First Enhancing our Heritage Assessment at Ngorongoro ......First Enhancing our Heritage Assessment at Ngorongoro Conservation Area ... covers some 8,292 square kilometres. It is situated

i

First Enhancing our Heritage Assessment at Ngorongoro Conservation Area

2010-2011

i

Compiled by: Krissie Clark and Wayne Lotter of the PAMS Foundation, Dr Victor Runyoro, Hillary Mushi, Robert Mande, Henry Sweddy and

Donatus Gadiye of Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority (NCAA), and Sue Stolton (Equilibrium Research)

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank the Chief Conservator, Mr. Amiyo Amiyo, Dr Justice Muumba, NCAA, UNESCO and all Workshop

Participants

Photographs by: Krissie Clark & Wayne Lotter

ii

Table of Contents Introduction to the project area, Ngorongoro Conservation Area ........................................................................................................ 1 Project Background ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1

The Project Workbook and Tool Kits............................................................................................................................................... 2 How the Project was carried out .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Compilation of EoH Project Report...................................................................................................................................................... 6 Tools completed during the NCA assessment .................................................................................................................................... 7

Tool 1a: Identifying major site values and objectives ...................................................................................................................... 7 Tool 1b: Documenting management objectives and their relationship to site values .................................................................... 10 Tool 2: Identifying Threats ............................................................................................................................................................ 13 Tool 3: Engagement of Stakeholders ............................................................................................................................................ 25 Tool 4: Review of National Policy Context .................................................................................................................................... 31 Tool 5a: Management Planning Information Sheet ....................................................................................................................... 35 Tool 5b: Adequacy of Primary Planning Document ...................................................................................................................... 36 Tool 6: Design Assessment .......................................................................................................................................................... 42 Tool 7a: Assessment of Management Needs and Inputs for Staff ................................................................................................ 47 Tool 7b: Assessment of Management Needs and Inputs for Budget ............................................................................................ 50 Tool 8a: Assessment of Management Processes ......................................................................................................................... 52 Tool 8b: Assessment of Management Processes - Summary ...................................................................................................... 60 Tool 9: Assessment of Management Plan Implementation ........................................................................................................... 62 Tool 11a: Monitoring management outcomes ............................................................................................................................... 65 Tool 11b: Assessment of Outcomes of Management ................................................................................................................... 69 Tool 12: Review of Management Effectiveness Assessment Results ........................................................................................... 72

Appendix 1 – EoH Stakeholder Workshop participants ..................................................................................................................... 75

1

Introduction to the project area, Ngorongoro Conservation Area The Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) covers some 8,292 square kilometres. It is situated in the Ngorongoro District, Arusha Region, of the United Republic of Tanzania. The conservation area was established in 1959 as a multiple land use area that was designed to promote the conservation of wildlife and other natural resources, the interests of NCA indigenous residents, and tourism. This is an unique protected area in the whole of Africa.

The NCA is bordered on the south and south-east by the Lake Eyasi Escarpment and the agricultural communities of Karatu, Oldeani (Oltiyani in Maa) and Mbulumbulu. Loliondo Game Controlled Area borders NCA to the north, the Sale Plains and Lake Natron basin border the area on the north-east, Serengeti National Park borders it on the north and north-west, and to the west is Maswa Game Reserve.

Among the unique features of the NCA is the Ngorongoro Crater, the floor of which covers an area of about 250 square kilometres. The Ngorongoro Crater is internationally renowned for its rich wildlife and spectacular scenery. It supports high densities of wildlife throughout the year; including one of the very few remaining populations of black rhinoceros in the country. The NCA together with Serengeti National Park and other conservation areas of the Serengeti ecosystem supports the greatest concentration of wildlife left on the earth. The short grass plains of the NCA are the wet season grazing grounds for the majority of the Serengeti’s migratory herds, numbering approximately 1.5 million wildebeest, 470,000 gazelles, and 260,000 zebra (TAWIRI, 2003). The NCA also includes the Northern Highland Forest Reserve (NHFR), which is a vital water catchment area, providing water for the NCA and to the adjacent subsistence and commercial agricultural communities of Oldeani and Karatu. The catchment area is also believed to be an important recharge area for springs supporting the ground water forests in Lake Manyara National Park. In addition to its catchment value, the highland forest of the NCA provides an important habitat for game, including black rhinoceros, elephant and buffalo and is also a refuge for grazing by pastoralists during critical drought. Two of the most important archaeological and palaeontological sites in the world; the Oldupai Gorge and the Alaitole Footprints Site at Ngarusi are found within the NCA. The conservation area contains many other palaeontological and archaeological sites and the potential for further discoveries is regarded as being high. Furthermore, the NCA is inhabited by about 60,000 people, including NCA indigenous and non-indigenous residents (URT, 2003), together with their herds of cattle, donkeys and flocks of sheep and goats. The NCA, which currently is comprised of 16 formally registered villages, has been the traditional homeland of the Maasai for nearly three centuries. There is evidence to suggest that pastoralism in one or other form has existed in the area for more than two thousand years (Homewood and Rodgers, 1991). The area is also a refuge for pastoralists from other areas during times of drought. Due to these facts, UNESCO accorded the NCA World Heritage Site status in 1979 and International Biosphere Reserve status in 1981. Its features attract many visitors, which have enabled the area to become one of the most visited tourist destinations in Tanzania and the world.

Project Background Natural World Heritage sites, as with all protected areas, face many challenges which threaten their integrity. Unless addressed, these challenges can erode the outstanding universal values for which they were inscribed on the list of World Heritage Sites. Those responsible for the conservation and management of World Heritage properties have the complex task of anticipating and dealing with these challenges, most often in an environment of limited financial and organizational capacity. Under these circumstances, it is incumbent upon them to invest their efforts in the most critical areas, ensuring that available resources are applied to their maximum effectiveness. A toolkit, namely “Enhancing our Heritage”, was thus developed by UNESCO for assessing the management effectiveness of World Heritage Sites. The toolkit consists of 12 different tools and assesses all aspects of protected area management. The goals of Enhancing our Heritage (EoH) are to:

Contribute to adaptive management;

Develop a consistent approach to management of the state of conservation and management effectiveness of World Heritage sites; and

Inform World Heritage monitoring and reporting processes.

2

The implementation of EoH is supported by UNESCO and endorsed by the IUCN. The Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) is one of the first World Heritage sites to voluntarily implement EoH in East and Southern Africa. The Project Workbook and Tool Kits

The EoH Toolkit contains twelve practical tools, each designed to help those responsible for managing World Heritage (WH) sites piece together the elements of a comprehensive management framework, including the construction of targeted monitoring strategies. Designed as separate exercises, each with tables and guidelines, the emphasis is on user-friendliness, flexibility, and adaptability to local realities. Each tool is briefly described below.

Tool 1: Identifying Site Values and Management Objectives Identifies and lists major site values and associated management objectives. Together these help decide what should be monitored and analysed during the assessment.

Tool 2: Identifying Threats Helps managers to organise and report changes in the type and level of threat to a site and to manage responses.

Tool 3: Relationships with Stakeholders Identifies stakeholders and their relationship with the site.

Tool 4: Review of National Context Helps understand how national and international policies, legislation and government actions affect the site.

Tool 5: Assessment of Management Planning Assesses the adequacy of the main planning document used to guide management of the site.

Tool 6: Design Assessment Assesses the design of the site and examine how its size, location and boundaries affect managers’ capacity to maintain site values.

Tool 7: Assessment of Management Needs and Inputs Evaluates current staff compared to staff needs and current budget compared to an ideal budget allocation.

Tool 8: Assessment of Management Processes Identifies best practices and desired standards for management processes and rates performance against these standards.

Tool 9: Assessment of Management Plan Implementation Shows progress in implementing the management plan (or other main planning document), both generally and for individual components.

Tool 10: Work/Site Output Indicators Assesses the achievement of annual work programme targets and other output indicators.

Tool 11: Assessing the Outcomes of Management Answers the most important question – whether the site is doing what it was set up to do in terms of maintaining ecological integrity, wildlife, cultural values, landscapes etc.

Tool 12: Review of Management Effectiveness Assessment Results Summarises the results and helps to prioritise management actions in response.

Use of the EoH Toolkit also helps World Heritage sites to set and maintain leading benchmark standards for protected area management. This is regarded as being an important part of the strategy to improve the management effectiveness of all categories of protected areas around the globe. Although it has been developed with a focus on natural properties, the initiative also has potential value as a tool to assist cultural WH properties.

3

In November 2009, the UNESCO approved and IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas endorsed the proposal to implement the EoH Toolkit at NCA.

How the Project was carried out The EoH evaluation process was implemented primarily through a series of mini work sessions. The implementation of the toolkit was done in-house, however the process was facilitated by Krissie Clark and Wayne Lotter of the PAMS Foundation. Specialist technical advice was provided by Sue Stolton from the United Kingdom. Sue is the lead author of the Enhancing our Heritage Toolkit and a highly acclaimed international expert in the field of management effectiveness. The NCAA team who led the process under supervision of Dr. Victor Runyoro comprised the following staff members: Hillary Mushi, Henry Sweddy, Robert Mande and Donatus Gadiye. Six site visits were undertaken by members of the facilitating team, the breakdown of which was as follows: Visit 1 The first planning and training session regarding the implementation of the Enhancing our Heritage toolkit took place from 7 to 11 March 2010. It included the following meetings: Meeting 1: Date: 8 March 2010 Details: General Planning discussion Attended by:

Dr. Victor Runyoro (NCAA)

Mr. Henry Sweddy (NCAA)

Ms. Sue Stolton (Equilibrium Research)

Mr. Wayne Lotter (PAMS Foundation)

Ms. Krissie Clark (PAMS Foundation) Meeting 2: Date: 9 March 2010 Details: Introduction by Wayne Lotter followed by a presentation from Sue Stolton on Management Effectiveness and Enhancing our Heritage. Presentation given by Krissie Clark on the proposed way forward regarding implementation. Group discussion led by Dr. Runyoro on the way forward and identification of project team/champions from NCAA to implement the toolkit. Attended by:

Dr. Victor Runyoro (NCAA)

Dr. Justice Muumba (NCAA)

Mr. Amiyo T. Amiyo (NCAA)


Ms. Sue Stolton (Equilibrium Research)


Ms. Krissie Clark (PAMS Foundation) Meeting 3: Date: 10 & 11 March 2010 Details: Project Champions Meeting. Brief introduction to the Enhancing our Heritage Toolkit and proposed way forward regarding implementation. Attended by:

Mr.Donatus E. Gadiye (NCAA)

Mr. Robert M. Lakati (NCAA)

Mr. Hillary Mushi (NCAA)



Ms. Krissie Clark (PAMS Foundation)

4

Figure 1: Project champions working through the tools (from left to right - Mr.Donatus E. Gadiye, Mr. Hillary Mushi, and Mr. Henry Sweddy)

Visit 2 The first implementation work session by the NCAA EoH team, facilitated by Ms. Krissie Clark and Mr. Wayne Lotter. Date: 17, 18, 19 and 20 May 2010 Details: Worked through EoH tools 1, 2, 5 and 9.

