lable at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 78–88

Contents lists avai

Ocean & Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ocecoaman

A process framework for coastal zone management in Tanzania

Kent Gustavson a,*, Zoe Kroeker a,1, Jay Walmsley a,2, Saada Juma b

a Jacques Whitford Limited, 3 Spectacle Lake Drive, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B2T 1N6, Canadab AGENDA, Tanzania Bureau of Standards Building Morogoro/ Sam Nujoma Roads, Ubungo Area, P.O. Box 77266, Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 7 November 2008

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 (902) 468 7777x2E-mail address: kent.gustavson@jacqueswhitford.c

1 Present address: Ontario Ministry of the Environm19th Floor, Toronto, Ontario M4V 1P5, Canada.

2 Present address: Earth Tech, 1701 Hollis Street, POScotia B3J 2R7, Canada.

0964-5691/$ – see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2008.10.008

a b s t r a c t

A process framework is described to address socio-economic issues related to coastal zone management,specifically as it applies to the mitigation of impacts due to the establishment of marine protected areas(MPAs). Analysis of the existing social environment in Tanzania, including social capital, vulnerablegroups and livelihood components, was undertaken to allow for the identification of critical issues andchallenges. The developed process framework is a guidance document for decision-makers to incorpo-rate the interests and needs of affected stakeholders. This safeguard commits to a consultative processwith clear channels of communication, established grievance procedures, and monitoring and evaluationactivities for affected communities.

� 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Poverty alleviation and environmental issues are recognized asinextricably linked. The Johannesburg Declaration on SustainableDevelopment (2002) encourages the adoption of environmentallysustainable development and poverty alleviation into internationalaid development activities [1]. The United Nations’ MillenniumDevelopment Goals include both the recognition that there isa need to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger globally, as well asa commitment to environmental sustainability [2]. These interna-tional declarations underscore the importance of environmentalaspects being taken into consideration during the design andimplementation of large-scale projects and programs seeking toalleviate poverty. Only through integrating environmental aspectsinto poverty alleviation programs will long-term success bepossible. However, there are many challenges in making theconnection between ecological needs and socio-cultural andeconomic realities, while developing and implementing manage-ment frameworks for projects or programs.

Coastal marine protection activities in developing countriesprovide a particular example of the multi-faceted managementchallenges in seeking to achieve poverty alleviation and environ-mental sustainability. Coastal areas are home to more than half ofthe world’s population and certain regions, such as the East African

59; fax: þ1 (902) 468 9009.om (K. Gustavson).ent, 2 St. Clair Avenue West,

Box 576 CRO, Halifax, Nova

All rights reserved.

coast, have both some of the world’s greatest biological resources aswell as some of the most impoverished communities. In East Africa,there is impetus to have coastal countries adopt managementprograms that meet both ecological and social needs. These activ-ities include establishing marine protected areas (MPAs) andadopting new approaches for governmental and regulatory regimesto support the effective management of Territorial Seas andExclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) to enable investmentand strengthen common governance approaches. Driven by localand international biodiversity and conservation needs, thesecoastal projects remain strongly linked to social equity andpoverty-reduction requirements.

The United Republic of Tanzania provides a case study ofcomplex coastal management planning. The country hasa 2300 km coastline representing both important ecological andeconomic resources. The coastline currently supports approxi-mately 25% of the country’s population, which is projected tomore than double by 2025 [3]. Tanzania is also one of the poorestcountries in the world, with low per capita income (57.8% of thepopulation receives less than US$1 per day [4]) and little access topublic and social services. Since the early 1990s, Tanzania hasdeveloped integrated coastal and marine management throughlegislation, participated in capacity-building activities, and madecommitments to various international agreements related tocoastal and marine resource management. More recently, Tanza-nia has implemented the Marine and Coastal EnvironmentManagement Project (MACEMP). The goal of this six-year projectis to improve management of coastal and marine resources,enhance the contribution of these resources to economic growth,reduce poverty and further develop a scientific understanding ofthe marine and coastal resources.

K. Gustavson et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 78–88 79

The objective of this article is to provide practitioners with anapproach and framework to address social and economic planningissues related to coastal zone management, specifically as it appliesto the mitigation of impacts due to the establishment of MPAs. Bydescribing the planning activities related to MACEMP in Tanzania,several useful tools for social and economic analysis and programimplementation are identified. One of these management tools,a process framework, satisfies World Bank safeguard requirementswhere there is expected to be project-related restrictions in accessto natural resources as a result of MPA designation [5]. Theapproach and framework is offered as an example to practitionersin support of the effective management of socio-economic issues ina developing country context.

2. Overview of coastal zone management in Tanzania

2.1. Tanzanian coastal communities

The coastal zone of Tanzania extends eastwards from thecontinental margin, and includes the near shore islands off themainland coast, the islands and islets of the Mafia–Songo Songoarchipelago, and the islands of Zanzibar (the largest of which areUnguja and Pemba) (Fig. 1). The coastline extends about 800 km inlength with several permanent and seasonal rivers and creekstraversing its plain. The coast is rich in environmental resourcesincluding estuaries, mangrove forests, beaches, coral reefs, seagrassbeds and deltas. The presence of large and small islands along thecoast, the consistent and tropical climate and the existence ofdiverse marine plant and animal species make Tanzania’s coastalarea abundant in resources for communities and a source of theirlivelihoods.

Approximately 25% of the Tanzania’s population lives along thecoastline [3,6]. On mainland Tanzania, the coastal population is anestimated 7.0 million living in 30,000 km2 of coastal area, with anannual growth rate of 2–6 % [7] (Table 1). There is extensivemigration in coastal areas from rural communities to larger urbancentres. The largest urban centres on the coastal mainland includeDar es Salaam, Tanga and Mtwara. Dar es Salaam has the greatestpopulation density, the population having grown by 83% between1988 and 2002 [6]. In Zanzibar (primarily Unguja Island and PembaIsland), the annual population growth rate is estimated at 3%, withthe greatest rise in population growth occurring in coastal regions[6]. In 1993, 45% (745,299) of Zanzibar’s population lived in 63villages and settlements along the coast [8]. The urban populationfor Zanzibar has increased from 32% of the total population in 1988to 40% of the total in 2002 [6].

Households in Tanzania’s coastal communities tend to be oflarge families with low per capita incomes and high illiteracyrates. Coastal communities have relatively poor access to publicinfrastructure such as water and sanitation, especially in ruralareas, and tend to be faced with poor housing conditions, little tono access to credit and market facilities, and few personal savings[9]. The average size of coastal households is 4.9 persons inmainland Tanzania, and 5.3 per household in Zanzibar [10]. Manycoastal villages, especially on the mainland, have high fertilityrates, countered by a high population migration to larger urbancentres. Education rates among Tanzanians are also low with onequarter of adults with no education and 29% being illiterate.Twice the number of women compared to men having no or littleeducation. Access to credit and savings is also low, althoughcommunity-based loan programs are emerging, includingmicrocredit revolving funds [11].

