho-Namasalau Tuwemacho-Mtina Namasakata-Mayemtwaro-Misechela Namasakata-Nasya Namasakata-Naikula-Mkasale Ligoma-Namasakata Kazamoyo-Imani Lukumbule-Makande Lukumbule-Mrusha Lukumbule-Lukala-Makandu Mbesa-Chikomo- Mbesa-Mbati-Maruma Mbesa-Lijombo Nalasi-Nasomba-Lukala Wenje-Likweso-Marumba-Misyaje Marumba-Njenga Mbati-Mpanji Mkwajuni-Nandembo Kidodoma-Chijila-Kitalo Machemba-Chiwana Nampungu-Mbatamila Nandembo-Tumaini Mtonya-Liwangula Mtonya-Tulieni Mjimwema-Ngapa Nakapanya-Mindu Tinginya-Ngapa Ligunga-Twendembele Tabora-Fundimbanga Matemanga-Kajima Kajima-Kalulu Milonde-Ndenyende Jaribuni-Kindamba Kindamba-Ligunga Mkapunda-Lelolelo Mchangani-Kidugalo-Mwongozo Masonya-Njiapanda-Masonya Mifugo

Trunk Trunk Regional Regional Regional District District District District District Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder

92 128 88 57 48 26 59 29 25 34 19

6 18

5 5

23 37 11 13

5 5

19 6

49 10 24

4 37 49 14

5 8

15 16 13

8 23 11 25

8 25 13

6 15 24

5 13 16

8 12 10

Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth/Murram Murram Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth

Good Good Good Good Poor Fair Good Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Good Poor Poor Poor Fair Poor Fair Poor Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Good Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Fair Fair Poor Fair Poor Poor Fair Good Poor Poor Poor Fair Good Poor Poor Fair

115

MASASI ROAD NETWOK Code Name Type Distance

(Km) Make Condition

T1 T2 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 D11 D12 D13 D14 D15 D16 D17 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6

Masasi-Lumesule Masasi-Mkwera Masasi-Nambanga Masasi-Nanyumbu Mangaka-Nanyumbu Nangomba-Masuguru-Mtambaswala Mbuyuni-Makong’onda Mpeta-Lupaso-Njawara Napacho-Michiga Mkonona-Nanyumbu Sengenya-Maratani Chitowe-Maratani Maratani-Songambele Nanjota-Milunda Luatala-Sindano Nagaga-Lulindi Mkululu-Lulindi Chiwata-Chigugu Chanikanguo-Chiwata Mbonde-Namatutwe Masasi-Nandete Makong’ondera-Chikoropola Nangose-Chiwale Lukuledi-Nambawala-Chiwale Nagaga-Nguni Maratini-Lipupu Makong’ondera-Ching’wande Mpombe-Ndechela Chungu-Lukwika Michiga-Makong’ondera Chiwata-Nandimba

Trunk Trunk Regional Regional Regional Regional Regional Regional District District District District District District District District District District District District District District District District District Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder Feeder

103 72 61 22 30 71 33 33 27 11 9

20 20 7

20 8

13 16 23 33 23 13 23 32 9 7 7

10 9.4 9.0

6

Earth Tarmac Earth/Murram Murram Murram Murram Murram Murram Murram Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth Earth

Good Good Good Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Poor Poor Poor Fair Fair Good Good Fair Good Good Fair Fair Good Poor

116

MBINGA RURAL WATER SUPPLY WATER SUPPLY WARD VILLAGE H/HOLD

NOS POP

GS HP ITW

P STATUS

KIGONSERA Kigonsera A/Makoro Mkako Lihale Mihango Litorongi

1,307 403 1,502 449 480 484

6,248 1,927 7,181 2,144 2,293 2,312

√ √ √ √

Good Good Good Good

UTIRI Utiri Lupilo Masimeri Mtama Kitanda Mahande

631 362 674 600 572 207

3,017 1,730 3,223 2,867 2,735 988

√ √

√

Good

Good Good

MBANGAMAO Mbangamao Uzena Kikolo Kagugu Makatani Maganagana Lifakara Njomlole

636 300 105 454 560 388 282 359

3,040 1,432 504 2,172 2,677 1,853 1,347 1,714

√

Good

NYONI Nyoni Kihulila Likwela Kihereketi Mawono

903 317 397 515 0

4,319 1,515 1,898 2,461 1

√ √ √

Good Good Good

MPAPA Mitawa Buruma Mitanga Chunya Mpapa

315 640 165 42 648

1,508 3,058 790 200 3,098

√ √

Good Good

MPEPAI Mpepai Lipilipili Luhangai Mtua Lipembe Kihungu

836 524 365 441 322 194

3,994 2,503 1,746 2,109 1,537 929

√

Good

KINGIRIKITI Kingirikiti Litindo Asili Luhangarasi Lumeme Kikole Ukuli Lumecha Kimbango