Figure 2: Project champions working through the tools (from left to right - Mr. Hillary Mushi, Mr.Donatus E. Gadiye, Ms Krissie Clark and Mr. Henry Sweddy)

5

Visit 3 The second implementation work session by the NCAA EoH team, facilitated by Ms. Krissie Clark and Mr. Wayne Lotter. Date: 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 July 2010 Details: Worked through EoH tools 3, 4 and 6. Visit 4 The third implementation work session by the NCAA EoH team, facilitated by Ms. Krissie Clark and Mr. Wayne Lotter. Date: 15, 16, 18 and 19 November 2010 Details: Worked through EoH tools 7 and 8. Visit 5 The fourth and final implementation work session by the NCAA EoH team, facilitated by Ms. Krissie Clark and Mr. Wayne Lotter. Date: 7 February 2011 Details: Worked through EoH Tool 11. Visit 6 The final visit comprised a one day planning and work session at the NCA and a one day EoH Stakeholder Workshop at the neighbouring town of Karatu, facilitated by Ms. Krissie Clark and Mr. Wayne Lotter (PAMS Foundation) and chaired by Dr. Victor Runyoro (NCAA). Date: 15 and 16 March 2011 Sponsored by: NCAA and UNESCO Attended by: Heads of departments and key staff from NCAA and various internal and external Stakeholder representatives (participants are listed in Appendix 1).

Figure 3: Preparing for the EoH Stakeholder Workshop, NCAA headquarters (from left to right - Mr. Robert M. Lakati, Mr. Hillary Mushi, Mr. Henry Sweddy, Mr. Wayne Lotter)

6

Figure 4: EoH Stakeholder Workshop held at Kudu Lodge, Karatu

Compilation of EoH Project Report This Enhancing our Heritage - Ngorongoro Conservation Area (2010 – 2011) assessment report was compiled by Ms. Krissie Clark and Mr. Wayne Lotter (PAMS Foundation) during April and May 2011. It summarises the EoH project process that was conducted and reflects the outputs as agreed during the 16 March 2011 Stakeholder Workshop. The report was finalised and distributed in consultation with Dr. Victor Runyoro and the NCAA EoH Project team/champions who worked under his supervision. This team took part in the process in a fully participatory manner and should thus be able to implement periodic EoH assessments for the NCA in-house in future and in so doing contribute towards increasingly effective management of this World Heritage Site over time.

7

Tools completed during the NCA assessment Tool 1a: Identifying major site values and objectives

Value subheadings

Major site values Is this a World Heritage value? (list World Heritage criteria numbers)

Information sources used for determining the values

Biodiversity Values

1. Together with other areas of the Serengeti Ecosystem it supports the greatest concentrations of large mammals anywhere in the world and in Tanzania, including a spectacular annual migration of large ungulates

2.Ngorongoro Crater supports very high densities of wildlife throughout the year

3.Most viable black rhino population remaining in Tanzania

Yes

Criteria vii - to contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance (old criteria –iii contain superlative natural phenomena, formations or features)

Criteria x - to contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation (old criteria-iv contain the most important and significant natural habitats where threatened species of animals or plants of outstanding universal value survive.

Advisory Body Evaluation Document (1979) NCA General Management Plan 2006-2009

Other Natural Values

4. Stunning landscape scenery 5. Ngorongoro Crater is the largest unbroken caldera in the world 6. Highlands form an important water catchment and critical to ground water forests of Lake Manyara 7. Carbon sink 8. The craters form part of the western rift valley geology, dating back to the Mesozoic/ early tertiary periods

Yes

Criteria ix - to be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth's history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features (old criteria –ii - Significant ongoing geological processes, biological evolution and man’s interaction with his natural environment)

Advisory Body Evaluation Document (1979) NCA General Management Plan 2006-2009

8

Value subheadings



Cultural Values 9. Two of the most important palaeontological and archaeological sites in the world (Oldupai gorge & Laetole footprints), which have been fundamental to our understanding of human evolution.

10. Homeland for Maasai & Tatoga pastoralists as well as Hadzabe hunter gatherers. 11. Many spiritual sites.

Yes

Criteria ix - to be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth's history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features (old criteria –ii - Significant ongoing geological processes, biological evolution and man’s interaction with his natural environment)

It has been proposed/put forward that NCAA should also qualify under the following criteria:

Criteria (iii) A unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization, which is living, or which has disappeared Criteria (iv) An outstanding example of a landscape, which illustrates significant stages in human history

Advisory Body Evaluation Document (1979) NCA General Management Plan 2006-2009 Nomination file for Ngorongoro World Heritage Mixed Site (2009)

Economic Values

12. Most visited tourist destination in Tanzania, important

economic resource for NCA indigenous residents, Ngorongoro

District, the region and the nation

13. Direct employment opportunities, in the form of labour in NCA

park and from tourism activities, and indirect multiplier effect

14. Highlands form an important water catchment for local and for neighbouring agricultural communities

No NCA General Management Plan 2006-2009

Educational Values

15. A UNESCO WHS and International Biosphere Reserve, providing a good educational area for various scientific studies/opportunities, for universities, colleges, schools, communities and visitors

No

9

Value subheadings



Other Social Values

16. Recreation, from top end international tourists, local tourists and indigenous

No

10

Tool 1b: Documenting management objectives and their relationship to site values

Principal objectives Major values linked to these Information sources used for determining the

objectives

Biodiversity values

To ensure the landscape and its exceptional resources are preserved To ensure viable populations of both common and endangered wildlife resources are maintained, and increase the number of rare species

Values 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Value 1, 2, 3

NCA General Management Plan 2006-2009

Other natural values

To ensure management decisions are made based on scientific and indigenous knowledge of the areas natural resources and ecological processes To ensure that human, livestock and wildlife populations have access to quality and adequate water resources

Value 15 Value 7, 12


Cultural values

To ensure paleontological and archaeological sites that have provided valuable evolutionary information to mankind are adequately preserved for the benefits of current and future generations To ensure that visitors respect NCA indigenous residents’ culture, norms, traditions and values

Value 9, 15 Value 9, 10, 11


11


objectives

Economic values

To make sure that values that have made NCA to be accorded the status of World Heritage Status and a Biosphere Reserve are realised by NCA indigenous residents, visitors, the general public, and the world at large To ensure the active participants for NCA indigenous residents in tourism activities is realised To make sure that revenue from tourism within Limits of Acceptable Use are maximised

Value 12 & 15 Value 12 & 13


Educational values

To improve the appreciation of NCA natural, cultural and historical values of visitors

Value 12, 15, 16 NCA General Management Plan 2006-2009

12


objectives

Other social values

To enhance active participation of NCA indigenous residents in decision making matters related to conservation, development and tourism To ensure improved income for NCA indigenous residents To ensure continuous food security among NCA indigenous residents To ensure quality health services to NCA indigenous residents To ensure basic services such as education and water supply are provided to NCA indigenous residents To reduce incidence of property damage and costs related to wildlife distribution To ensure career possibilities for staff so that administrative, management and operation issues are carried out efficiently and effectively To improve the NCAA staff social well being and performance through ensuring better remuneration and installation of a training plan To reduce HIV/AIDS threats to NCAA staff, their families and NCA community

Value 9, 10 Value 13

Value 9, 10 Value 9, 10 Value 9, 10 Value 1, 2, 3, 7, 9 Value 13 Value 13 Value 16


13

Tool 2: Identifying Threats

The overall significance of each threat identified in Tool 2 has been rated according to the following table

Severity

Ext

ent

Very Low

Low Medium High Very High

Very Low

VL VL L L M

Low VL L L M H

Medium L L M H H

High L M H H VH

Very High

M H H VH VH

14

List Threats Impact Identify major causes of threat

List values threatened

Current or Potential Threat?

Impact of threat

Management response Data source

Exten

t

Severity

Overall

Sig

nifican

ce

Action Urg

ency

of

action

Human population increase due to immigration into NCA

1) Increased settlements restricting wildlife movement/dispersal/migration. 2) Increased utilisation of the forest/woodlands, resulting in deforestation and also negative impact on water catchments

1) More favourable living conditions (better livestock and health services), livestock pastures, more arable land, job opportunities within NCA.

1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 Current Very high

Very high

Very H

igh

Resettle families to areas outside of NCA (with initial focus being on immigrants). Estimated that there are around 60 000 people living in NCA, one study suggests a carrying capacity of around 23 000 to 35 000. Actions to date: 1) Identified 1750 illegal immigrants within NCA (250 households), and relocated 550 people (120 households) to an area outside NCA where schools and other facilities have been provided by NCA (data as of May 2010). 2) Some voluntary relocation of people from inside to outside NCA, due to more attractive environment created outside (especially after cultivation was banned). Suggested further action: 1) Put in measures to stop immigration 2) Continue with resettlement programme (look for additional suitable areas outside NCA for the relocation in collaboration with central government). 3) Seek incentives to increase effect of action 2. 4) Conduct regular carrying capacity assessments.

Very H

igh

15

Political influence 1) Crosscutting e.g. roads, investments (lodges), people doing agriculture

1) Conflicting interests (personal economic gains vs sustainability of whole, votes vs. conservation )

all Current Very H

igh

Very high

Very H

igh

Need more adherence to the law, and not act according to latest political campaign/decisions/interests. Increase public relation awareness (including politicians). Better adherence to EIA. Action to date: The process of reviewing the Ngorongoro Conservation Act, CAP 284 of 2002) has started.

Very high

NCAA Monitoring

High numbers of tourists visiting NCA

1) Traffic congestion in Ngorongoro Crater floor. 2) Wildlife disturbance. 3) Negative impact on landscape e.g. roads, pollution (dust, litter, increase sewage waste, noise, etc). 4) Behavioural changes in culture (Maasai posing for photos instead of doing daily duties). 5) over/heavy utilisation of resources (water).

1) Inadequate tourism management (better planning needed). 2) Under development of other tourist attraction sites (Empakaai, Olmoti, Laetole). 3) Not maintaining trails put in at Empakaai, Endoro river, Olmoti

1, 2, 3, 4, 9 Current High

Very high

Very H

igh

Reduce the number of tourists visiting Ngorogoro crater by either attracting them elsewhere within NCA and/or introducing regulations to reduce numbers in the crater. Actions to date: 1) Construction of nature walk trail at Empakaai, Olmoti and Endoro river (unfortunately these trails have not been maintained – trail maintenance post to be advertise in 2011), 2) Improvement of roads to other areas such as Empakaai & Olmoti. 3) EIA of traffic management in N. Crater. 4) Raised visitor fees for N. Crater. 5) Tourism strategy being reviewed in 2011. Suggested further actions: 1) Diversify tourist attractions - improve roads to Lake Eyasi and Gol mountains to make them accessible to tourists. 2) Maintain trails 3) Improve the current Tourism Strategy (in process). 4) Investigate and action, if feasible, other ways of reducing congestion in crater e.g. limit the daily number of vehicles into the crater (introduce a booking system), limit number of hours. 5) Develop code of conduct for tour operator drivers.

High

EIA

16

Small scale agriculture in NCA

1) Destruction of natural vegetation, which has cascading impact on wildlife habitats, wildlife movement. 2) Land-use conflict (cultivating in grazing areas, cultivating in WHS. 3) Human-wildlife conflict. 4) Visual impact on scenic beauty of NCA.