Many coastal communities remain relatively isolated due topoor infrastructure such as roads, communications, electricalservice, water supply, and ports. The National Bureau of Statisticshousehold budget survey in 2000–2001 indicated that 2% of

households in rural areas have electricity, 6% have bank accounts,25% have modern walls, and 45% need to travel more than 1 km fordrinking water. The most common disease in coastal areas ismalaria, affecting 69% of children and 60% of adults [6]. Records forZanzibar indicate that malaria was responsible for 48% of alloutpatient services in 1999 [12]. Households in coastal communi-ties are also faced with other notable diseases including HIV/AIDS,cholera, and schistosomiasis.

Coastal communities in mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar arehighly dependent on natural resources extraction for their liveli-hood. Traditional activities undertaken in coastal communities arebased around subsistence and small-scale commercial initiatives.These are activities that either provide food or a source of shelter, orwhich involve income generation within the local market. Keyactivities include: artisanal fisheries, agriculture and animalhusbandry, mariculture, salt and lime production, beekeeping,small-scale trade and crafts, and mangrove and coastal thicket-related activities. In coastal villages, fishing is the main livelihoodactivity for male-headed households, while farming is the mainactivity for female-headed households [13]. A characteristic ofhouseholds in coastal communities is the necessity to undertakeseveral livelihood activities simultaneously to supplement incomesand ensure a consistent food source for family members.

2.2. Regulatory and management framework

The United Republic of Tanzania consists of two regionalgovernments: mainland Tanzania (Union Government) and Zanzi-bar (Zanzibar Revolutionary Government). Under the Constitutionof the United Republic of Tanzania (1977) the management of issuesrelated to the environment, natural resources (including fisheries)and tourism are considered non-union and are dealt with sepa-rately by the two regional governments. As a result, marine andcoastal resources are governed by two distinct sets of laws andregulations. However, there is some overlap related to coastal zonemanagement. The Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone Act(1989) provides for the implementation of the Law of the SeaConvention, and establishes the Territorial Sea and EEZ for activitiesoff the coast of mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar. The Deep SeaFishing Authority Act (1998) provides for the establishment of theDeep Sea Fishing Authority to regulate uses in the EEZ for bothjurisdictions as well.

Relevant coastal and marine resource management policies andlegislation developed by mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar are listedin Table 2. In both mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar, there is legis-lation related to general environmental issues, marine resource use,tourism and general land use activities. The legislation demon-strates both the conservation needs and attempts to managecoastal resources (i.e. protect mangrove forest, fisheries) withina complex socio-economic context.

In Tanzania, actual management of the coastal environment isdecentralized. Policies and regulations developed at the nationallevel are typically implemented through district and local govern-ments [7]. Thus, coastal management activities require acceptanceand collaboration at the local level for successful implementation.In addition, implementation of program activities may come underthe jurisdiction of a number of different departments. Further,there are several differences between mainland Tanzania andZanzibar that have ramifications for how frameworks for coastalmanagement are developed.

2.2.1. Mainland TanzaniaIn mainland Tanzania, the primary central government

authority responsible for the management of natural resources isthe Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT). Within theMNRT, there are five separate departments: Fisheries; Forestry and

Fig. 1. The coastal zone of Tanzania.

K. Gustavson et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 78–8880

Beekeeping; Wildlife; Tourism; and Antiquities. The FisheriesDivision oversees the development and management of fisheries,mariculture, and marine parks. It serves to provide advice to districtgovernments on planning and management issues. The Division ofForestry and Beekeeping oversee the management of all mangrovesand coastal forest use activities. The national government hasDistrict Commissioner Offices, with Divisional Secretaries, at thedistrict level, which function to provide policy guidance regionally.

In Mainland Tanzania, five administrative regions have LocalGovernment Authorities (13 in total) that fall within the coastalzone [6].

The District Councils and Municipal Councils are responsible forimplementation and enforcement of national policies and legisla-tion that address natural resource management (among others).Implementation is operational through the District NaturalResource Offices, which have personnel dedicated to fisheries,

Table 1Population density for coastal regions of the United Republic of Tanzania.a

Region Land area(km2)

Total population Populationdensity (#/km2)

Coast 32,407 638,015 20Dar es Salaam 1393 1,360,850 977Lindi 66,046 646,550 10Mtwara 16,707 889,494 53Tanga 26,808 1,283,636 48Unguja 1464 622,459 260–390Pemba 868 362,166

a Adapted from various sources [6,9,12].

K. Gustavson et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 78–88 81

forestry and beekeeping, and wildlife. It is at this level that theeffective implementation of national policies and programs isdependent on the available technical and management expertise.

Within each district or municipality, there are several wards.Within each rural area ward, there is a council (Ward Council) thatrepresents several villages. Village-level government operatesthrough a Village Council, under which there are five committees toaddress issues at the community level. The committees include:security; environment; community development; health; andfinance and planning. The Village Council has the direct local-levelresponsibility for the planning and implementation of projects, andfor making decisions regarding such matters as land allocation andcommunity resource use. In practice, however, their activities tendto be more narrowly focused on revenue collection and enforce-ment. Of particular relevance are the village environment commit-tees or other similar committees, whose responsibilities include themanagement and conservation of marine resources. In urbanmunicipalities, individual Mtaa provide representation below theward level (i.e. there is no Village Council or Village Committees) andhave established relationships with the municipal Ward Council.

Coastal communities are also associated through the VillageAssembly, who must approve decisions made by village govern-ments before being sent to the ward level for subsequent reviewand approval (which must, in turn, be reviewed and approved atthe district level). Specifically with respect to coastal resourcemanagement, the business of the Village Assembly includes thedevelopment of resolutions respecting desired land allocation,fishing practices, forest resource management (including silvicul-ture and harvesting activities), natural resource use fees, andpenalties and fines.

2.2.2. ZanzibarZanzibar operates in many areas as a distinct state, governed by

the Revolutionary Council and House of Representatives. Federally,management of natural resources falls primarily under the

Table 2Coastal and marine resource management related policies and legislation.