458 401 868 670 397 433 236 338

2,189 1,915 4,148 3,203 1,899 2,069 1,128 1,616

√ √

Good Good

TINGI Tingi Mpepo Luhindo Malungu Upolo Lunyele Kilindinda

703 695 347 445 433 1,680 381

3,358 3,320 1,659 2,126 2,072 8,031 1,819

√ √ √ √ √

√ √

Good Good Good Good

Good

117

MBINGA RURAL WATER SUPPLY (CONTINUED)

WATER SUPPLY WARD VILLAGE H/HOLD NOS

POP GS HP ITW

P

STATUS

KILOSA Kilosa Ruhekei Nangombo Likwilu

570 217 308 420

2,727 1,037 1,471 2,006

√ √ √

√

Good Good Good Good

CHIWANDA Mtupale Ng’ombo Chimate Kwambe

243 425 377 356

1,162 2,033 1,802 1,700

√

Good

MTIPWILI Mtipwili Matenje Chiulu Malini

335 258 507 244

1,602 1,234 2,425 1,166

LIPARAMBA Mseto Liparamba Mipotopoto Ndondo Mitomoni

174 605 260 512 353

832 2,890 1,241 2,446 1,689

√

√

√

Good

Good KILIMANI Kilimani

Mkwaya Rudisha Sepukila Nzopai Mhekela

424 448 111 470 354 326

2,027 2,139 531 2,247 1,691 1,558

√ √ √ √

Good Good

Good

Good

MBAMBA BAY Mbamba Bay Ndengele Chinula Ndesule

578 205 636 343

2,761 978 3,040 1,637

√ √ √ √

Good Good Good Good

Note: GS = Gravity Scheme with River Intake and Pipe Distribution HP = Hand Pump with shallow well HD = Hydram Scheme with Distribution Pipes ITW = Improved Traditional Wells P = Pumping Using Diesel Pumps SONGEA RURAL WATER SUPPLY

WATER SUPPLY WARD VILLAGE H/HOLDS No.

POPULA TION GS HP HD

STATUS

MUHUKURU M/Lilai M/Barabarani M/Nakawale Magwamila

756 1,015 467 178

3,516 4,548 2,305 792

√ √ √ √

MAGAGURA Magagura Massangu Ngahokora Kizuka Lusonga Lipokela Matomondo M/Mhalule Nakahegwa

632 355 578 420 488 358 319 504 410

2,507 2,090 2,412 1,931 2,237 1,398 1,381 2,014 2,026

√ √ √ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

MPITIMBI Mpitimbi A Mpitimbi B Liyangweni Litapwasi Lipaya

720 485 321 661 684

3,096 2,078 1,393 2,783 2,840

√ √

√ √ √

118

SONGEA RURAL WATER SUPPLY (CONTINED)



STATUS

NDONGOSI Ndongosi Nambendo Namatuhi

385 223 491

1,913 1,239 2,118

√ √

√

MATIMIRA Mpangula Matimira Liula Kikunja Mpingi

145 658 677 153 259

700 3,134 3,241 996 1,298

√ √ √ √

√

Note: GS = Gravity Scheme with River Intake and Pipe Distribution HP = Hand Pump with shallow well HD = Hydram Scheme with Distribution Pipes ITW = Improved Traditional Wells P = Pumping Using Diesel Pumps NAMTUMBO RURAL WATER SUPPLY