1) Population increase and poverty (don’t have enough food to sustain themselves) 2) Low livestock production (ratio of livestock products and animals is not sufficient)

1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9

Current Very H

igh

Very H

igh

Very H

igh

Actions to date: All agriculture in NCA banned at inscription, banned lifted in 1992, agriculture banned again 2009. If found, crops are slashed and owner taken to court. Suggested further action: 1) Provide alternatives e.g. low cost grains to inhabitants, improving livestock, other conservation compatible income generating activities (cultural bomas, beekeeping). 2) Research into the best restoration techniques of areas used as agricultural fields.

Low

NCAA Monitoring

Increasing numbers of livestock inside NCA (note: cattle numbers have stayed more or less stable since the 80s)

1) Increased competition of shared resources resulting in negative impact on wildlife and cattle. 2) Rangeland degradation (highlands - palatable grasses disappearing, trampling, increase in weedy encroacher species, soil erosion), 3) Cultural heritage sites being trampled. 4) Incidents of lion killing/injuring livestock

1) Not a reliable market for the sale of livestock in and around NCA. 2) Strong traditions/culture (livestock abundance is a sign of wealth & respect) 3) Improved livestock health services. 4) Restocking destitute families with livestock (NGOs facilitating cattle being brought from outside to inside NCA)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11

Current High

High

High

Reduce cattle numbers. Actions to date 1) Improving livestock genes through artificial insemination from better breeds (to increase milk and meat production). 2) Encouraging voluntarily movement of Masaai and their livestock to areas outside NCA, by the NCA providing land outside NCA with various facilities Suggested Action: 1) Inclusion of sustainability and economics of livestock farming to be included in schools (more cattle is not necessary better) 2) Help facilitate getting a reliable market in place for the sale of livestock and livestock by-products (this money can be used to buy other resources). Ensure better quality and lower quantity/number of livestock!

Very H

igh

Livestock census of 2008

17

Human population growth (inside and outside NCA)

1) Increased settlements restricting wildlife movement/dispersal/migration. 2) Increased utilisation of the forest/woodlands, resulting in deforestation and also negative impact on water catchments

1) Improved health services. 2) Tradition & cultures (many are polygamous with many wives and children). 3) Poor family planning/education

1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 Current High

High

High

Estimated that there are around 60 000 people living in NCA, one study suggests a carrying capacity of around 23 000 - 35 000 Actions to date: 1) Family planning education in process/ongoing (NCA and District health staff involved). 2) Some NCA staff have been relocated to outside the reserve Suggested further action: 1) Family planning that targets adults and youth 2) Ensure the inclusion of ‘health and economics of large versus small families’, into schools 3) Conduct a study to review suggested carrying capacity

High

Human Census of 2008, information from relevant NCA staff, carrying capacity report 2007

Developments /investments in and outside NCA

1) Developments have a negative visual impact on the landscape and its scenic beauty, block migratory corridors, lead to changed animal behaviour (bush pigs active during the day), disturbance/removal of fauna and flora, increased demand on limited water supply, may lead to the introduction of invasive alien plants

1) Weak Policy and Regulations governing development (easily influenced by politically motivated decisions). 2) NCA being Tanzania's number one tourist destination. 3) EIA process is sometimes overruled by higher authorities

1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12

Current and Potential (if more lodges)

High

High

High

To date: recent proposed developments have been subject to EIA. Suggested action: 1) Improve the development guideline policy and ensure that it is in line with diversification strategy of tourism activities. 2) Ensure this policy is adhered to/enforced and not influenced by political campaigns. 3) Continue to ensure all proposed developments undergo a thorough EIA and the recommendations thereof are complied with. 4) Introducing environmental audits to ensure compliance to EIA and additional environmental impacts 5) Consider nature based tourism certification

Very H

igh

NCAA Monitoring

18

Increase of indigenous weedy encroachers

1) Rangeland degradation (palatable species being outcompeted) which has a cascading effect on wildlife and livestock (and socio economic impacts). Limits tourist game viewing visibility

1) Heavy utilisation of the rangelands. 2) Changes in fire regimes. 3) Not implementing the mowing and burning research & management programme to its full extent

1, 2, 3, 4, 6 Current High

High

High

Actions to date: 1) Identification of problem species. 2) Some mowing and burning conducted. Suggested actions: Ensure continued implementation of the full scale mowing and burning research & management programme. 2) Investigate the feasibility of reducing the grazing pressure in some areas.

Very high

NCAA Research and monitoring

Presence and increase of invasive alien species

1) Outcompete indigenous species, which will have a cascading effect on wildlife, livestock (and include social economic impacts)

1) Aliens plants and seeds brought in through: vehicles moving through NCA, agriculture, road and building construction material, intentional introductions for gardens, natural and biological agents (wind, water, wildlife), invasion from bordering communities

1, 2, 3, 4, 6 Current Medium

High

High

Actions to date: 1) identified and prioritised invasive alien plants occur in NCA through the assistance of external experts. 2) Developed an invasive alien species strategy for NCA. 3) Remove/control various invasive alien species outbreaks within NCA. 4) Removal of various invasive alien plants from staff housing areas and lodges. 5) Currently revising invasive alien species strategy and developing guidelines. Suggested further actions: 1) Continue with control programmes, ensure they are done at the right time of year and that there are sufficient resources available to do a thorough control job. 2) Continue with eradication at lodges and staff housing area (lodges may have changed ownership and not continued control programme, and regrowth of some species controlled may have occurred). 3) Ongoing education and awareness programme (as per the updated 2010 strategy)

Very H

igh

NCAA Research and monitoring

19

Pollution from sewage and solid waste

1) Degradation of the natural environments within NCA

1) Poor sewage and waste management

1, 2, 3, 6 Current High

Medium

High

Actions to date: 1) Basic waste management plan in place. 2) Instructed lodges and tour operators to put their names on lunch packs, in ordered to determine who is littering. Actions needed: Review waste management plan and include a section addressing recycling and one on waste management auditing.

High

NCAA Monitoring

Socio-cultural changes of indigenous people e.g. 1) previously lived off blood, milk & meat, now need eggs, beans, ugali, 2) previous used dung for cooking, now use timber and charcoal 3) posing for photos instead of conducting daily tasks

1) Forest destruction for timber, charcoal and agriculture, which has cascading impact on wildlife, water etc. 2) Negative impact on culture

1) Population growth & immigration. 2) Education 3) Interaction with other tribes and tourists

1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10

Potential & Currently (increasing slowly)

High

Medium

High

Actions to date: Banning agriculture within NCA Suggested further actions: 1) Consider to reinforce traditional identity recognising the differences of the pastoralist and hunter gathers & relevant mitigating measures must be compatible with the needs of each traditional culture 2) Supply imported grains to inhabitants at better/lower prices. 3) Investigate and introduce appropriate interventions to reduce reliance on charcoal and wood for cooking.

High

NCAA Monitoring

20

Landscape degradation from extraction of raw road construction & maintenance material from within the NCA

1) Destruction of natural vegetation, which has cascading impact on wildlife habitats. 2) Visual impact on the landscape and its scenic beauty

1) The roads are not sealed. 2) The traffic volumes and the nature of the soils require them to be gravelled/ resurfaced. 3) Gravel road are high maintenance 4) There is a shortage of good morum, hence more regular resurfacing is needed

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 High

Medium

High

Actions to date: have closed Morum hill quarry on the road to Sopa in Ngorongoro crater Suggested Action: 1) Research into more durable road construction and maintenance technologies. 2) Close some of the other quarries. 3) Consider tarring the main road, entry & exit road to/from the N. crater subject to thorough EIA, with good policy and control procedures in place.

High

NCAA Monitoring

Wildlife-livestock diseases (e.g. ECF, anaplasmosis. Babeosis, trypanosomosis, F&MD, anthrax, MCF, CBPP, heartwater, rift valley fever)

1) Mass die off of either livestock or wildlife or both

1) Interaction of wildlife and livestock with infected species/vector

1, 2, 3, 9, 12 Current & potential

Medium

Medium

High

Actions to date: Inoculations, dipping tanks and dips for livestock & research Further actions: 1) Continue current actions and disease surveillance. 2) Work with Districts to carry out further research.

Medium

NCAA Monitoring

Climate change (changes in regional climate characteristics, including temperature, humidity, rainfall, wind, and severe weather events.)

1) Unknown, but could result in the area being drier or wetter, which may impact on ecosystems and result in wildlife moving to other areas (either making it more suitable or less suitable for different wildlife species and livestock).

1) Natural (volcanic eruption, ocean currents etc) and man made (increased CO2, methane from more agriculture, deforestation, etc) causes across the globe.

Unknown -potentially 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 12

Potential (may currently be having impacts on NCA)

High

High

High

Actions to date: none Suggested further actions: 1) Find out more about predicted changes for NCA, develop a research programme to monitor likely effects. 2) Ensure the necessary corridors are available and kept open, should species need to move due to climate change effects

Medium

21

Human settlement encroachment surrounding NCA (no longer a buffer zone in place, Manyara to NCA migratory corridor has being blocked)

1) Destruction of natural vegetation for settlements, timber, charcoal and agriculture, which has cascading impact on wildlife habitats, wildlife movement corridors, water etc.

1) Population growth and the demand for more land. 2) Inadequate understanding from communities of the importance of not encroaching into core natural areas 3) Lack of well implemented land use planning

1, 2, 3, 6, 7 Current Medium

Medium

Medium

Actions to date: 1) Clearly marked boundaries (with visible large beacon) and monitoring (ongoing). 2) Promoting good neighbour relationships (continual dialog to encourage good will, helping schools, villages etc). 3) Encouraging resource benefit sharing to show importance of NCA. 4) Good law enforcement Suggested further action: Continue with current actions, investigate & implement habitat rehabilitation where feasible. NCA to collaborate with the necessary authorities for better implementation of land use plans

Low

NCAA Monitoring

Human-Wildlife Conflict

1) Loss of wildlife 2) Livestock injury or death 3) Human injury or death 4) Crop damage (outside NCA)

1) Livestock and wildlife both residing in NCA 2) Encroachment/ livestock and agricultural practices near NCA boundary (outside NCA)

1, 2, 3 Current Low

Low

Low

Actions to date: 1) Rangers check on all reported HWC incidents (inside & outside). 2) Zonal coordinators report all HWC incidents in monthly reports. Suggested further action: Awareness program to advise people to not plant crops near boundary and in wildlife corridors

Low

NCAA Monitoring

Poaching (primarily subsistence and some commercial) & cattle rustling

1) Loss of timber, livestock, wildlife, including endangered species

1) Poverty is driving people to find other mechanisms to survive 2) Lucrative prices for the sale of rhino horn and ivory

1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 12

Current & potential

Low

Low

Low

Actions to date: 1) Mobile outposts within the crater to monitor rhino & illegal activities, ongoing patrols. 2) Rangers and police stationed at cattle rustling problem areas (Kakesio & Endulen, Ndutu). Suggested further actions: Continue current actions. Reinstate special mobile reactive anti-poaching unit

Low

NCAA Monitoring

22

Uncontrolled fires 1) Extensive areas burnt 2) Forests burnt 3) Bomas burnt 4) Wildlife burnt (also in the case of management burns)

1) To help improve grazing, 2) For slash and burn agriculture 3) To minimise tick loads 4) Fire is used during honey collection & can spread

1, 2, 3, 9, 10 Current Low

Low

Low

Actions to date: 1) Education on fire, and communities told to ask NCA permission for burning. 2) Law enforcement against those that started fires. Suggested further actions: Continue current actions. Assess the number of uncontrolled fires and their impact.