Type Mainland Tanzania

General environmental Environmental Management Act (2004)

Legislation National Environmental Policy (1997)

Marine Marine Parks and Reserves Act (1994)Fisheries Act (2003)National Fisheries Sector Policy and Strategy StatemenNational Integrated Coastal Environment Management(2003)

Tourism National Tourism Policy (1999)

Land use Land Act (1999)Forest Act (2002)Village Land Act (1999)

jurisdiction of the Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources,Environment and Co-operatives (MANREC). There are severalseparate departments within MANREC, including: the Departmentof Fisheries and Marine Products; the Department of CommercialCrops, Fruits and Forests; the Department of the Environment; theDepartment of Livestock; the Department of Irrigation; theDepartment of Co-operatives; and the Commission for Researchand Extension.

There are five administrative regions, each divided into twodistricts. Each region is led by a Regional Commissioner, anda Regional Agricultural Development Officer deals with naturalresource management issues. The Regional Commissioner is alsoassisted by a Regional Administrative Officer and Regional Devel-opment Committee, the latter to co-ordinate all developmentactivities within their respective areas. This structure is paralleledat the district level. In addition, however, there are subject-matterspecialists for forestry, fisheries and the environment at the districtlevel. Both regional and district agencies are involved in planningand the implementation of government policy, as well as themobilisation of communities.

Below the district level, there are Shehias, which are adminis-trative units under the responsibility of a Sheha, who is appointedby the Regional Commissioner. A Sheha often encompasses severalvillages. The Sheha is the Chief Government Officer and reportsdirectly to the District Commissioner. Each Sheha has an advisorycommittee of not less than 12 members [6]. In addition, committeesat the local level may be established to address specific issues (e.g.for managing the use of natural resources), but the number andspecific function of committees varies considerably across Zanzibar.

Specific concerns related to national and local governmentrelevant to coastal management include: general lack of staffingand funding capacity to effectively carry-out existing mandates fornatural resource management, particularly at the local governmentlevel (districts, wards, and village); overlapping jurisdiction ofagencies with respect to management of activities in the marineenvironment and coastal zone; and lack of technical capacity in keyprogram areas, including the need for special knowledge in mari-culture, stock assessment, social research, and environmental andnatural resource economics (e.g. need for mariculturalists toprovide expertise for appropriate siting and design ofdevelopments).

2.3. The Marine and Coastal Environment Management Project

MACEMP is a partnership between the United Republic of Tan-zania, the Global Environment Fund (GEF) and the World Bank.Initiated in 2006, the project has an overall purpose to improvecoastal and marine resources, while also contributing to the

Zanzibar

Environmental Management for Sustainable Development Act(1996)National Environmental Policy for Zanzibar (1992)Establishment of Zanzibar Nature Conservation AreasManagement Unit Act (1999)

Fisheries Act (1988)Fisheries Policy (1985)

t (1997)Strategy

Zanzibar Tourism Policy (2004)

Forest Resources Management and Conservation Act (1996)National Forest Policy for Zanzibar (1995)Land Tenure Act (1992)

K. Gustavson et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 78–8882

economic growth and poverty alleviation in Tanzania. It is a keypart of an initiative to effectively manage the marine environment[14]. MACEMP has three components:

� Strengthening marine management institutions in Tanzania bysupporting the creation of a common governance regime forthe EEZ;� Supporting coastal area planning and the establishing of

a network of MPAs, marine management areas (MMAs) andcommunity management areas (CMAs) for conservation ofbiodiversity and sustainable utilization of coastal and marineresources; and� Creating an enabling environment for investment through the

implementation of sub-projects at the village level thatcontribute to improved livelihoods and sustainable marinemanagement.

MACEMP is designed to address the duality of economic andecological needs in Tanzania’s coastal region. Some of the project’skey outcomes include increasing incomes through improvedmanagement of marine resources and increasing productivity andadded value from improved post-harvest processing and marketaccess. The project is also expected to reduce vulnerability ofcommunities to external shocks through diversification of localproduction systems and improve ecosystem services and conser-vation of globally significant marine and coastal biodiversity.

In developing and planning MACEMP, the interplay of otherprograms that focused on the marine environment, coastal socio-economic conditions and cultural property issues in Tanzania, wasconsidered. Assessment of potential impacts on existing programsallows for the integration of overlapping interest and/or theenhancement of activities. Several other programs in Tanzania andalong the East African Coast provide synergies with the work beingundertaken as part of MACEMP. These include:

� The Tanzania Social Action Fund (TASAF II) – The objective ofTASAF is to empower communities to manage interventionsthat contribute to improving their livelihoods and supportingincome generation for households. The implementation ofMACEMP sub-projects will occur through TASAF.� Japan Social Development Fund (JSDP) activities – A JSDF was

approved for the Tanzania Community-based CoastalResources Management and Sustainable Livelihood Project.The objectives of the project are to overcome the problems ofpoverty and resource degradation in the coastal areas throughenhancing the livelihoods of poor and vulnerable groups in thecoastal communities.� European Union Programmes – The European Commission

Regional Programme for Sustainable Management of CoastalZones focuses on the countries of the southwest Indian Ocean.Under this programme, the European Commission is currentlyproviding funds for two relevant projects: the Southern AfricanDevelopment Community Monitoring, Control and Surveil-lance Project, which is working to establish enforcementcapabilities for patrolling in the EEZ, and the Sanitary ControlProject, which is working to increase the access of fish productsfrom developing countries to the EU, and raise hygiene stan-dards and income opportunities for small-scale fisheries.� Local Government Support Programme – This programme

provides grants for small-scale projects at local level. Otherfocal areas is the unplanned and under-serviced residentialareas in Dar es Salaam and support of the President’s Office –Regional Administration and Local Government (PO-RALG) inthe implementation, monitoring, evaluation and audits of theProject and the transfer programme supported by localgovernment grants.

� The South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Project (SWIOFP) –SWIOFP is supported by the World Bank and the UNDP inresponse to Indian Ocean country requests for assistance inbetter managing the living resources and habitat of theirshared marine ecosystems. It focuses on international fisheriesmanagement. There is an agreement between SWIOFP andMACEMP that all monitoring and stock assessment activitieswithin Tanzanian marine waters over the continental shelf andshelf-break areas, to a depth of 500 m, will be the responsibilityof MACEMP. All activities beyond this distance will be theresponsibility of SWIOFP.� Aghulas-Somali Current Large Marine Ecosystems (ASCLME)

Project – This project is centered on ecological research asso-ciated with the two large marine ecosystems of the East Coastof Africa associated with the Somali and Aghulas currents. Theproject is funded by the GEF and will be implemented by UNDP.There are nine member countries including Comoros, Kenya,Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, Somalia, South Africa andTanzania. This project will assist in providing ecological infor-mation that is useful in implementing MACEMP.� The Tanzania Coastal Management Partnership (TCMP) – The

TCMP was established in 1997 within the Vice President’sOffice, with support from USAID, to improve national coastalplanning, policy and management, and to co-ordinate local andnational coastal resource management. The main implement-ing partners are the University of Rhode Island and theNational Environment Management Council of Tanzania.