STATUS

MKONGO Njalamatata M/Nakawale Limamu Mtakujalikonde Mwangaza

408 955 549 151 338

2904 6396 3680 1012 1935

√ √ √

√ √ √

Good Good Good Good Good

LULICHI M/Gulioni Nahimba Namanguli Kilangalanga Chengena

571 63 543 495 353

3558 416 3802 3265 2331

√ √

√ √ √ √


LIGERA Ligera Njomlole Namahoka Matepwende Mtelawamwahi Ulamboni

502 273 233 371 232 295

4114 1832 1559 2484 1607 1976

√ √ √ √ √

√

Good Good Good Good Good Good

LUSEWA Milonji Matepwende Msisima Lusewa Ligunga

463 245 442 903 515

3149 2060 3006 5959 3505

√

√ √ √

Good

Good Good Good

MAGAZINI Magazini Amani Likusanguse

621 176 336

4223 1196 1321

√ √ √

Good Good Good

Note: GS = Gravity Scheme with River Intake and Pipe Distribution HP = Hand Pump with shallow well HD = Hydram Scheme with Distribution Pipes ITW = Improved Traditional Wells P = Pumping Using Diesel Pumps

119

TUNDURU RURAL WATER SUPPLY WATER SUPPLY WARD VILLAGE H/HOLD

No. POPULA

TION GS HP HD

P STATUS

LIGUNGA Ligunga Mtengashari

879 431

3,922 1,868

√ √

Good Good

MATEMANGA Changarawe Fundimbanga Matemanga Milonde

440 224 538 289

2014 1046 2462 1812

√ √

√ √

Good Good Good Good

HULIA Hulia Darajambili Namwinyu Namakungwa Ndenyende

294 134 413 501 387

1642 777 2482 2368 1659

√ √

√ √


MLINGOT EAST Mkalekawana Masonya Lelolelo Sisi kwa sisi Cheleweni M/East Town

322 205 234 711 558 700

1565 862 815 3177 2243 11,944

√ √ √

√

Good Good

Good Good

MLINGOTI WEST

Kitanda Malombe Mkonda (Town)