Low

NCAA Monitoring

Extent of involvement of NCA indigenous residents (too much or too little)

1) The balance between ensuring the needs of the community and conservation can become skewed

Conflicting needs of the two parties (short term needs vs long term, sustainability needs)

9, 10 Potential Low

Low

Low

Actions to date: Environmental education amongst the communities. Suggested further actions: Education on communities and their rights to NCA staff. Re-assess the extent of involvement of NCA indigenous residents, to affirm whether it is adequately representative but not so extensive that it outweighs the NCA conservation constituent, to ensure the appropriate balance is achieved

Low

NCAA Monitoring

Dependence on tourist revenue

1) Much of NCA financial resources come from the revenue generated by tourism activities (in some years there has been little or no support from government, thus should the tourism industry crash (e.g. world recession, terrorism), it is unlikely that the government will be able to supply NCA enough funds to ensure daily operations and protection of WHS values

Absence of a contingency plan in the event of an unexpected ‘tourism recession’.

1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16

Potential Low

Low

Low

Actions to date: none Suggested further actions: Ensure the mechanisms are in place in central government to ensure that should tourist revenue decrease, there are sufficient funds available to ensure NCA can still be managed in a manner that ensures protection of all its values. Similarly, a contingency plan should include the reduction of lower priority (non essential) expenditure within the NCAA budget in the evident of fund shortages.

Low

NCAA Monitoring

23

Analysis and conclusions

Most important current threats: Human population increase due to immigration into NCA (very high urgency for action). Political influence (very high urgency for action), High tourist numbers resulting in ttraffic congestion and impacts of vehicles in Ngorongoro Crater (high urgency for action). Small scale agriculture in NCA (low urgency for action). Increasing numbers of livestock inside NCA (very high urgency for action). Human population growth inside and outside NCA (high urgency for action). Developments /investments in and outside NCA (very high urgency for action). Increase of indigenous weedy encroachers (very high urgency for action). Presence and increase of invasive alien species (very high urgency for action). Pollution from sewage and solid waste (high urgency for action). Socio-cultural changes of indigenous people (high urgency for action). Landscape degradation from extraction of raw road construction & maintenance material from within the NCA (high urgency for action). Wildlife-livestock diseases (medium urgency for action). Climate change (medium urgency for action).

Comparison with previous assessment

N/A

Gaps and challenges

Dealing with issues such as human population growth, politics and communities, climate change, and indigenous plant encroachment are either very sensitive or highly complicated issues and cannot be easily resolved in a short period of time.

24

Opportunities, recommendations, follow-up action

Implement a structured, systematic programme to prioritise and implement the suggested actions listed in the table above. Maximise the opportunities to involve external support or partner organisations to assist with addressing gaps and challenges which exist. Implement best practice management tools and systems that can assist with improving objectivity and consistency of management and monitoring over time. Maximise opportunities to integrate tertiary education studies of NCA staff members with addressing priority issues which may help to improve the management of NCA. Specific recommendations and suggested key follow-up actions included the following:

a) Put in measures to stop immigration by people into the NCA, whilst continuing with the resettlement programme to suitable areas outside the NCA, and conduct a study to review suggested carrying capacity.

b) Increase public relation campaign for the NCA, including to politicians to reduce political influence which may impact negatively on the conservation of the WHS.

c) Address human population growth (inside and outside NCA) through new interventions including teaching on the ‘health and economics of large versus small families’ in school curricula & targeting adults and youth with family planning programmes.

d) Preventing excessive numbers of livestock kept by including teaching on sustainability and economics of livestock farming in schools (more cattle is not necessarily better) and facilitating getting a reliable market in place for the sale of livestock and livestock by-products in place & helping to improve the quality of livestock as opposed to quantity.

e) Update and improve the current Tourism Strategy. f) Manage developments/ investments better by introducing environmental audits to ensure compliance to EIA and

additional environmental impacts, and consider introducing nature based tourism certification. g) Address the increase in indigenous weedy encroachers and invasive alien species through continuing with existing

and planned control programmes and ensuring there are sufficient resources in place to do a thorough control job. h) Manage pollution from sewage and solid waste by developing a waste management programme including recycling

where feasible. i) Investigate and introduce appropriate interventions to reduce reliance on charcoal and wood for cooking. j) Investigate more durable road construction and maintenance technologies including consideration of possible hard

surfacing of the main road and Crater entry and exit roads, subject to thorough EIA.

25

Tool 3: Engagement of Stakeholders

Identify major stakeholders with an interest/connection with the site

Issues to assess Indigenous communities, neighbouring communities

Lodges & tour operators, merchants, transporters

NGOs (e.g. FZS,

AWF, WWF, PAMS

Foundation)

Government (MNRT,

Antiquities, WD, TANAPA, NEMC, Local

govt)

Research and higher education

institutions (TAWIRI,TPRI,CAWM,SUA, UDSM)

International Organisation/Institution

s (IUCN,UNESCO,OXFAM

WFP)

Un

der

stan

din

g S

take

ho

lder

s

List the main issues affecting either the stakeholder group or the site.

Main issues associated with this stakeholder

Residents of the area; Reside along the NCA Boundary

Primary investors at NCA (lodges & tours); shops and trading

Support various conservation efforts, from endangered species conservation to invasive alien plants

Partners in conservation and preservation of site values

Undertake and/or oversee research at NCA

Monitor the maintenance and provide advisory support for management of the WHS

How, and to what extent are stakeholder groups dependent on the site value(s) for economic or other benefits?

Dependency of stakeholders on site

Very high – Many basic needs are obtained from the site or originate in the site (e.g. water and other natural resources)

High - Their services depend on the values of NCA and the people who reside in it

Low - They support NCAA conservation efforts

Varied – some high (MNRT, local govt) & others low (NEMC)

Medium-provides a training ground

Low - They support NCAA conservation efforts

26




NGOs (e.g. FZS,

AWF, WWF, PAMS

Foundation)

Government (MNRT,


govt)





WFP)

What is the nature and extent of any negative physical impacts on the site value(s)? For example, do stakeholders still extract resources from the site such as timber? Note whether these are legal or illegal.

List negative impacts of stakeholders on site

Very high- Tree cutting for construction and energy (legal if a permit has been obtained, but illegally activities also taking place); Soil erosion, blockage of wildlife corridors; Resource Competition; Poaching of wildlife and forest products (illegal), encroachment, over utilisation of water resources (legal)

High- Destruction of vegetation & wildlife habitats, increased level of pollutants, changes in traditional cultures, changes of behaviour in wildlife (bushpigs, baboons, monkeys having no fear of humans and raiding food), over utilization of water

Most NGOs impact positively by providing financial support or technical advice in order to help minimise impacts. However, some NGOs promote socio and economic practises that are not compatible with biodiversity conservation

Majority have no direct negative impacts. However, where buildings such as police stations, schools, housing and transport is needed, this does result in increased disturbance, waste etc.

Very low – on the odd occasion an animal may be injured or die as a result of the research activity (e.g. during capture)

None

What are the negative impacts of the World Heritage Site on the stakeholders? For example: were the communities displaced when the site was declared; are they excluded from traditional hunting grounds?

List negative impacts of site management on stakeholders

Restricted access/entry to the natural resources areas (e.g. crater floor) and socio-economic activities (no farming in NCA), conditions to land tenure and user rights

Restricted on development and business operations

None None None

None

27




NGOs (e.g. FZS,

AWF, WWF, PAMS

Foundation)

Government (MNRT,


govt)





WFP)

What is the nature and extent of any positive impacts of the stakeholder group on the site value(s)? For example, do local tourism guides alert rangers to problems? Does surrounding land use provide connectivity for the site?

List positive impacts of stakeholders on site

Assist with providing information (poaching, fire, other problems); Have been willing to abandon destructive traditions for more environmental friendly practices (e.g. willing to use modern stoves to reduce wood consumption); Willingness to participate in the conservation practices and activities

Bring in tourists to NCA (NCA highly dependent on funds from tourism activities) and market NCA. Tour operators educate tourists about NCA and some of its values (education & awareness)

They provide financial support or technical advice in order to help minimise impacts and ensure conservation/preservation of site value

Collaborated in various levels in conserving the area and some benefit through revenue generated at the site (e.g. MNRT)

Research findings facilitate solutions for management challenges

Provide advice to help ensure conservation and preservation of WHS & its values

What are any direct positive benefits of the site to the stakeholder group? For example does the site provide employment opportunities for local people? Does a forested area provide catchment protection and improved water quality for local people? Do tourism ventures benefit from the site values?

List positive impacts of site management on stakeholders

Yes- Providing employment opportunities; Facilitating income generated activities (cultural tourism, campsites); Education and medical support; Livestock development; Food security programme; Provision of water; Facilitating a market for farm products

Allow for some investment opportunities. Anti-poaching ensure wildlife still intact. Provide water, power, roads.

No major positive benefits, except being able to promote that they are working within a NCA, which is a World Heritage Site

Revenue from tourism

NCA provides an area for research opportunities and capacity building

No major positive benefits, except being able to promote their work in NCA as part of their portfolio

What is the stakeholder group’s receptivity to participating in management of the site value(s)? Under what terms or conditions?

Willingness/capacity of stakeholders to engage with site management

Good- Involvement in planning and decision making (Participatory mgt)

Good - Involved in planning

Good – provide ongoing advice and supervision of projects

Good - Sharing experience and challenges

Good - Research findings helps better management of the WHS

Good – provide advisory services

28




NGOs (e.g. FZS,

AWF, WWF, PAMS

Foundation)

Government (MNRT,


govt)





WFP)

What is site management’s relationship with the stakeholder group? What is the capacity (including resources) for engaging?

Willingness/capacity of site management to engage with stakeholders

Good -Participatory management approach

Good- Always invited to participate in planning workshops- e .g. GMP revision

Good- appreciative of support

Good & collaborative

Good- Invited to do research in WHS

Good- strive to adhere to WHS regulations

What is the stakeholder group’s relative political or cultural leverage or influence in the site value(s)?

Political/Social influence

High – locals involved in all managerial decisions to help ensure, promote and safeguard the interests of indigenous residents

Medium to Low– They operate primarily under rules and regulation of NCAA

Low High – they are government institutions and can influence legislation and other political influences

Medium High – UNESCO sets WHS regulations

How and to what degree is the stakeholder group organised, such that their engagement in management may be efficient and effective? Are there any specific community institutions that facilitate engagement?

Organisation of stakeholders

Well organised -Pastoral Council (through which representatives of the community living in NCA communicate to NCA management) Local government also communicate with NCA management

Medium – are represented through TATO (Tanzania Association of Tour Operators)

Medium – provide advice but more on an ad hoc basis (as the need arises) as opposed to being part of regular set meetings

High – engagement through various meetings and forums

Medium - engagement through various meetings and forums

High – engagement through missions, and various meetings and forums

29




NGOs (e.g. FZS,

AWF, WWF, PAMS

Foundation)

Government (MNRT,


govt)





WFP)

Ass

essm

ent

of

Sta

keh

old

er E

ng

agem

ent

Describe the nature and extent to which the stakeholder group contributes to decision-making in relation to this particular site value(s). Are there formal or informal management agreements in place?