In addition, government undertakes a number of researchactivities, some of which are done in partnership with universitiesand foreign agencies, related to coastal management, includingsupporting development and capacity building for MPAs [3].Organizations active in funding and/or conducting related researchinclude the Tanzania Fisheries Research Institute (TAFIRI), theTanzania National Scientific Research Council (TNSRC), the Tanza-nia Industrial Research and Development Organisation (TIRDO), theTanzania Fisheries Corporation (TAFICO), and the Institute ofMarine Sciences at the University of Dar es Salaam.

3. Analysis of the existing social environment

In order to integrate social issues, particularly poverty allevia-tion and equity concerns, into the design of MACEMP, an analysis ofthe existing social environment was undertaken. This type ofanalysis allows for the identification of critical issues and specificmanagement challenges that need to be addressed in the projectdesign. Three primary components were identified for analysis:social capital, vulnerable groups and livelihoods. For each compo-nent, the current status was assessed and interactions with theproject identified.

3.1. Social capital

Social capital can be defined as the attitudes and values thatgovern interactions among individuals, and the norms and tradi-tions through which community-level decisions are made andindividuals have access to power. It is defined by a social group’scharacteristics, intra-group and inter-group relationships, and therelationships of those groups at the village level with public andprivate institutions.

Rural coastal communities are composed both of individualsclosely related by birth or marriage and, in contrast, of unrelatedindividuals who have migrated from other regions in search ofbetter livelihood opportunities [6]. The strength and extent of thefamilial relationships within and between villages, and the degreeto which the presence of transient individuals has influenced social

K. Gustavson et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 78–88 83

interactions, varies by community. Extended family structures andkinship groups remain an important determinant of the strength ofrelationships between individuals within the community.

There are several social capital structures (i.e. those thatenhance local decision-making capabilities and performance ofinstitutions) apparent in coastal communities in Mainland Tanzaniaand Zanzibar, although the level of organization and participationin decision-making varies greatly between locations. In general,coastal villages are organized internally into social groups based onparticipation in common livelihood activities (e.g. fishing groupsand co-operatives); on gender or age (e.g. women’s groups, youthgroups); to fulfill a common need (e.g. savings and credit associa-tions); or to facilitate the provision of emotional and spiritualsupport (e.g. religious institutions through local mosques). Thesegroups function to bring individuals together around commonproblems or issues that they face, and assist them in coping withdifficult situations (e.g. income or food insecurity).

Decision-making in villages is based on consensus, and involvesseveral levels of communication. This includes decision-making at thehousehold level, at an activity/social group level and then at thecommunity or village level. Households tend to be controlled by men,although women are decision-makers in female-headed households.It is largely within the household that important natural resourcemanagement decisions are made. Relationships between individualswithin communities are based on expectations of mutual obligation,honesty, reciprocity, and mutual respect [6]. Within villages, however,certain stakeholder groups tend to be dominant, better representedand more influential on the decisions made by village government.For example, in many villages, women do not have an influence orvoice concerning the decisions that are made, while in some villages,their involvement appears more established [15]. In addition, unof-ficial leaders within communities, including, for example, wealthyindividuals, religious leaders and fortune-tellers, may havea substantial influence in decisions behind the scenes [6].

Many coastal villages are active politically. A study conducted incoastal communities in Tanga, Lindi, Mafia Island, Pemba Island andUnguja Island found that the general level of political participationwas high, with 91% of heads of households voting in recent localelections [11]. Villagers in coastal communities also have access togovernment decision-making and activities through local govern-ment structures such as the Village Council and village committees.

Different communities have a different level of awareness andexperience with development assistance and aid programs. Inessence, two types of communities can be distinguished:

� Enhanced communities are typified by their strong knowledgeof conservation issues, experience with development aidinitiatives and engagement processes (e.g. participatory ruralappraisal, or PRA). There is often a previous presence of non-government organizations (NGOs) or community-based orga-nizations (CBOs) in the community, and well-defined roles andresponsibilities (e.g. communities located in areas where thereare existing MPAs).� Greenfield communities are those that have little to no experi-

ence with externally-initiated consultation. For thesecommunities, the internal social capital may be well developed,but experience in being involved with development projects islacking, and effectively linking project activities withincommunity-level processes will require greater effort.

3.2. Vulnerable groups

Vulnerable persons are those characterized by higher risk andreduced ability to cope with change or negative impacts. This maybe based on socio-economic condition, gender, age, disability,ethnicity, or criteria that influence people’s ability to access

resources and development opportunities. Vulnerable persons inrelation to coastal zone management in Tanzania may include theelderly, orphans, people with disabilities, HIV/AIDS-affected orinfected persons, widows, widowers, people suffering form seriousillness, and women and children at risk of being dispossessed oftheir productive assets. Coastal communities are susceptible toincreasing numbers of vulnerable individuals, and have character-istic risk factors that can lead to vulnerability, such as a lack of socialservices and health infrastructure. Current challenges faced inTanzania include: high mortality of children, increasing HIV/AIDsinfection among adults and children, rural–urban migration, lack ofeducation for women, and a lack of programs or plans for youthdevelopment (both education and economic) [12].

Within the United Republic of Tanzania, there are approximately3.5 million persons living with disabilities [16], of which 40,000 ofthese persons live in Zanzibar [12]. In addition, over 1.5 million or41.75 per 1000 people were living with HIV in 2001. While potentialfor infection is unevenly distributed based on gender, age and socialgroups, the population most likely to be affected are economicallycapable adults between the ages of 15–45 in rural areas [17]. In1999, there were 44,250 confirmed cases of AIDS reported, witha cumulative analysis of 600,000 AIDS cases between 1983 and1999. Poverty continues to be recognized as a major factor in HIVinfection.

Youth on mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar (those between theages of 15 and 35 years of age) represent over 30% of the totalpopulation and provide an important segment of the work pop-ulation. Women represent over half of the population and arehighly active in agricultural production, trading and some fishingactivities [11]. Traditionally, women in coastal communities areinvolved in household activities, including the collection of fuelwood and water, production of food and subsistence fisheries,while men are mainly involved in cultivation of food and cashcrops, fishing and small-scale business and trade. While womenhave equal legal rights, they are often hindered by educationdisparities based on gender (e.g. higher rate of illiteracy than men),less involvement in the formal commercial sector, and less access toproductive assets such as land. In some cases, gender-baseddiscrimination influences control and ownership [18]. For example,a UNICEF report in 2001, reported that 24% of women farmed ontheir husband’s land and 46% farmed on borrowed land [12].