432 184 4857

2029 812 20126

√

Good

MINDU Namiungo 1255 5796 √ Good NAKAPANYA Nakapanya

Namakambale Mkowela

1087 1287 324

4381 5603 1287

√ √

Good Good

MUHUWESI Majimaji Muhuwesi Msagula Chingulungulu

1172 633 827 545

5988 3069 3552 2310

√ √ √

Good Good Good

TUWEMACHO Namasalau Tuwemacho Chemchem Nasya

591 650 193 411

2545 2772 845 1851

√ √ √ √

Good Good Good Good

LIGOMA Mwongozo Mchuluka Msinji Makoteni Ligoma

425 358 290 432 428

2000 1429 1567 2149 1881

√ √ √ √

Good Good

Good Good

MISECHELA Liwanga Misechela Meya Mtwaro Chiungo

278 390 393 371

1345 1920 1750 2016

√ √

√

Good Good Good

NAMASAKATA Mkotamo Mkasale Naikula Amani Namasakata

295 298 270 855 2220

1400 1428 1109 4148 4152

√

√ √

√ √


MTINA Azimio Semeni Muungano Angalia

573 734 1167 582

2675 3590 4930 3057

√ √ √ √

Good Good Good Good

120

TUNDURU RURAL WATER SUPPLY (CONTINUED) WATER SUPPLY WARD VILLAGE H/HOLD

No. POPULA

TION GS HP HD

P STATUS

MCHESI Mwenge Mchesi Mrusha Lukala

321 548 356 324

1291 2479 1843 1552

√ √ √

Good Good

Good

LUKUMBULE Imani Kazamoyo Tulingane Mitwana Lukumbule

140 591 191 182 651

471 2631 742 820 2644

√ √

Good

Good NALASI Lukumbo

Lipepo Nasomba Chilundundu Wenje Nalasi

106 460 176 945 606 415

567 2311 721 4700 2527 1922

√ √ √

Good

Good

Good

MCHOTEKA Mnemasi Kitani Mchoteka Mkolola Likweso Njenga

107 384 452 510 305 372

508 1870 2159 2636 1293 1759

√

√ √ √

Good Good Good

Good

MARUMBA Misyaje Mpanji Mbati Ndabwa Masuguru Molandi Marumba

278 97 440 337 572 472 532

1438 507 2483 1651 2925 2585 2887

√

√ √ √ √ √

Good


MBESA Mkandu Chiwana Chikomo Lijombo Mbesa

161 432 768 157 1308

679 1990 3784 816 6787

√ √ √ √ √

√


KIDODOMA Machemba Chajila Legezamwendo Kidodoma Mkwajuni

374 87 241 421 399

1762 321 1075 2025 1735

√

√ √

Good

Good

Good NANDEMBO Naluwale

Tumaini Majala Nandembo Amka Nangunguru

174 167 169 198 379 374

771 640 865 905 1828 1645

√ √ √ √

√

Good

Good Good Good Good

NAMPUNGU Kitalo Nampungu Mbatamila

301 261 362

1167 1061 1710

√ √

Good

Good Note: GS = Gravity Scheme with River Intake and Pipe Distribution HP = Hand Pump with shallow well HD = Hydram Scheme with Distribution Pipes ITW = Improved Traditional Wells P = Pumping Using Diesel Pumps

121

MASASI RURAL WATER SUPPLY WATER SUPPLY WARD VILLAGE H/HOLD

No. POPULA

TION GS HP HD

P STATUS

NANDETE Mtalikachau Ulanga Chakama

423 491 641

1631 1640 1988

√ √ √

Fair Fair

MARATANI Ngupe Maratini Lipupu Malema Mnanje (A) Mnanje (B) Holola Mikuva

392 570 392 380 412 503 237 332

1606 6548 2310 1314 1575 2035 1532 1532

√ √ √ √ √ √

Fair Fair

Fair Fair Fair Fair

MARIKA Mlundelunde Namatunu Namikunda

260 551 682

1889 2086 2666

√ √ √

Fair Fair

LISEKESE Mbonde

Mkapunda Mwenye Mtapika Temeke Mtakuja Nangose Namkungwi Matawale Mpekeso Makulani Sululu Tukaewote Mkarakate

838 564 398 464 878 550 355 379 500 682 610 378 633

8361 2372 1862 2756 3050 1773 1351 1122 1822 3550 2580 1787 2071

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Fair

Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair

Fair Fair Fair Fair

CHIGUGU Chigugu Mbemba Mbanju Mandiwa Maparawe Liloya Chikukwe

620 625 721 530 476 358 920

3224 3250 3749 2756 2475 1862 4784

√ √ √ √

√ √ √

Good Good Good Good Fair Fair Fair

NANGANGA Mkungu Namihungo Mkang’u

259 717 234

1347 3728 1217

√ √ √

Fair Fair Fair

MWENA Liputu Njenga Mpowora Mwena Mkalapa Chikundi

495 664 512 1516 670 767

3094 3515 2775 3618 2678 2348

√ √ √ √ √

√ √ √ √ √

Good Good Good Good Good Good

LIKOKONA Msinyasi

Makong’onda Michiga

230 260 467

1230 2345 7323

√ √ √

Fair Fair Fair Fair

NANYUMBU Nanderu Chungu Chitowe

436 242 306

1352 1044 1427

√ √

√

Fair Fair Fair Fair

122

MASASI RURAL WATER SUPPLY (CONTINUED)

WATER SUPPLY WARD VILLAGE H/HOLD No.


P

STATUS

NANYUMBU NANGUMBA MKONONA NANGUMBA

Chipuputa Mkohora Namasogo Namaguluvi Sengenya Mara Nachiuru Masyalele Chilunda Mitumbati Nahawara Mtokora Maswera Mwambani Mnonia Ngalinje Mangaka K/Hewa Ulungu

455 513 396 642 454 165 317 302 239 249 200 270 354 106 247 125 826 877 311

1429 1837 1419 2644 3433 633 1136 1129 1207 1298 613 1212 1190 409 2495 376 3200 3735 1358

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Fair Fair

Fair Fair Fair Fair

Fair Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

MCHAURU Maparawe Mchauru Mirewe Mkowo Mwitika Namombwe Nangomwa Rivango

338 479 456 250 319 371 143 262

1123 1530 1787 1009 984 1424 484 1320

√ √ √

√ √

Good Good Good

Good

MNAVIRA Chikoropola Geuza Makong’onda Mapili Manyuli Mkachima Mnavira Nakarara Namyomyo Mtojo

311 420 325 323 211 307 615 1018 306 309

1181 1107 1788 1329 798 1223 1968 3719 1010 1430

√ √

√

Good Fair

Fair

CHIUNGUTWA Chilimba Chiungutwa Mpeta Misechela Mipande Maugura Huwe

390 479 259 568 450 358 259

1270 1872 931 836 473 712 709

√ √ √

Fair Fair

Fair

NANJOTA Nairombo Nanjota Mijelejele Milunda Mambunda

296 822 884260 327

488 2693 1485 551 609

√ √ √ √

Fair Fair Fair

Fair

123

MASASI RURAL WATER SUPPLY (CONTINUED)

WATER SUPPLY WARD VILLAGE H/HOLD No.