What opportunities do stakeholders have to contribute to management?

Formal- involved in planning process and prioritise community development requirements

Formal- attend joint tourism meetings, attend planning workshops and through TATO

Formal & informal agreements in place – Provide advice on conservation related issues & support management activities

Formal- engagement through various meetings and forums

Formal- share research findings at various meetings and forums

Formal- engagement through various meetings, forums and mission reports

Describe the actual engagement of the stakeholder group in the management of the specific value(s). Are stakeholders regularly consulted regarding management of this value? Where possible, provide details of the nature and extent of engagement.

What is the level of engagement of the stakeholder?

Very High - Representative of Pastoral Council sit on the NCAA Board, thus they are represented at all board meetings; Regular ‘good neighbour’ meetings are held and these include village representatives

Medium - attend joint tourism meetings, attend planning workshops

Medium – provide technical expertise on specific issues

High - Ministerial body for the management of natural resources

Medium – provide scientific expertise on specific issues

High - provide technical expertise on specific issues

Su

mm

ary

Based on the information above, provide a brief description of the overall picture of stakeholder engagement.

Describe the overall adequacy of stakeholder engagement

Very good. It is also a legal requirement, and many outreach programmes are in place

Good – involved at various meetings and a workshops. Adhere to rules and regulations

Good – contribute to conservation efforts

Co-partners in conservation

Good – contribute to conservation efforts

International partners and advisory bodies

30




NGOs (e.g. FZS,

AWF, WWF, PAMS

Foundation)

Government (MNRT,


govt)





WFP)

Rat

ing

Very good – more than 75% of aspects of the relationship are positive Good – 51 to 74% of the aspects of the relationship are positive Fair – 26 to 50% of aspects of the relationship are positive Poor – 25% or less of the aspects of the relationship are positive

Rate the overall adequacy of stakeholder engagement, as either very good; good; fair or poor

Very good Good Good Good Good Good


It was concluded at the workshop that the indigenous communities have very high impacts on the NCA, the lodges and tour operators high, and the other stakeholder groups very low to none and that the overall adequacy of stakeholder engagement by and with the NCAA is good to very good.


N/A

Gaps and challenges

It is difficult to determine how to help merchants (traders) within the NCA to develop their business interests, when development has negative impacts on conservation.


Undertake periodic questionnaire surveys amongst stakeholder groups (especially local communities, tour operators and tourists) to better understand challenges and successes.

31

Tool 4: Review of National Policy Context

Policy areas Policy name/description Strengths Weaknesses Comments/explanation

World Heritage Site and protected area legislation

Ngorongoro Conservation Act, CAP 284 (R. E of 2002)

Main Legislation that established NCA

Outdated and does not address all current management challenged

The new Village Land Act conflicts with the NCA Act. (Village Land Act gives ownership to village council, and does not contain any exclusion clause for places such as NCA). The NC Act does not address the issue of constructing modern houses within NCA - needs to describe the procedure to follow, Should be revised and amended to address current management issues (e.g. describe procedure to follow constructing modern houses within NCA). Must address clauses in Village Land Act

Conservation within broader government policy

Wildlife Conservation Act (1974) and current legislation Wildlife Conservation Act, 5 of 2009

Main Legislation in the country which covers wildlife & its natural resources. Emphasises wildlife conservation & sustainable use of wildlife for the benefit of people and on using wildlife to reduce hunger by providing food and generating foreign exchange.

The new Wildlife Act, 2010, addresses previous weaknesses

Wildlife Policy (2007)

To prevent the illegal utilisation of wildlife and promote sustainable utilisation

It is not in line with other policies (e.g. in Land policy, some areas set aside for wildlife and also for agriculture)

Wildlife policy should be aligned with other policies. Contradicts with agricultural policy & land policy (land policy say land has value, thus people are looking for land tenure. Keeping wildlife

32

corridors open and natural is now a challenge)

National Land Policy

Addresses current challenges facing land based environmental development e.g. migration corridors, valleys, wetlands, buffer zones

Does not sufficiently address wildlife related challenges (it encourages people to make use of land on buffer zones & in wildlife corridors as land now has value. There are no exception clauses)

It should include exception clause to help safeguard important wildlife areas such as buffer zones, corridor areas, dispersal areas

National Tourism Policy

Allows the development of ecotourism and benefit sharing to locals

Need to focus on sustainable tourism and not encourage masses of tourists

National Environmental Policy

States that wildlife resources shall be protected and utilised in a sustainable manner

Was developed in isolation to the wildlife policy (different stakeholder group). Environmental Policies allow for the building of hotels within NCA, without the consultation of NCAA

Review and strengthen NCA Act

Mineral Policy

Prohibits mineral exploitation in PAs until such time as when all mineral deposits in the area outside PAs have been exploited

Does not outrightly ban mining in PAs Much prospecting has been allowed in Game Reserves. National Parks and NCA are at risk

It should explicitly exclude Parks and NCA as exploration and mining sites

Antiquities Act

Provides for the preservation & protection of sites and articles of paleontological, archaeological, historical or natural assets

It does not supersede Land Act and other laws. Hence many important areas have already been destroyed. There should be exceptions to ensure the protection of areas of high antiquity value.

NCA needs to be more involved in the management of antiquity sites

Mining Act

Require permits to engage in prospecting & mining activities. Need written consent to operate in National Parks, Forest Reserves,

Does not outright ban mining in PAs It is ambiguous as it does not

Legislation should be changed to ban prospecting and mining in NCA

33

Game Reserves

stipulate the condition under which circumstances the permit can be issued Much prospecting has been allowed in Game Reserves. National Parks & NCA are at risk

Forest Act of 2002

It tries to delegate management resources to the lowest possible level of management. Maintain ecological balance, involve local institutions and promote research and education

Conflicting with other legislation (Land Act, Wildlife Act, NCA Act) Forest act encourages utilisation, but should have exclusion areas ( e.g. inside NCA)

Environmental Management Act

Encourages a clean, safe & healthy environment Establishment of NEMC which deals with environmental issues in the country (EIAs etc) Act provides for EIA procedures in the country

Does not align fully with other natural resources Acts (e.g. NCA Act, Land Law, Village land Act, Wildlife Act)

The Environmental Management Act should be aligned with other laws to function as the main legislation on environmental management. Currently the Land Act supersedes all Should have special provisions for protected areas.

International conservation conventions and treaties

Tanzania has ratified the following conventions: CITES RAMSAR CBD African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

Benefits include: Training, technical expertise, finance and equipment, Protection of migratory and protection of endangered, threatened and rare species, protection of wetlands

Poor implementation of the ratified Conventions.

A specific task force should be established in the country to ensure implementation

Government support for the World Heritage Site

Tanzania supports of the relevant policies and programs

Provide additional status and protection of natural resources (and cultural values)

Weak with regard to prospecting & mining (e.g. Selous World Heritage Site)

Legislation/policy affecting community participation in site management and sharing of benefits

Land and Village Land Act, Wildlife Policy , 2007 Land Use Policy ,1998 ,Tourism Policy

Having all this legislation and policies in place will signify good political will

Each Policy have its own priorities, which often conflict with others

Environmental issues within these policies should have common vision and not conflict with one another

34

Analysis and conclusions The Ngorongoro Conservation Act (NC Act) does not address all current management challenges. There are also ambiguity in several relevant Acts and Policies which need to be addressed. Mining is of particular concern.

Comparison with last assessment

NA

Gaps and challenges The Village Land Act conflicts with the NC Act as it gives ownership to village council without any exclusion clauses for land within the NCA. The Wildlife Policy is not aligned with Agricultural and with Land Policies, hence keeping wildlife corridors open is now a challenge. Mineral Policy and the Mining Act do not explicitly exclude the NCA from prospecting and mining. The Forest Act encourages utilisation and does not exclude the NCA from having the management of its forest resources delegated to the lowest possible level of management (village level). The Environmental Management Act also does not align fully with the NC Act and with other Acts pertaining to the conservation of natural resources and does not have special provisions for protected areas such as the NCA. The Land Act currently supersedes other legislation. Other specific gaps and challenges highlighted were as follows: Investment law encourages development, but development is not always compatible with conservation. EIA law allows stakeholders to provide comments, but stakeholder comments are not required to be seriously considered and important concerns can thus be circumvented with no direct consequence for ignoring them. A lot of development is planned for the Karatu District, for which the NCA and its stakeholders/ partners should be allowed to participate meaningfully enough to influence development plans where necessary.

Opportunities, recommendations and follow-up actions

Revise the Ngorongoro Conservation Act to ensure it covers all ambiguities in other legislation, as they pertain to the protection of the NCA. Revise what was noted in the UNESCO ‘Mixed site’ application. This application stated that a buffer zone is not needed, however it was agreed during the EoH process and workshop that it is essential to have a buffer zone. Thorough EIAs, and appropriate monitoring thereof during and after implementation, should be conducted for all developments within the NCA and its buffer zone.

35

Tool 5a: Management Planning Information Sheet

Name of plan Level of approval

(L,G,A, SA,D)*

Year of preparation, or most recent review

Year specified for next review

Comments/Explanation

The Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority Management Plan

D 1960

The Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority Revised Management Plan

D 1962

Dirschl Management Plan D 1966

BRALUP Plan D 1982

Ngorongoro Management Plan SA & A Approved 1996

Ngorongoro Conservation Area General Management Plan 2006-2016

SA & A– approved by the Board of Directors of NCAA on 15 April, 2006

Reviewed in Oct 2004, over an 18 month period, where after is was approved on 15 April 2006

2015/16 Currently being revised

Tourism Marketing Strategic Plan SA & A– approved by the Board of Directors of NCAA on 15 April, 2006

Approved 2006 It deals primarily with marketing, and not tourism management within NCA. Tourism management plan would be useful

Integrated Waste Management Plan for NCA SA & A– approved by the Board of Directors of NCAA on 9 April, 2001

Approved 2006

Invasive Alien Plant Strategic Management Plan

D Reviewed 2010

Tanzania Elephant Management Plan Tanzania Rhino Management Plan

G G

Compiled 2010/11 Compiled 2010/11

L = plan has force of law (i.e. has been approved by parliament or is a legal instrument) A = plan has been approved at Head of Agency level

G = plan has been approved by government but is not a legal instrument D = plan is a draft and has not been formally approved

SA = plan has been approved at a senior level within the Agency

36

Tool 5b: Adequacy of Primary Planning Document

Name of document assessed: Ngorongoro Conservation Area General Management Plan 2006-2016

Question Possible responses Rating Comment/Explanation Opportunities, recommendations and follow-up actions

Decision making framework

1. Does the plan establish a clear understanding of the desired outcomes of management in clear terms rather than just specifying actions to be taken?