3.3. Livelihoods

A livelihood is comprised of the capabilities, assets (includingboth material and social resources) and activities required fora means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope withand recover from stresses and shocks and maintain its capabilitiesand assets both now and in the future, while not undermining thenatural resource base. Key livelihood activities include fisheries(commercial and traditional), tourism, coastal forest resource use,mariculture, agriculture and animal husbandry, salt production,and small-scale trade handicrafts.

In Tanzania in 2006, the total marine fisheries catch wasapproximately 49,000 tonnes, which represents about 20% of thecountry’s total catch, the remainder 80% being from freshwaterfisheries [19,20]. Fishery activities in coastal Tanzania includeartisanal fishing activities (i.e. fishing households with low capital,small vessels for subsistence or director sale) and commercialfishing operations (i.e. offshore and nearshore commercial opera-tors, on-shore processing). Artisanal fisheries account for about 90%of the total marine fish landings in the country, while only 10% isderived from commercial fisheries in the Indian Ocean [20]. Fishingactivities are an integral part of the culture and social fabric ofcoastal communities with an estimated 43,000 marine fishermen,of which 42,500 are small-scale artisanal operators [18]. Primarily,

K. Gustavson et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 78–8884

fishing activities are undertaken by men, although women incoastal communities are also involved in the artisanal fisheriesactivities (shellfish harvesting, shell collection, collection of octopi).Many fishermen in Tanzania live below the poverty line and fishingremains both an important source of income and an essential foodsource with up to 90% dependence on fishery for animal proteinconsumption among households in coastal communities.

Artisanal fisheries along Tanzania’s coastline are nearshore andprimarily dependent on coral reef environments, with some fishingactivities being undertaken in mangrove creeks and over seagrassbeds. The gear used for artisanal fishing is typically non-mechanized(e.g. gill nets, hand lines, and traps). The use of destructive fishingpractices such as the use of drag nets, beach seines, poison,spearguns and dynamite does occur, presenting a challenge forconservation efforts. Artisanal fishermen face a number of ongoingchallenges including poor fishing gear, lack of support services fortheir fisheries such as infrastructure (roads, plants, markets, marketinformation), lack of capital and access to loans and absence oforganized associations, lack of alternative sources of livelihoods anddeclining catches [10]. Resource use conflicts are evident betweenthe inshore commercial prawn trawlers and the artisanal fishermen,as well as between artisanal and migratory fishermen.

Commercial fisheries activities along the coastline of Tanzaniaand around Zanzibar include deep-sea fishing (predominately longline and purse seine), coastal trawling and on-shore fish processing.The industrial foreign offshore fishery in Tanzania is focused onmigratory fish such as tuna, sailfish, sardines, marlin and swordfish.Commercial fisheries operate with relatively large mechanizedvessels and focus primarily on serving the export market. Exportproducts from marine fisheries include a number of products butthere is a large focus on the coastal prawn fisheries. The overallcontribution of the fisheries sector to the Tanzania GDP was 2.9% in1999 [10]. The issues facing the commercial fishery industry inTanzania include lack of infrastructure, such as road systems toaccess coastal landing areas, limitations in cold storage and pro-cessing facilities, inadequate fish market facilities, and lack ofdiverse market channels for fish products. There is also a near-complete lack of harvest and stock assessment information, greatlyhindering effective management.

Coastal-based tourism activities in Tanzania include sport-fishing, diving, snorkelling, swimming, and other recreation andeco-tourism-related activities, with some coastal areas beginningto develop hotels, resorts and small-scale guest houses [9]. Tourismin Tanzania is a major source of foreign exchange, accounting for16% of national GDP and nearly 25% of total export earnings [18].The economic values of tourism include revenues from tourisminfrastructure and activities (hotels, restaurants, retail business),increased jobs for local communities, and investments in divingand eco-tourism activities (boat tours, marine life viewing).

Tanzania is still developing as a tourist destination and is rankedbehind other African nations such as South Africa, Kenya andZambia [21]. Visitors to Tanzania primarily visit inland (e.g. to seeanimals on safari) but the country has large expanses of coastalhabitats, which tourists are increasingly visiting [21]. Tourism hasa potential important role to play in Tanzania’s coastal economyand the development of MPAs. Tanzania’s existing marine parks(Mafia Island Marine Park, Maziwi Marine Park) are developingtourism management plans and visitors are charged a visitation fee,which is used to support the management of MPAs [21]. Coastaltourism has been identified for development in certain key areas,although the scope for large-scale tourism is limited in manycoastal areas as a result of remoteness and lack of infrastructure.

As part of the slow development of tourism-based activities,a number of conflicts have arisen. This includes conflicts betweentourism development and communities, primarily associated withaccess and use of the foreshore and beach areas (e.g. tourism

operators being unhappy with fishing vessel landing sites orseaweed farming areas being near beach resorts, or simply thepresence of local residents on beaches used by tourists). There hasalso been conflict between fishermen and dive operators overpreferred coral reef sites.

Coastal forest resource use includes all activities that utilisemangroves and other coastal forests. This includes harvesting forconstruction, fuel wood, and charcoal production, as well asbeekeeping. Many households in coastal communities rely onmangrove trees to meet a variety of residential and commercialneeds. Residential and production energy needs range from cookingand heating needs in the home to use as fuel for salt and limeproduction, and drying and frying fish. Mangrove trees are alsoa valuable source of timber used for construction poles for localhousing needs and for beekeeping activities (honey production).Activities in mangrove forests along Mainland Tanzania’s coastlineare regulated nationally but often managed locally by nearbyvillages adjacent to mangrove forests. Harvesting of wood forcommercial sale requires a license and fees to be paid; however,harvesting of poles for domestic construction is generally over-looked [6]. Currently mangrove forests are being cleared at anestimated rate of 500 ha per year and the sustainability of harvest-ing remains an issue, especially in areas such as the Zanzibar islands.

Mariculture activities in Tanzania include seaweed farming, fishfarming (fish ponds), and oyster culture. Small-scale operationshave emerged in a number of coastal communities. Undertakenprimarily by women, these have been initiated by the communities,often encouraged by the government or through conservationactivities and as a source of alternative livelihood. Experimentalseaweed farming was introduced in Tanzania in the 1980s and hasbeen successful in some coastal areas such as Zanzibar where theseaweed industry now accounts for approximately 25% of Zanzi-bar’s export income [18]. Other mariculture activities in coastalcommunities include culturing finfish (e.g. Chanos chanos, Mulletcephalus) in brackish water (often in mangrove areas) and someprawn farming. The further development of mariculture initiativesalong Tanzania’s coastline is challenged by the management costsand technology required for certain mariculture activities(e.g. hatcheries, grow-out ponds) [22].