P

STATUS

MBUYUNI Mbuyuni Mpulima Miungo Ndibwa Mitonji

705 393 281 482 351

1590 1261 349 726 1060

√ √

√ √ √

Good Fair Fair

Good Fair

NAMALENGA Namalenga Nagaga Mpilipili Mvita Mitesa Msanga Msokosela

649 430 366 160 173 211 151

3044 2100 1830 802 873 1057 753

√ √ √ √

√

Good Good Good Good Fair Fair

LULINDI Lulindi

Chiwambo Luagala Kivukoni Mkaseka

520 248 235 442 138

1605 905 1063 2000 700

√ √ √ √ √


MKULULU Mkululu Miba Mkundi Amani Mbugo Mpopo Mfuto

389 259 137 156 147 249 1337

2226 1232 695 624 779 681 1419

√

√ √ √

Good

Good

Good Fair

MKUNDI Mkoropola Nakalola Majembe Chipango Nakachindu

277 303 367 132 575

1107 1027 1467 931 1440

√ √

Fair

Fair

Note: GS = Gravity Scheme with River Intake and Pipe Distribution HP = Hand Pump with shallow well HD = Hydram Scheme with Distribution Pipes ITW = Improved Traditional Wells P = Pumping Using Diesel Pumps

124

Appendix 3 – Terms Of Reference

125

Terms of reference, in terms of the envisaged outputs and activities are framed for each of the three studies, viz: (i) Environmental Baseline Study for the NGR-Ruvuma River Interface, (ii) Tourism Destination Assessment Study for the NGR-Ruvuma River Interface and (iii) Environmental Baseline Study For NGR-Ruvuma River Interface: The consultant team shall prepare an environmental baseline study for the NGR-Ruvuma River Interface. The aim of this terms of reference is to frame the baseline understanding of the legaland insitutional, biophysical, infrastrucutral and socio-economic profile of the NGR-Ruvuma River Interface. The MtDC GIS facility should be the integration point for as much information as possible and that the information gaps that have been identified should be filled. Currently it is difficult to absorb and understand all the issues regarding the NGR-Ruvuma River Interface. Four specific outputs are envisaged under the GTZ CWMP, NFP-ISP and MtDC Process in TANZANIA: Specific Terms of Reference for the Team Leader: He will provide overall guidance to the project. His specific activities will be: To prepare a draft Concept Note to frame the scope of work for the project; To engage key stakeholders in Mozambique and Tanzania to obtain buy in for the project; To elaborate with interested donors the “division of labour” vis-à-vis activities to the

undertaken as part of the project; Finalise the Concept Note and draft terms of reference for each study; Integrate the outputs, activities, OVI’s, programme, budget and payment scheduling for each

component of the study to frame contractual agreements between nominated funders and their respective consultants;

To prepare contracts for studies to be funded from the MtDC SDI portal; To conduct inception meeting(s) to work up to an appropriate level of detail the phases of the

study, the components of the study and the mechanism(s) for integrating each of the specific studies;

To prepare a proposal for the logistics and modalities for mobilising the study team to such a remote location(s);

To prepare a proposal/criteria for defining the study area for the proposed studies; To provide a direct interface between the project team and the GIS specialist to ensure that

spatial data is adequately integrated into the MtDC GIS platform, in the process of being established at the NDC in support of the MtDC process;

To provide a direct interface between stakeholders in Tanzania and Mozambique to ensure adequate integration on both sides of the Ruvuma River;

To accompany the project team made up of himself, an institutional specialist, a biodiversity specialist, a wildlife specialist, an infrastructure specialist, a forestry specialist(s) a tourism specialist on a field trip and to undertake the key socio-economic and land use components of the study;

To gather information about infrastructure investments and its integration with unlocking economic potentials, notably trade and tourism, in collaboration with the tourism specialist;

To drive the preparation of the integration development framework and take responsibility for the distribution/dissemination of draft report(s) to members of the project team, project partners and the wider stakeholder base; and,

To oversee the mapping platform in close collaboration with the GIS specialist. The results will be available: - As input reports on the land use and socio-economic components; - As a integrated development framework report on the NGR-Ruvuma River Interface; and, - Compiled and mapped as baseline information on an MtDC GIS.