Very Good - Desired outcomes are explicitly articulated X The desired outcomes are clear, and complies with rules and regulations as per wildlife conservation Act (1974) and policy (1998)

Remind NCA Board to appoint the suggested 5 member GMP team to ensure implementation and monitoring (appointed by the board), that was agreed to during the GMP reviewing workshops in Karatu in 2008 Have a system in place to ensure the plan is implemented, progress monitored and reviewed on an ongoing basis

Good - Desired outcomes are reasonably articulated

Fair - Desired outcomes are not clearly articulated but are implied or can be inferred from plan objectives

Poor - Plan focuses more on actions and doesn’t indicate the desired outcomes for the site

2. Does the plan express the desired future for the site in a way that can assist management of new issues and opportunities that arise during the life of the plan? (is there a clear vision?)

Very Good - Desired future is expressed in a way that provides clear guidance for addressing new issues and opportunities

The vision and mission of NCAA clearly states the opportunities for its sustainability

Good - Desired future is expressed in a way that gives some guidance for addressing new issues and opportunities

X

Fair - Desired future is not clearly articulated and provides only limited guidance for addressing new threats and opportunities

Poor – The plan focuses more on present issues and doesn’t provide guidance for addressing new threats and opportunities

3. Does the plan provide for a process of monitoring, review and adjustment during the life of the plan?

Very Good - Plan provides a clear, explicit and appropriate process for monitoring, review and adjustment

Opportunity for review after 10 years and flexible for adjustment if need arises (e.g. plan is currently being reviewed) Monitoring component of the plan is not systematic in terms of

Remind NCA Board to appoint the suggested 5 member GMP team to ensure implementation and monitoring (appointed by the board), that was agreed to during the GMP reviewing workshops in Karatu in 2008

Good - Provisions for monitoring, review and adjustment of the plan are present but are incomplete, unclear or inappropriate in some minor respects

X

Fair - Need for monitoring, review and adjustment is recognised but is not dealt with in sufficient detail

37


Poor - Plan does not address the need for monitoring, review and adjustment

informing regular reviews/progress

Review of the GMP should be for sustainable conservation

Planning context

4. Does the plan provide an adequate and appropriate policy environment for management of the World Heritage Site?

Very Good - Policy requirements for the site are identified and adequate and appropriate policies are established with clear linkages to the desired future for the site

The addition of 5 tented and 5 permanent lodges within the park is arguably above what a World Heritage Site like NCA requires. (it has been proposed to review GMP to allow for this) It is good but politicians may still overrule

Limit to acceptable level as stipulated in the GMP. Any changes should consider WHS merits. Management plan review must be informed by a monitoring programme

Good - Policy requirements for the site are identified and policies are largely adequate and appropriate although there are gaps

X

Fair - Policies in the plan are inadequate or incomplete in many respects

Poor - Plan either doesn’t establish policies for the area or the policies are inadequate or inappropriate in major respects

5. Is the plan integrated/linked to other significant national/ regional/sectoral plans that influence management of the World Heritage site?

Very Good - Relevant national, regional and sectoral plans that affect the site are identified and specific mechanisms are included to provide for integration or linkage now and in the future

X The plan is under one umbrella (Ministry of Natural Resource and Tourism), as with other WHS within the country. Various stakeholders were involved in the development of GMP. NCA shares common goals and vision with neighbouring conservation areas which includes WMAs, Game Controlled Areas, a National Park.

Good - Relevant national, regional and sectoral plans that affect the site are identified, their influence on the site is taken into account but there is little attempt at integration

Fair - Some relevant national, regional and sectoral plans are identified but there is no attempt at integration

Poor - No account is taken of other plans affecting the site

Plan Content

6. Is the plan based on an adequate and relevant information base?

Very Good - The information base for the plan is up to date and adequate in scope and depth and is matched to the major decisions, policies and issues addressed in the plan

X Many short and long term studies have been done in NCA

There still seem to be gaps in terms of the information base requirements to inform the plan (e.g. hydrology). Better centralisation and accessibility of all studies is required (all in one database/ library)

Good - The information base is adequate in scope and depth but maybe a little out dated and/or contains irrelevant information (i.e. a broad compilation of data rather than matching information to the decisions, policies and issues addressed in the plan)

38


Fair - The information base is out of date and/or has inadequacies in scope or depth so that some issues, decisions or policies cannot be placed into context

Poor - Very little information relevant to plan decisions exists

7. Have the values for the site been identified in the plan and linked to the management objectives and desired outcomes for the site?

Very Good - The site values have been clearly identified and linked to well defined management objectives and desired outcomes for the site

X Well stipulated as per NCAA objectives (GMP pg 4 and 6 respectively)

There is a need to better link values to specific objectives. (Values, Objectives, Threats, and the budget should all be linked)

Good - The site values have been reasonably identified and linked to management objectives and desired outcomes for the site

Fair - The site values have not been clearly identified or linked to management objectives and desired outcomes for the site

Poor - The site values have not been identified

8. Does the plan address the primary issues facing management of the World Heritage Site within the context of the desired future of the property?

Very Good - Plan identifies primary issues for the site and deals with them within the context of the desired future for the site (i.e. plan is outcome rather than issues driven)

Not all threats are being addressed and not all threats addressed in objectives (development, lodges)

Objectives need to be modified to address all threats. Actions need to put in place to address additional threats

Good - Plan identifies primary issues for the site but tends to deal with them in isolation or out of context of the desired future for the site

X

Fair - Some significant issues for the site are not addressed in the plan or the issues are not adequately addressed

Poor - Many significant issues are not addressed or are inadequately dealt with in the plan

9. Are the objectives and actions specified in the plan represented as adequate and appropriate response to the issues?

Very Good – Objectives and actions are adequate and appropriate for all issues

Some of the issues are not adequately addressed through the documented objectives and actions in the plan

Good - Objectives and actions are adequate and appropriate for most issues

X

Fair - Objectives and actions are frequently inadequate or inappropriate

Poor - Objectives and actions in the plan do not represent an adequate or appropriate response to the primary issues

39


10. Were local and indigenous communities living in or around the World Heritage Site involved in developing the management plan and setting direction for the management of the World Heritage Site?

Very Good - Local and indigenous communities living in or around the World Heritage Site were meaningfully and fully involved in developing the management plan and setting direction for the World Heritage Site

X It was a fully participatory process (see GMP pg. viii). Difficult to quantify The GMP review workshops included: village & subvillage chairmen, ward councillors, traditional leaders, hotels, tour operators etc. participated in the GMP review workshops

Good - Local and indigenous communities living in or around the World Heritage Site were partly involved in developing the management plan and setting direction for the World Heritage Site

Fair - Local and indigenous communities living in or around the World Heritage Site were only minimally involved in developing the management plan and setting direction for the World Heritage Site

Poor - Local and indigenous communities living in or around the World Heritage Site were not involved in developing the management plan and setting direction for the World Heritage Site

11. Does the plan take account of the needs and interests of local and indigenous communities living in or around the World Heritage Site?

Very Good - Plan identifies the needs and interests of local and indigenous communities and has taken these into account in decision making

X Development Projects, outreach programmes, participatory planning The GMP review workshops included: village & subvillage chairmen, ward councillors, traditional leaders, hotels, tour operators etc. participated in the GMP review workshops

Good - Plan identifies the needs and interests of local and indigenous communities but it is not apparent that these have been taken into account in decision making

Fair - There is limited attention given to the needs and interests of local and indigenous communities and little account taken of these in decision making

Poor - No apparent attention has been given to the needs and interests of local and indigenous communities

12. Does the plan take account of the needs and interests of other stakeholders involved in the World Heritage Site?

Very Good - Plan identifies the needs and interests of other stakeholders and has taken these into account in decision making

X Tour operators, tourist facility investors and small business proprietors were all consulted The GMP review workshops included: village & subvillage

Good - Plan identifies the needs and interests of other stakeholders but it is not apparent that these have been into account in decision making

40


Fair - There is limited attention given to the needs and interests of other stakeholders and little account taken of these in decision making

chairmen, ward councillors, traditional leaders, hotels, tour operators etc. participated in the GMP review workshops Poor - No apparent attention has been given to the needs

and interests of other stakeholders

13. Does the plan provide adequate direction on management actions that should be undertaken in the World Heritage Site?

Very Good - Management actions specified in the plan can be clearly understood and provide a useful basis for developing operational plans such as work programmes and budgets

X It has clear objectives and targets

When the current GMP was reviewed/developed, it allowed for small scale agriculture. Agriculture has now been banned, but this is not reflected in GMP. Need to rectify within revised GMP Good - Management actions specified in the plan can

generally be clearly understood and provide an adequate basis for developing operational plans such as work programmes and budgets

Fair - Management actions are sometimes unclear or lacking in specificity making it difficult to use the plan as a basis for developing operational plans such as work programmes and budgets

Poor - Management actions are unclear or lacking in specificity making it very difficult to use the plan as a basis for developing operational plans such as work programmes and budgets

14. Does the plan identify the priorities amongst strategies and actions in a way that facilitates work programming and allocation of resources?

Very Good - Clear priorities are indicated within the plan in a way that supports work programming and allocation of resources

It has clear objectives but these objectives do not correlate to the budget

Need to ensure that objectives set in management plan correlate to budget

Good - Priorities are generally indicated making their use for work programming and resource allocation adequate most of the time

Fair - Priorities are not clearly indicated but may be inferred for work programming and resource allocation

Poor - There is no indication of priorities in the plan so that the plan cannot be used for work programming and resource allocation

X

41


The General Management Plan (GMP) for the NCA is regarded as being good and adequate in terms of scope. The main shortfall is that many of the required actions have not been implemented. Notably, this is a common problem with conventional management plans. A different approach is needed to ensure implementation. The EoH participants struggled to clearly understand some of the questions posed in Tool 5.


N/A

Gaps and challenges

The Objectives of the NCA as contained in the GMP are not all linked to the annual budgets. A number of the required management actions have not been implemented yet and there is no mechanism or process in place to ensure that they all will be implemented as required. Monitoring, evaluation and review procedures are lacking/ not systematic, as well as the designation of clear responsibilities to ensure the adequate implementation of the entire GMP. Some threats (e.g. lodges and other developments) are not addressed by objectives in the GMP. The NCA Board decision from 2008 to appoint a 5 member GMP team to ensure implementation and monitoring has not been implemented.


NCA Board to appoint a GMP implementation and monitoring team. Put actions in place to address additional threats identified during the process of the EoH assessment. The banning of agriculture needs to be reflected in the next revision of the GMP. Undertake the task to link all the objectives, as linked to the values and threats, with the NCA budget (including with corresponding codes). The opportunity exists for the NCAA to not only better ensure the implementation of all required management actions but also to take a lead amongst protected areas and to ensure continual improvement through adaptive management. This can be achieved by restructuring the General Management Plan into the framework of a best practice Environmental/Risk Management System (outlining the steps of all Planning, Implementing, Checking [monitoring], reviewing & annual reporting), as recommended in Resolution 50 at the IUCN World Conservation Congress, Barcelona 2008.

42

Tool 6: Design Assessment

1. Ecological integrity

This relates to the major biodiversity and other natural values (refer to Tool 1a for a list of these major values):

Design aspect Brief Explanation Strengths of World Heritage Site design

in relation to this aspect Weaknesses of World Heritage Site

design in relation to this aspect Comments and explanations

Key habitats

Does site contain the key areas needed to conserve species and other natural values?

Yes. The Ngorongoro crater, Empakaai crater, Olmoti Crater, Alaitoli foot prints, Oduvai Gorge and NHFR. All these are found in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area.