The majority of the coastal population is engaged in some typeof agriculture, either subsistence production of small food crops(i.e. rice, cassava, sweet potatoes, peas, traditional vegetables) orsome production of cash crops (i.e. coconuts, cashew nuts, fruit,spices, oil seeds) [6]. Agriculture activities in coastal communitiescomprises primarily of small holders in areas with poor infra-structure who practice deep soil farming and coral rag farming.A number of constraints exist for these agricultural developmentsincluding threats of vermin, use of poor and inadequate tools,unreliable rainfall/water sources, lack of education on agriculturaltechnology and developments, low market prices for products andunfertile and insufficient land. Many households in coastalcommunities also undertake animal husbandry activities, raisingindigenous species of cattle, chickens, goats and sheep. Theseactivities are mainly for subsistence needs.

Coastal communities are involved in salt making either full timeor as a seasonal occupation. Most salt production is undertaken inmangrove forest reserves and consists of solar evaporation pro-cessing and in some smaller cases, boiling seawater, the latterrequiring substantial wood use. In 1991, it was estimated that solarsalt pans occupied 3100 ha of cleared coastal forest [23]. Productionin coastal communities contributes over 75% of the total saltproduced in Tanzania.

Household members in some coastal communities are under-taking small-scale trade and handicraft activities seasonally tosupplement their incomes. This includes women selling productssuch as coconuts, vegetables, fried fish and palm wine and

K. Gustavson et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 78–88 85

producing crafts such as mats, rags, pottery, batiks, and someweaving. Coastal forests are an important source of raw materialsfor carpentry, carving, and weaving. Men may be involved in small-scale trades such as drying fish in the sun, tailoring, and carpentry.Increasing the amount of small-scale trade and handicrafts incoastal communities is impeded by lack of markets and problemswith availability of materials.

4. The management of social impacts

The social analysis undertaken as part of the preparation forMACEMP identified several potentially positive impacts on thesocial environment as a result of the project. However, it alsoidentified a number of specific management challenges (Table 3). Inorder to address these challenges, specific design and managementmeasures were applied. A process framework was developed asa tool to address the potential displacement of livelihood activitiesdue to the establishment of MPAs under MACEMP.

4.1. Process framework

Under MACEMP, several potential negative impacts were iden-tified related to the project, including the potential effect theestablishment of MPAs may have on the livelihoods of coastalcommunities. Coastal communities are dependent on artisanalactivities and any limitation to access of marine resources isa perceived threat to ongoing sustainability. In an effort to plan forand mitigate this impact, a process framework was designed toguide activities and procedures related to the establishment ofMPAs.

A process framework can be considered as a guidance documentfor decision-makers to incorporate the interests and needs ofaffected stakeholders who may be directly impacted by the deci-sions of a project. The concept of the process framework is derivedfrom resettlement policy frameworks required by the World Bankunder the Safeguard for Involuntary Settlement (OP 4.12) [5]. Thissafeguard commits that no one should be worse off due to a project,and requires the development of a guidance document to ensurethat there are clear communication, grievance processes andmonitoring and evaluation activities for affected communities.

The process framework created for MACEMP had three keyprocess elements:

1. Process for Identifying Specific Target Groups. This process is toensure that target groups are identified both at the individualand household level. These are groups that can be impacted bythe project and may have difficulties participating in feedbackand decision-making around the project, requiring specialmechanisms for participation.

2. Process for Communications and Participation. This process is toensure that there is a system for communication and partici-pation by communities in any activities related to the devel-opment of MPAs.

3. Monitoring and Evaluation System. This requirement ensuresthat a monitoring and evaluation system is established for theproject and procedures for inclusion of all target and vulner-able groups are met throughout the life of the project.

The benefit of a process framework is that it provides a tailoredsocio-economic guidance document that can be used in conjunc-tion with other environmental management plans. Typically,assessments of projects look broadly at impacts and mitigation, butdo not address the ‘‘how’’ of implementation, particularly withrespect to socio-economic mitigation activities. The processframework provides a methodology for providing a value-addedapproach to community consultations and involvement with

implementation. The process framework is also multi-faceted in itsuse, serving as a broad communication tool to inform stakeholdersof the risks of the project (i.e. impacts on livelihoods due toestablishing MPAs) and establishing how these types of risks can beconsidered and overcome. It also serves as a type of agreementbetween parties (implementing parties, funding partners, otheragencies) developing a system for dealing with mitigationactivities.

The development of a process framework is consultative. In thiscase, sessions were held with persons in coastal communitiespotentially affected by MACEMP. To ensure success of the frame-work, there must be consideration of potential collaborativeopportunities, including integration into other existing develop-ment and poverty-reduction programs. Another important elementin developing a process framework is the clear identification of allstakeholders, or key target users of the process. This may varydepending on the location, but will likely include mangers andimplementers at the administrative and operational level withinthe local governments and communities.

4.1.1. The process framework applied to MACEMPThe process framework developed for MACEMP was an early

pilot application of this type of approach in addressing communityand vulnerable group interests. The design is based on severalconsiderations, which jointly drive how the guidance proceduresare established. The establishment of MPAs will result in thereduced access to resources by already impoverished populations,as a direct result of a change in the resource management regimefrom an open access system to one which is regulated and haslimited access. Therefore, communities need to understand thepotential impacts and the degree to which the changes will influ-ence their activities. Other considerations include the potential forweakening of community institutions, social networks and tradi-tional authority as a result of the project, and potentially dimin-ishing or removing mutual help systems that exist withincommunities.

In order to address these considerations, several processes areestablished as part of the framework:

� Process for identifying specific target groups. One of the primaryobjectives of the process framework is to ensure that anyindividuals, households and communities with the potential tobe impacted by activities related to the establishment of MPAsare identified for consultation and other communicationactivities. To identify target groups, the framework providesguidance on how to establish the types of current assets andlivelihoods in communities potentially impacted, how toidentify general impacts due to project activities, and providea clear definition and criteria to identify affected individualsand households.� Communication and participation process. A number of

communication and participation processes are included in theframework to ensure the overarching goals of the frameworkwere addressed. This included the development of mitigationmeasures to consult on alternative livelihood opportunitiesand guidance on the development of Community MitigationAction Plans, to be prepared by each affected village. Guidelinesare also provided for consultations on the design and assess-ment of MPAs and the types of considerations to be takenduring any consultation and communication activities. Anintegral part of the communications and participation processis the establishment of grievance, dispute and redress mecha-nisms. Grievances and disputes can arise at several stages ofproject planning and implementation. Under the processframework, there is information on sources of grievances andconflicts, and redress mechanism are established, both formal

Table 3Expected impacts on the social environment.