126

Specific Terms of Reference for the Institutional Specialist: He is the leader of the GTZ-CWMP team and he will contribute with his expertise and activities for the realisation of the outputs envisaged for the study. His specific activities will be: To collect sufficient information on the legal and institutional environment on the present

administrative boundaries, land utilisation and identify the focal points for natural resources utilisation (National Government, Ministries and Departments; Regional Administration and Local Government; non governmental institutions; communities). Natural resources utilisation in this study means wildlife, forestry, bee-keeping, fisheries.

To identify from legal and other documents and in the field the different terms of land

tenure/ownership, rights of natural resources utilisation and other land-legal issues relevant for the management of the NGR-Ruvuma Interface Zone and establishment of the Eastern Selous-Niassa wildlife corridor. The current or proposed boundaries of the present land utilisation will be an integral part of the MtDC GIS.

To explore the possibilities to integrate community based natural resources management

(wildlife, forestry, bee-keeping, fisheries on village land or forest reserves) according to the relevant laws and regulations of Tanzania into a conservation concept to develop a viable wildlife corridor.

To develop an alternative conservation and land management concept to establish

a viable wildlife corridor between SGR and NGR while interlinking existing protected areas with a possible network of village wildlife management areas. The concept will have to be integrated into the MtDC GIS.

To develop plans for the rehabilitation/development of conservation areas (game

reserves, forest reserves etc) in the corridor (including Lumesule-Lukwika). To guide the Biodiversity and Wildlife Experts.

To contribute to the mapping of: - Map 1: Current Administrative Boundaries; - Map 2: Current Land Use; - Map 3: Current Land Ownership; and, - Map 4: Current Natural Resource Utilisation (fisheries, forestry, wildlife and irrigation

rights). - Map 5: Concept of a wildlife corridor

The results will be available:

- As reports on the legal and institutional environment; - Compiled and mapped as baseline information and conservation; and, - Compiled and mapped as land management and conservation concept.

Specific Terms of Reference for the Biodiversity Specialist: He will contribute under the guidance of the Team Leader and the Institutional Specialist with his expertise and activities for the realisation of the outputs envisaged for the study. His specific activities will be: To examine all known research and gather sufficient information about the natural

environment like geology, broad soil patterns, hydrology, rainfall, climate and vegetation To identify catchment areas, wetlands and other hot spots of biodiversity that will need to be

addressed if the area is to be promoted as a tourist destination.

127

To determine the conservation and resource utilisation value and its sensitivity to disturbance

To identify areas whose value important for the conservation of the biodiversity or soil/water

conservation is already disturbed To contribute to the mapping of: - Map 6: Geology; - Map 7: Broad soil pattern; - Map 8: Hydrology - Map 9: Climate - Map 10: Topography; and, - Map 11: Vegetation.

• Assist the Institutional Specialist in all biodiversity related matters The results will be available: - As an input report on natural environment - Compiled and mapped as baseline information on a MtDC GIS Specific Terms of Reference for the Wildlife Specialist: He will contribute under the guidance of the Team Leader and the Institutional Expert with his expertise and activities for the realisation of the outputs envisaged for the study. His specific activities will be: To examine all known research and gather sufficient information about the wildlife (mammals,

birds, reptiles, fish) in order to make an assessment of their status; To gather information about and to identify current or proposed village wildlife management

areas, game reserves, game controlled areas, forest reserves and their current status of management;

To gather and evaluate data about the legal and illegal utilisation of natural resources in particular wildlife;

To gather information about bee-keeping activities in the area and the potential in collaboration with the Forestry Specialist;

To identify critical areas whose function are important for the conservation of wildlife; To gather and evaluate data about human-wildlife conflicts and to identify critical areas; To identify possible migration routes of wildlife; Assist the Institutional Expert in drawing up plans for the rehabilitation/development of

protected areas within the corridor; and, To contribute to the mapping of: - Map 12: Critical areas human/wildlife conflict; - Map 13: Current legal/illegal natural resource utilisation; - Map 14: Critical areas for wildlife utilisation; - Map 15: Conservation areas; - Map 16: Possible wildlife migration routes; and, - Map 17: Bee-keeping activities.