Too much investment which poses pressure to the key areas. Blockage of corridors and human encroachment. There are other key areas which could be included in the conservation area (Oldonyo Lengai, Lake Natron, Engaruka German Ruins)

Laws, rules and regulations should be enforced to alleviate these problems. NCAA submitted proposal to include Oldonyo Lengai, Lake Natron, Engaruka German Ruins to be under her management.

Size

Is site large enough to conserve species and other natural values?

Yes. Diversification of tourist attractions is needed to ensure sustainable use.

Buffer zones around NCA are being degraded by human encroachments. Corridors are being degraded and hence home ranges reduced. The increasing number of residents in NCA is no longer sustainable.

Buffers and migratory/dispersal areas should be maintained. Develop further mechanisms to reduce the number of people in order to maintain site carrying capacity.

External interactions

Do external interactions (e.g. adjacent land use) impact on site values?

Yes, to a certain degree activities outside NCA to impact on site values. (e.g. water being used for domestic use and irrigation)

Incompatible land uses in areas surrounding NCA lead to conflict or degradation of NCA (e.g. human-wildlife conflicts, introduction of invasive alien species, illegal off take of resources, human encroachment resulting in loss of buffer zones)

Conservation awareness should be emphasised and strengthened.

Connectivity

Can species move easily between the site and other suitable habitat?

Yes, but many of the migration corridors are degrading and preventing movement

Increased human settlements hinder wildlife dispersal. (e.g. Lositete corridor, Kigongoni -Mto wa mbu , Yaeda chini - Karatu)

Re-establish/maintain wildlife corridors wherever possible.

43

Sources of information NCAA EoH champions/ team, workshop participants.

Analysis and conclusions The site design is favourable for sustaining the ecological integrity of the WHS, but it could be improved with the inclusion of some additional areas and it needs to be enhanced through the prevention of blockage of wildlife corridors external to the NCA which are ecologically linked in terms of the functioning of certain species populations.

Comparison with last assessment NA

Gaps and challenges Increased development poses pressure to important areas. Blockage of some wildlife corridors (e.g. Lositete, Kigongoni- Mto Wa Mbu, Yaeda chini- karatu) and human encroachment has been taking place.


Wildlife corridors need to be maintained and re-established wherever possible. NCAA to follow up on the proposal submitted for the inclusion of Oldonyo Lengai, Lake Natron, and Engaruka German ruins to be under its management as part of the NCA.

44

2. Community well-being

This relates to major cultural, economic, educational and other social values and other community/site issues important to the wellbeing of the community



design in relation to this aspect Comments and management

action required

Key areas

Do local communities have access to key areas of cultural, religious or economic importance?

Yes. They are allowed to perform their cultural and religious practices. In some places they need to obtain a permit (e.g. inside Ngorongoro Crater). Local residents have developed Cultural Bomas in order to display their traditions /customs to tourists and so generate income.

The local residents still use key conservation areas Ngorongoro crater, Empakai crater, NHFR )

Access to key conservation areas should be limited by permit only, to help reduce any destruction.

Size

Is the site large enough to deliver ecological services or support sustainable harvesting (if permitted)?

Yes to a certain degree. However, with regard to the number of local residents, the area is not large enough.

Ecological integrity may be jeopardised with the increase of human population

An indepth study is required to investigate the impact harvesting/use of natural resources within NCA by residents and tourist operators (e.g. wood, water). Limits should be set and alternate energy sources recommended.

External interactions

Does the management of the site impact on local community functioning?

Yes, the site is bound to safeguard and promote local community interests (stated within Ngorongoro Ordinance)

Interaction with outside cultures degrades the strong cultures of local communities

Local communities should continue being involved in management of the site. Tour operators should not negatively influence local cultures.

Legal status and tenure

Are legal status and rights clear? Do conflicts impact on the community?

Yes, legal status and rights are clear NCA is a multiple land use area (is there for conservation of wildlife and for the safeguarding of local residents). Locals are restricted in some aspects, as some of their practices are not compatible to WHS and its conservation efforts.

WHS regulations/directives should be adhered to and enforced , but should observe the changing and increasing human needs and requirements

45

Analysis and conclusions The WH site design is favourable for allowing access of the local communities to traditional areas of

cultural, religious and economic importance to them. Furthermore, the site is believed to be large enough to deliver ecological services and support sustainable harvesting of certain resources to the community as it was at the time of proclamation of the NCA, however, the human population has now exceeded the level where this can be provided sustainably.


Gaps and challenges The impacts of harvesting/ use of natural resources within the NCA by humans are not known.


An in-depth study is required to investigate the impact of harvesting/ use of natural resources within the NCA by residents and by tourist operators (e.g. wood, water). Limits should be set and alternate energy sources recommended. Access to key and sensitive conservation areas should be limited and controlled by permit only.

46

3. Management factors

This relates to the practicalities of management of the site (e.g. legal status, access for patrols and boundary issues with neighbours):



design in relation to this aspect Comments and management

action required

Legal status and tenure

Do problems or uncertainties over legal status or tenure affect capacity to manage?

No. The government own the land so does not affect the management of the site whatsoever. Has been declared a WHS and Biosphere Reserve to mark its importance.

Changes in political rule can have negative impact on WHS’, if their interests are not conservation.

Any changes must be backed by appropriate scientific studies

Access points

Does lack of control over access to the site impact on management effectiveness?

Main gates have good control No hard boundaries allow for wildlife movement

NCA does not have hard boundaries, so illegal entrance is easy and does impact on natural resources. Insufficient patrols on the boundaries.

Regular boundary patrols needed, expand informer network.

Neighbours

Does the location and nature of boundaries support or impede management?

Allows for wildlife migration across common corridors

NCA does not have hard boundaries, so illegal entrance is easy and does impact on natural resources. Insufficient patrols on the boundaries.

Regular boundary patrols needed, expand informer network.

Analysis and conclusions The WH site design does not create uncertainties or problems regarding legal status or tenure and it thus

gives the NCAA a clear mandate to manage effectively.


Gaps and challenges Changes in political rule (leaders) can have negative impacts on the WHS if their interests are not conservation, especially so as land ownership is an enormously emotive issue amongst people (the world over) and a powerful tool in the hands of decision-makers.


Any proposed changes to WH site design must be informed and supported by appropriate scientific studies. Legislation and policy should be revised to strengthen the protection of the WH site design in terms of permissible land use.

47

Tool 7a: Assessment of Management Needs and Inputs for Staff

Staff category Location Required

no. of staff

Current no. of staff

No. of trained staff

Type of training required

Level of Training

Comments/ Explanation

Poor

Fair

Good

Very

good

List staff positions – including all categories of permanent and temporary staff

Identify where staff are posted (in some cases there will be more than one location within a particular category)

Estimate the ideal number of staff in this category

Give current number of staff

Identify the proportion of staff who are trained in each category

Detail the type of training required Rate training as: Very good – all staff trained to adequate level; Good – more than 50 % of staff trained to adequate level; Fair – between 40 and 50 % staff trained to adequate level; Poor – most staff are not trained to adequate level

Give details of how the assessment was made, i.e. how was required staffing calculated

Conservator

HQ 1 1 1 M.Sc. In Natural Sciences /Environmental Conservation/ Community Development/ Wildlife Management.

X Organization Structure

Director of Finance and Administration

HQ 1 1 1 CPA /ACCA with Masters Degree in Business Administration or equivalent


Director of Operations

HQ 1 1 1 Minimum –Masters in Business Administration/ Economics or equivalent.


Director of Conservation and Community Development

HQ 1 1 1 Min. Masters Degree in Natural Sciences / Community Development or equivalent


Manager Community Development

HQ 1 1 1 Min. Masters Degree in Natural Sciences / Community Development or equivalent

X GMP

Manager Ecological Monitoring

HQ 1 1 1 B.Sc. Natural Resources, Environmental Science/ Ecology or equivalent

X GMP

Chief Accountant HQ 1 1 1 CPA (T) , ACCA, ACA and registered by NBAA

X GMP

Planning and HQ 1 1 1 Post graduate Degree in Economics , X GMP

48

Finance Manager Finance, Planning in Related fields or equivalent

Human Resource and administrative Manager

HQ 1 1 1 Min. post graduate Degree in Human Resource Management or equivalent

X GMP

Manager Tourism HQ 1 1 1 Post graduate degree in Commerce, Business Administration, Wildlife Management, Tourism or Environmental Sciences

X GMP

Engineering Services Manager

HQ 1 1 1 Min .Post graduate Degree in (Civil, Mechanical, Water or Electrical ) or its equivalent

X GMP

Zone Coordinators HQ 1, Outpost 9 10 10 10 -Bachelor Degrees in Wildlife, Zoology or related fields


Head of sections HQ

35 34 35 Bachelor degree or Diploma in Wildlife, Zoology or in related fields.

X

Rangers HQ and out posts 89 89 89 Certificate in Wildlife Management, basic paramilitary training


Community Dev. Staff

HQ and out posts 66 66 66 Certificates, Diploma, Bachelor Degrees and Masters in the related fields


Ecological monitoring staff

HQ 7 6 6 Certificates, Diploma, Bachelor and Masters Degrees.


Accountancy staff HQ 18 16 16 BCOM, ADA,ADCA, CPA, or Equivalent. X Organization Structure

Planning and finance HQ and out posts 19 17 17 Degree or Equivalent X Organization structure

H R and Admin. staff 37 37 32 Degree or equivalent , Diploma and certificates

X Organization Structure.

Tourism staff HQ and out posts 20 16 16 Degree or equivalent, Certificates and Diplomas


Engineering services staff

HQ 79 75 75 Trade tests 1-3 , FTC / Diploma/ Degree X Organization Structure

Internal Audit staff HQ 4 4 4 BCOM, ADA, ADCA CPA or equivalent X Organization structure

Public Relations HQ 2 2 2 Degree or equivalent X Organization structure

Legal Services HQ 2 2 2 Degree in Law (LLB) X Organization structure

49

Analysis and conclusions The management needs and inputs for staff is regarded as being adequate.


Gaps and challenges The level of training for Rangers was rated as being inadequate.


Investigate what additional, or more advanced, training would be beneficial for the Rangers and begin implementing the upgraded training deemed most appropriate.

50

Tool 7b: Assessment of Management Needs and Inputs for Budget

Expenditure category Budget required Actual budget available Funding source(s) Comments/Explanation

These categories should relate to the categories used for the site’s annual budget

Record requirements here and details of how the assessment was carried out should be given in the comments or sources columns

Provide details of budget available and period (i.e. June 2010 to June 2011)

Give details of where the funding comes from, e.g. government funds, NGO projects, etc

Provide details of how the previous columns information has been determined

Human Resources & Admin N/A 43 % NCAA tourism income Finance department works out a ceiling for each department. They don’t consider the actual requirement for the department. No zero based budgeting is done nor is it based on priorities. (e.g. Ecology and Conservation are allocated less than 10% of budget, whereas large amounts are allocated for Tourism & Marketing)

Tourism Services N/A 16 % NCAA tourism income

Engineering Services N/A 13 % NCAA tourism income

Community Development N/A 11 % NCAA tourism income

Conservation Services N/A 8 % NCAA tourism income

Planning & Finances N/A 3 % NCAA tourism income

Ecological Monitoring N/A 1 % NCAA tourism income

Accounting N/A 1 % NCAA tourism income

Internal Audit N/A 1 % NCAA tourism income

Legal Services N/A 1 % NCAA tourism income

Public Relations N/A 1 % NCAA tourism income

Note: These figures do not reflect that for example large proportions of the human resources and administration budgets go toward salaries for the staff of other departments such as conservation services and ecological monitoring. Similarly, these departments need vehicles for operations, and the budget and running costs for these vehicles fall under engineering services and some of the legal services department budget is used to address conservation issues.