Social component Expected impacts

1. Social capital � Ongoing, long-term positive impacts associated with local government capacity building, development of communitypartnerships in ICM, outreach activities, and community capacity building.� Ongoing, long-term negative impacts associated with support for MPAs, management of mangrove ecosystems, reha-

bilitation of cultural heritage sites, and development of existing and alternative livelihoods if inappropriate engagementand consultation processes used during implementation.

2. Vulnerable groups � Ongoing, long-term positive impacts associated with outreach activities and community capacity building.� Ongoing, long-term negative impacts associated with support for MPAs, management of mangrove ecosystems, and

development of existing and alternative livelihoods if inappropriate engagement and consultation processes usedduring implementation

3. Livelihoods(a)Fisheries � Short-term, low-level negative impacts on fishing operators impacted by enhancement of rent capture mechanisms,

improved enforcement (i.e. prevention of current illegal practices), and increased costs to comply with MCS. Impacts notexpected to persist in the long-term as individual fishing operators adjust practices.� Long-term, positive impacts with investment in Dar es Salaam and Zanzibar fish landing ports.� Short-term, negative impacts associated with support for MPAs, becoming ongoing, positive impacts in the long-term.� Ongoing, long-term positive impacts associated with investment in fishing, with short-term, negative impacts on

fisheries if other investments reduce overall access to resources or the quality of the resource.(b) Tourism � Ongoing, long-term positive impacts associated with the rehabilitation of cultural heritage sites.

� Short-term, negative, relatively low-magnitude and spatially restricted impacts on tour operators associated with sub-projects, where such sub-projects compete with coastal and marine resource use.

(c) Coastal forest resource use � Short-term, negative impacts associated with support for CMAs, MMAs and MPAs, becoming ongoing, positive impactsin the long-term.� Ongoing, long-term positive impacts associated with investments in coastal forest livelihood activities, with short-term,

negative impacts on coastal forest resource use if other investments reduce overall access to resources or the quality ofthe resource.

(d) Mariculture � Short-term, negative impacts associated with support for CMAs, MMAs and MPAs, becoming ongoing, positive impactsin the long-term.� Ongoing, long-term positive impacts associated with investments in mariculture livelihood activities, with short-term,

negative impacts on mariculture if other investments reduce overall access to resources or the quality of the resource.(e) Other livelihood activities � Short-term, negative impacts associated with support for CMAs, MMAs and MPAs, becoming ongoing, positive impacts

in the long-term.� Ongoing, long-term positive impacts associated with investments in agriculture and animal husbandry, salt production,

and small-scale trade and handicraft livelihood activities, with short-term, negative impacts on if other investmentsreduce overall access to resources or the quality of the resource.

K. Gustavson et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 78–8886

and informal. Clear procedures related to consultation steps areestablished and responsibilities and legal procedures are alsoenumerated.� Monitoring and evaluation system. Monitoring and evaluation is

a fundamental component of projects involving affected indi-viduals, households and communities. As the implementationof MACEMP will lead to a change in access to natural resourcesin specific areas as a result of conservation practices, buildingcapacity for improved monitoring activities is essential. Typesof indicators identified for monitoring include both thoserelated to the process framework (e.g. number of participantsin consultation process, number of grievances recorded) andcommunity livelihood indicators (e.g. changes in activities byhousehold, change in location of resource use).

4.1.2. Case example: Misali Island Marine Conservation AreaIn order to demonstrate how the process framework can be

applied to supporting existing and emerging MPAs, a case studyexample of the Misali Island Marine Conservation Area (MIMCA) isprovided. Misali Island is located off the southwest coast of PembaIsland, in the Pemba Channel between Zanzibar and MainlandTanzania. The area is characterized by unique marine and terrestrialecosystems. It is an important location for fishing as it supports thedirect livelihood of over 11,400 people who fish in and aroundMisali annually. An estimated 36 of 50 communities on Pemba fishthe waters of Misali and up to 7,000 people can be considereddependent on its resources. Misali Island has no permanent

population, although some seasonal camps are set up on the eastside of the island for short periods. The area is characterized asa migratory fishing area.

In 1998, Misali Island and its surrounding reefs were protectedas a conservation area through the establishment of the MIMCA.The conservation area covers 21.58 km2 in total, of which 20.68 km2

is a marine area and 0.90 km2 is a terrestrial area. MIMCA has twomain zones, an extractive use zone where legal fishing is permittedand a non-extractive zone (approximately 1.4 km2) where no usesexcept snorkelling, swimming, boating and research are permitted.

Community and stakeholder involvement in MIMCA is quitehigh. Formalized participation of the local community through theMisali Island Conservation Association, a local NGO developed bylocal fisherman, ensures one ongoing source of consultations withthe community. Several environmental NGOs and governmentagencies have also been involved in the area, providing ongoingsupport for programs related to savings and credit programs andpromoting eco-tourism.

Fig. 2 provides an overview of how the process framework maybe applied to MIMCA. The given scenario proposes that underMACEMP an expansion of the current non-extractive use zone inMIMCA will be realized from its current size of 1.4 km2 (approxi-mately 8.5% of the total conservation area) to protect additionalvaluable habitat.

The example outlines how the process framework would betriggered, how key existing stakeholders and new stakeholderswould be involved in the process, and at what point meetings withgroups would take place. The key tool developed for mitigation is

Fig. 2. Application of the process framework to the Misali Island Marine Conservation Area (MIMCA).

K. Gustavson et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 78–88 87

a Community Mitigation Action Plan (CMAP). Throughout theprocess, the grievances and redress options remain available toparticipants. The expected outcome of this application is thatMIMCA-affected communities would have a greater understandingof the potential impacts and be able to enhance their participationin the decision-making process, especially among vulnerablegroups.

5. Conclusions

The process framework provides practitioners with an exampleof an approach to address community impacts of coastal zonemanagement initiatives, specifically as it applies to the mitigationof effects due to the establishment of MPAs. There is an increase inthe number of African coastal countries adopting integrated coastalmanagement (i.e. from a total of five to 13 between 1993 and 2000)[24]. Therefore, the need for the management of social impacts is

becoming increasingly important to help ensure that these initia-tives are well designed and implemented. The challenge of coastalzone management in these countries, while working towards thegoal of poverty alleviation, requires the design and delivery ofconsultative and inclusive management processes. The processframework represents a relatively simple tool that can be used toinform project design and mitigate social impacts.