The results will be available: - As an input report on the natural resources; and, - Compiled and mapped as baseline information on a MtDC GIS. Specific Terms Of Reference For The Forestry And Beekeeping Specialists: The Forestry and Beekeeping Specialists (two specialists, the forestry specialist being a local consultant and the

128

beekeeping specialist being staff member of the Forestry and Beekeeping Divisions (FBD) of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT)) will be financed by the National Forest Program Implementation Support Project (NFP-ISP) financed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland. The two specialists will work jointly and they will contribute under the guidance of the Team Leader. Their specific tasks will be: To identify and map key concentrations of forest-based resources and production centres, both

present and potential (tree/timber, beekeeping, non-timber forest resources and products) in the study area.

To identify potential areas for cooperation / coordination / synergies between wildlife, tourism

and forestry and beekeeping in the study area. To propose integrated (forestry, beekeeping, wildlife management, tourism) development

ideas and opportunities in the study area. To propose joint concepts / opportunities for joint strengthening of village and district level

capacities in managing and utilising the natural resources in the study area. To propose concepts / opportunities for supporting / enhancing socially responsible

investments by private sector in the natural resources-based development / industries in the study area.

The results will be available: - As a input report on Sustainable Management and Use of Forest-Based Resources; and, - Compiled and mapped as baseline information on forestry and beekeeping resources and

potentials in the study area Specific Terms of Reference For The Tourism Specialist: It is evident from a review of tourism plans that the NGR-Ruvuma River is not referred to as tourist destination in its own right, mainly because of a perception that it is too remote and that the myriad settlements/economic activities on the Tanzanian side of the river, have disintermediated the potential for tourism. However, this interface straddles important cross-border wildlife corridors, the facinating culture of the Makonde people, adjoing forestry and/or game reserves, spectacular inselberg scenery, a shared watercourse, improved access from proposed trunk roads and/or bridges, proximity to the Southern Tanzanian coastline and Marine Parks of Mafia and Mnazi Bay Ruvuma Estuary, proximity to the northern Mozambique coastline and offshore islands of the Quirmibas Archipeligo. This means that it can be a destination to drive through regional tourists and an option for short stay international/regional visitors as part of an integrated island or beach, wildlife and wilderness experience. The aim of the tourism concept(s) is to present a picture of this interface into a visitor destination, as an extension to the NGR, for both long haul drive through tourists as well as providing a unique experience for international/regional visitors as a high-value low volume market. This requires the development of an integrated destination concept and vision that maximises all that the area has to offer in a sustainable manner. The consultants should identify an overlay of maps to identify the preferred area for a possible extension of the NGR system across the Ruvuma River and indicate the interrelationship between the different elements within each zone between the Tanzanian and Mozambique sides of the river. Two activities are envisaged:

129

The consultant shall presnet an overview of the typical visitor profile from the following broad source markets viz: (i) emerging local market, (ii) short haul regional (Southern and Eastern African) market(s) and (iii) long haul international market(s). Using the derived understanding of these source markets and drawing on the changes expected in societies which will affect tourism patterns in the future, it is essential that the development concept provides outline forecasts for these markets and the various derived market segments. A presentatation of a phased growth of tourism development is an integral component of the concept.

Given that the focus of NGR-Ruvuma River Interface is the sustainable use of the natural

resource base and creation of alternative livlihoods the development concept must identify supply side business opportunities. The review of the source market should form the basis for profiling the supply side opportunities. These could include the following:

- Attractions: The development concept is required to identify and map all existing

attractions and sub-attractions. A distinction needs to made with regard to those attractions that are based on renewable and those based on non-renewable resources so that key directions for framing appropriate community based natural resource management (CBNRM) responses to ensure the future sustainability of the natural resource base along the interface zone. In addition, the concept should indicate the range of attractions that could be developed during the next ten years derived from the understanding of the source market analysis and should indicate an ideal mix of attractions that will maximise linkage and multiplier effects with incumbent communities.

- Accomodation: Based on the demand projections and the balance mix of attractions, the

existing range of accommodation needs to be mapped as well as predictions made for future requirements. In addition the concept should provide an overview of where key supplies can be sourced to run tourist camps, lodges and

- Transportation: There are two levels at which transportation needs to be addressed. The

first level, that of getting to the destination and getting away needs to be verified but with a view to maximizing access to the area. However this needs to take environmental issues into consideration and the possibility of intermodal transport linkages to urban areas and tourism areas. The second level is the more interesting from a tourism perspective, that is transportation within the destination. As it includes both motorised it is an essential part of the tourism experience and therefore an attraction in its own right. Therefore the requirement here is to investigate all the possible internal transport options, using existing footpaths, jeep tracks, servitudes, roads and so forth and to graphically illustrate the various possibilities. In addition, attractions that are likely to serve similar markets with similar access requirements need be linked appropriately. This requires taking environmental constraints into account and the criteria for each of the attractions established above. Where there is a logic for a trail to cross property boundaries that this also be mooted for discussion.

- Other Infrastructure, Services and Facilities: Issues such as access to emergency services,

law and order, customs and immigration and so forth need to be in place for the success of NGR-Ruvuma River Interface as a tourism destination. The consultant will need to identify the range and evaluate as to whether these are adequate to support the destination. Other infrastructure refers to water and sanitation supply, energy in its various forms, telecommunications and waste disposal. The consultant will need to spell out the tourism implications on this infrastructure.

130

Specific Terms Of Reference For The GIS Specialist He will contribute under the guidance of the Team Leader and the Institutional Specialist with his expertise and activities for the realisation of the outputs envisaged for the study. His specific activities will be: Compile and Map Baseline Information (FOR INFORMATION THAT EXISTS):

- Six activties are envisaged under this output; viz:

Base Plan

Boundaries and Natural Resource Ownership:

Examine all documents on the social and economic environments. Map all relevant information on a MtDC GIS. The information should be

divided into different maps consisting of: - Map 1: Current Administrative Boundaries; - Map 2: Current Land Use; - Map 3: Current Land Ownership; and, - Map 4: Current Natural Resource Permits (fisheries, forestry, wildlife and

irrigation rights).

Natural Environment: Examine all know research on the natural environment. Gather further

information needed on the natural environment. Map all relevant information on a MtDC GIS. The information should be divided into different maps consisting of: - Map 5: Geology; - Map 6: Broad Soil Patterns; - Map 7: Hydrology; - Map 8: Topography; and, - Map 9: Vegetation.

Infrastructure:

Examine all documents on the infrastructure. Gather further information needed on the infrastructure. The information should be divided into current infrastructure and intended future infrastructure developments. Map all relevant information on a MtDC GIS. The information should be divided into different maps consisting of:

- Map 6: Current Infrastructure:

a. Roads; b. Energy; c. Communication; d. Waste Disposal; and, e. Water (storage, sanitation and waste disposal).

- Map 7: Proposed Infrastructure

a. Roads; b. Energy; c. Communication; d. Waste Disposal; and, e. Water (storage, sanitation and waste disposal).

131

Demograhpic and Socio-Economic Profile Gather further information needed on population and socio-economic profile

to enable the mapping of relevant information. This information is on the socio-economic structure of the population and must include:

- Profile Population Per Settlement:

a. Age distribution; b. Gender distribution; c. Activity patterns; and, d. Growth trends and patterns.

- Profile Sources Of Income Per Settlement:

a. Cash crops; b. Natural resource harvesting (fisheries, forestry and wildlife); c. Informal trade; and, d. Other sources of income.

- Profile Formal Education Levels Per Settlement:

a. No formal education; b. Primary education; c. Secondary education; and, d. Teritiary eduction.

- Profile Skills Per Settlement: a. Farming (Subsistence and cash crop production); b. Natural Resource Harvesitng (Fisherfolk, C/traders, T/hunters, etc); c. Artisanal (Builder, Carpenter, Craftsmen, Mechanic, Electrician etc); d. Other.

Map all relevant information on a MtDC GIS. The information should be

divided into different maps consisting of:

- Map 12: Population Profile; - Map 13: Sources of Income and Levels; - Map 14: Income Levels; and, - Map 15: Education Levels.

Provide mapping services to support the preparation of the Cross Border Integration Study Component + Integrated Development Framework.

ministry of trade and industry (south africa) in ... · pdf fileministry of trade and ... of...

Documents