Acknowledgements

This paper evolved from the results of an Environmental andSocial Assessment (ESA) of the Marine and Coastal EnvironmentManagement Project (MACEMP) of the United Republic of Tanzania.Dr. Dan Walmsley of Walmsley Environmental Consultants (Canada)served as an advisor on the project. The project co-ordinators for theUnited Republic of Tanzania were Mr. Baraka Mngulwi (Ministry ofNatural Resources and Tourism, Tanzania), Mr. Magese Bulayi

K. Gustavson et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 78–8888

(Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Tanzania), Mr. ShehaHamdan (Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environmentand Co-operatives, Zanzibar), and Mr. AM Othman (Ministry ofAgriculture, Natural Resources, Environment and Co-operatives,Zanzibar). The authors would also like to acknowledge the co-operation and assistance provided by the many personnel withinthe Government of Tanzania and the Revolutionary Government ofZanzibar. Dr. Jack Ruitenbeek (H.J. Ruitenbeek Resource ConsultingLimited, France), Ms. Indu Hewawasam (World Bank, TanzaniaOffice), and Dr. Roxanne Hakim (Social Development Department,World Bank, Washington) provided important guidance as part ofthe World Bank Task Team. Any opinions or conclusions expressedin this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflectthe position of Jacques Whitford Limited, Agenda, the Governmentof Tanzania, the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar, the WorldBank or their affiliated agencies.

References

[1] United Nations Environment Program. Johannesburg Declaration on Sustain-able Development. Adopted at the 17th plenary meeting of the World Summiton Sustainable Development; September 4, 2002.

[2] United Nations. The millennium development goals report. New York: TheUnited Nations; 2006. 32 pp.

[3] Torell EC, Amoral M, Bayrer TG, Daffa J, Luhikula G, Hale LZ. Building enablingconditions for integrated coastal management at the national scale in Tanza-nia. Ocean and Coastal Management 2004;47:339–59.

[4] World Bank. World development indicators. Washington, DC: The WorldBank; 2006.

[5] World Bank. Involuntary resettlement instruments. operational policy (OP)4.12, Annex A, 2001 (December). Available from: <wbln0018.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/toc2/46FC304892280AB785256B19008197F8?OpenDocument>.

[6] Juma SK, Tanzania Marine and Coastal Environment Management Project(MACEMP). Environmental and social situation analysis. Dar es Salaam, Tan-zania: Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, United Republic of Tanza-nia; 2004. 199 pp.

[7] Tanzania Coastal Management Programme (TCMP). Tanzania coastal tourismsituation analysis. Report prepared by the National Environmental Manage-ment Council, the University of Rhode Island Coastal Resources Centre and theUnited States Agency for International Development. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania:TCMP; 2001. 62 pp.

[8] Department of Environment, Institute of Marine Sciences, Sub-commission forForestry, Sub-commission for Fisheries and Integrated Planning Unit. Towardsintegrated management and sustainable development of Zanzibar’s coast.Findings and recommendations for an action strategy in the Chwaka Bay-Pajearea. Dar es Salaam, Tanazania: Department of Environment; 1997. 64 pp.

[9] Tanzania Coastal Management Programme (TCMP). Tanzania state of the coast2001: people and the environment. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: TCMP; 2001. 54 pp.

[10] Lema R. Capacity building in planning and co-management of the Tanzaniaprawn fishery. Community participation in the Tanzania Prawn FisheryManagement Plan – a draft report for the second workshop. Prepared for Foodand Agriculture (FAO) of the United Nations; 2003.

[11] Leon Y, Tobey J, Torell E, Mwaipopo R, Mkenda A, Ngazy Z, et al. MPAsand poverty alleviation: an empirical study of 24 coastal villages onmainland Tanzania and Zanzibar. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: The WorldBank; 2004.

[12] Zanzibar Revolutionary Government (ZRG). Zanzibar Poverty Reduction Plan.Cross cutting issues (gender, HIV/AIDS, environment, population and vulner-able groups and land). Zanzibar: ZRG. Available from: <www.sli.unimelb.edu.au/fig7/Brighton98/Comm7Papers/SS48-Sulaiman.html>; 2002.

[13] Wells S, Juma S, Mohando C, Makota V, Argady T. Study on the ecologicalbasis for establishing a system for MPAs and marine management areas inthe United Republic of Tanzania. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: The World Bank;2004.

[14] Ruitenbeek J, Hewawasam I, Ngoile M. Blueprint 2050: sustaining the marineenvironment in Mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar. Washington, DC: The WorldBank; 2005. 125pp.

[15] Chando C. Gender roles in fisheries planning and projects: a case study ofcoastal region in Tanzania, masters thesis. Norway: University of Trondheim;2002.

[16] USAID. Helping the disabled impacted with HIV/AIDS. Telling Our Story Series.USAID Information for Tanzania; 2003. 2 pp.

[17] Government of Tanzania. HIV/AIDS in Tanzania. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania:TACAIDS (Tanzania Commission for Aid); 2003. 20 pp.

[18] Tanzania Coastal Management Programme (TCMP). Tanzania state of the coast2003: the national ICM strategy and prospects for poverty reduction. Jointinitiative between the National Environment Management Council, theUniversity of Rhode Island Coastal Resource Center, and the United StatesAgency for International Development. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: TCMP; 2003.36 pp.

[19] Food and Agriculture Organization. Fisheries and aquaculture information andstatistics service – capture: quantity (United Republic of Tanzania). 2008.Available from: <http://www.fao.org/figis/servlet/SQServlet?file¼/usr/local/tomcat/FI/5.5.23/figis/webapps/figis/temp/hqp_30893.xml&outtype¼html>.

[20] Bulayi ME. Community Based Cooperative Fisheries Management for LakeVictoria Fisheries in Tanzania. Reykjavik, Iceland: United Nations UniversityFisheries Training Program. Available from: <http://www.unuftp.is/proj01/BulayiPRF.pdf>; 2001. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, FisheriesDivision, Tanzania.

[21] Tanzania Coastal Management Partnership (TCMP). Tanzania Coastal TourismSituational Analysis, Prepared by Tanzania Coastal Management PartnershipSupport Unit and Coastal Tourism Working Group. Dar es Saleem, Tanzania:TCMP; November 2001. 51 pp.

[22] Ngwale J, Kamukala G, Bashagi W, Lima R. Kilwa District consultations: designof Rufiji-Mafia-Kilwa Seascape Marine Coastal Resources Management Pro-gramme. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: World Wildlife Fund; 2004.

[23] Semesi AK, Mzava EM. Management plans for mangrove ecosystems ofMainland Tanzania, vols. 1–10. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Ministry of TourismNatural Resources and Environment, Forestry and Beekeeping Division,Mangrove Management Project; 1991.

[24] Cicin-Sain B, Belifore S. Linking marine protected areas to integrate coastaland ocean management: a review of theory and practice. Ocean and CoastalManagement 2005;48:847–68.