51

Analysis and conclusions As with all institutions the NCA has a limited budget, but due to being an extremely popular international tourist destination it has a healthy income base with which to work. As a principle in budgeting and budget allocations it was agreed that flexibility is needed within organisation’s annual budgets so that some departments budgets should be bigger when actual management needs demand it and smaller when needs are greater within other departments (e.g. tourism marketing should be a bigger need in ‘lean times’, community settlement management more at other times, law enforcement, vegetation management more demanding at other times) - because money spent at a rate to manage a problem/risk at a level which is lower than the increase of that problem, inevitably results in the problem not being resolved or even curtailed, and hence all the money spent on it having been fruitless.

Comparison with previous assessment NA

Gaps and challenges Not all of the objectives in the GMP are linked to a specific part of the budget, with the result that there is ambiguity with regard to some required management actions in terms of who should implement them and which part of the budget should cover the implementation costs. Zero based budgeting (budgets calculated on actual needs and costs) is not done, and annual budgets are determined based primarily on previous year’s budgets and total funds available, with some consideration to ad hoc priority needs (priorities not determined according to a rating system, so can potentially be personality driven).


The opportunity exists for improving budget allocation and use efficiency, thorough undertaking a review of each departments budget every 3 years to ensure that each one has sufficient funds to cover the key issues under its responsibility (zero based budgeting), whilst continuing with the traditional budgeting methodology as required by the Ministry annually. Budgets should be clearly linked to GMP’s objectives and activities, with a similar/linked numbering system, to ensure there are funds allocated to implement all identified management needs according to the plan.

52

Tool 8a: Assessment of Management Processes

Management area Possible responses Rating Comments/

Explanation Opportunities, recommendations and follow-up actions

Management Structures and Systems

1. World Heritage values Have values been identified and are these linked to management objectives?

Very good: The World Heritage Site has agreed and documented values and the management objectives fully reflect them

VG Compliancy with WHS rules and Regulations.

Proceed with relocation of non-residents to other places. Stock improvement to raise income while reducing stoking rates in the area.

Good: The World Heritage Site has agreed and documented values, but these are only partially reflected in the management objectives

Fair: The World Heritage Site has agreed and documented values, but these are not reflected in the management objectives

Poor: No values have been agreed for the World Heritage Site

2. Management planning Is there a plan and is it being implemented?

Very good: An approved management plan exists and is being fully implemented

G GMP is in place and was reviewed in 2008. However, the review was politically influenced.

Planning Documents like GMP should be Legal documents to be mandatory and not optional.

Good: An approved management plan exists but it is only being partially implemented because of funding constraints or other problems (please state)

Fair: A plan is being prepared or has been prepared but is not being implemented

Poor: There is no plan for managing the World Heritage Site

3. Planning systems Are the planning systems appropriate i.e. participation, consultation, review and updating?

Very good: Planning and decision making processes are excellent

VG All stakeholders are normally involved in the planning process

Good: There are some planning and decision making processes in place but they could be better, either in terms of improved processes or processes being carried out

Fair: There are some planning and decision making processes in place but they are either inadequate or they are not carried out

Poor: Planning and decision making processes are deficient in most aspects

4. Regular work plans Are there regular work plans or other planning tools?

Very good: Regular work plans exist, actions are monitored against planned targets and most or all prescribed activities are completed

G The planning instrument is the Annual Operational Budget which depends entirely on revenue collected from Tourism

NCAA should solicit to create other income generating investments to complement Annual Operational Budget.

Good: Regular work plans exist and actions are monitored against planned targets, but many activities are not completed

53

Fair: Regular work plans exist but activities are not monitored against the plan’s targets

Poor: No regular work plans exist

5. Monitoring and evaluation Are management activities monitored against performance?

Very good: A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well implemented and used for adaptive management

F Proper mechanisms for verification and monitoring have not been established

There should be proper mechanism for Monitoring and Evaluating implementation of plans. Put together a Management Plan implementation and monitoring team (the board was supposed to put together a Management Plan implementation team to facilitate implementation and monitor progress)

Good: There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and evaluation system of management activities but results are not systematically applied to management

Fair: There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation of management activities, but no overall strategy and/or no regular collection of results

Poor: There is no monitoring and evaluation of management activities in the World Heritage Site

6. Reporting Are all the reporting requirements of the World Heritage Site fulfilled?

Very good: Site managers fully comply with all reporting needs and have all the necessary information for full and informative reporting

VG The reports are timely submitted to UNESCO

Site managers to continue to get feedback from WHS meeting sessions

Good: Site managers fully comply with all reporting needs but do not have all the necessary information for full and informative reporting

Fair: There is some reporting, but all reporting needs are not fulfilled and managers do not have all the necessary information on the site to allow full and informative reporting

Poor: There is no reporting on the World Heritage Site

7. Maintenance of equipment Is equipment adequately maintained?

Very good: Equipment and facilities are well maintained and an equipment maintenance plan is being implemented

G Budget constraints affects maintenance plans

Solicit additional budget from donors or government, or re-prioritise from other activities if/ where possible Good: There is basic maintenance of equipment and facilities. If

a maintenance plan exists it is not fully implemented

Fair: There is some ad hoc maintenance but a maintenance plan does not exist or is not implemented

Poor: There is little or no maintenance of equipment and facilities, and no maintenance plan

8. Major infrastructure Is management infrastructure (e.g.

Very good: Management infrastructure is excellent and appropriate for managing the site

G The management still require more funds for major infrastructure (e.g. tar roads)

Solicit additional budget from donors or government

Good: Management infrastructure is adequate and generally appropriate for the site

54

roads, offices, fire towers) adequate for the needs of the site?

Fair: Management infrastructure is often inadequate and/or inappropriate for the site

Poor: Management infrastructure is inadequate and/or inappropriate for the site

9. Staff equipment and facilities Are the available facilities (e.g. vehicles, GPS, staff accommodation) suitable for the management requirements of the site?

Very good: Staff facilities and equipment at the World Heritage Site are good and aid the achievement of the objectives of the site

G The management requires more funds to purchase/build sufficient equipment and facilities for on site management (e.g. heavy equipment for road maintenance, phase 2 & 3 of staff houses being developed outside NCA)

Secure more funds for the purpose

Good: Staff facilities and equipment are not significantly constraining achievement of major objectives

Fair: Inadequate staff facilities and equipment constrain achievement of some management objectives

Poor: Inadequate staff facilities and equipment mean that achievement of major objectives is constrained

10. Staff/ management communication Do staff have the opportunity to feed into management decisions?

Very good: Staff directly participate in making decisions relating to management of the site at both site and management authority level

G The management communication is through supervisors and representations (annual staff meeting for everybody and Ad hoc department meetings)

Improve communication at supervision level

Good: Staff directly contribute to some decisions relating to management

Fair: Staff have some input into discussions relating to management but no direct involvement in the resulting decisions

Poor: There are no mechanisms for staff to input into decisions relating to the management of the World Heritage Site

11. Personnel management How well are staff managed?

Very good: Provisions to ensure good personnel management are in place

G Democratic type of personnel system (more participation needed)

Every person should have an equal chance to give opinion to the management (through meetings, workers council, etc). Need incentive based system that drives performance of Management plan objectives. Consider NCA management attending course on ‘ensuring effective management’ offered at the SAWC (get trainer to present it at NCA/Karatu to reduce cost)

Good: Although some provisions for personnel management are in place these could be improved

Fair: There are minimal provisions for good personnel management

Poor: There are no provisions to ensure good personnel management

12. Staff training

Very good: Staff training and skills are appropriate for the management needs of the site, and with anticipated future needs

G Training programme is in process to ensure staffs are

Training Programme to be in place and fully implemented.

55

Is staff adequately trained?

Good: Staff training and skills are adequate, but could be further improved to fully achieve the objectives of management

trained as per site management needs.

Fair: Staff training and skills are low relative to the management needs of the site

Poor: Staff lack the skills/training needed for effective site management

13. Law Enforcement Do staff have the capacity to enforce legislation?

Very good: The staff have excellent capacity/resources to enforce legislation and regulations

G The legal system has given different mandates and jurisdictions to various Law Enforcement Institutions including NCA.

NCA has mandate to prosecute cases in Arusha or NCA. However current cases are handed over to the police. The police deal with a broad spectrum of crimes and do not have the in-depth knowledge or passion for conservations crimes. It would be better for NCA to prosecute its own cases (it has the capacity to do so - three lawyers)

Good: The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to enforce legislation and regulations but some deficiencies remain

Fair: There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to enforce legislation and regulations

Poor: The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce legislation and regulations

14. Financial management Does the financial management system meet the critical management needs?

Very good: Financial management is excellent and contributes to effective management of the site

G Should be improved to meet critical management needs. Internal and external audits get done.

Financial requirements should be based on zero based budgeting and on conservation priorities. Zero based budget done every 3 years.

Good: Financial management is adequate but could be improved

Fair: Financial management is poor and constrains effectiveness

Poor: Financial management is poor and significantly undermines effectiveness of the World Heritage Site

Resource Management

15. Managing resources Are there management mechanisms in place to control inappropriate land uses and activities (e.g. poaching)?

Very good: Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the World Heritage Site exist and are being effectively implemented .

G Political interference has retarded NCA’s management of resources

Procedures, Rules and Regulations to be established and Gazetted.

Good: Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the World Heritage Site exist but there are some problems in effectively implementing them.

Fair: Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the World Heritage Site exist but there are major problems in implementing them effectively.

Poor: There are no management mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the World Heritage Site

16. Resource inventory Is there enough

Very good: Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the World Heritage Site is sufficient to support planning and decision making and is being updated

G Inventory of NHFR, birds, mammals and invasive alien species have been done

Existing inventories need to be updated

56

information to manage the World Heritage Site?

Good: Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the World Heritage site is sufficient for some areas of planning/decision making and there are plans (e.g. research and monitoring) to fill existing data gaps

Fair: Some information is available on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the World Heritage Site, but this is insufficient to support planning and decision making and further data gathering is not being carried out

Poor: There is little or no information available on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the World Heritage Site

17. Research Is there a programme of management-orientated survey and research work?

Very good: There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of survey and research work, which is relevant to management needs

F Research priorities are set and kept by TAWIRI

Research priorities need to be better communicated within NCA

Good: There is considerable survey and research work directed towards the needs of World Heritage Site management

Fair: There is limited survey and research work directed towards the needs of World Heritage Site management.

Poor: There is no research taking place directed towards the needs of World Heritage Site management

18. Ecosystems and species Is the biodiversity of the World Heritage Site adequately managed?

Very good: Requirements for management of critical ecosystems and species are being substantially or fully implemented

G More research is still required Gaps should be identified.

Good: Requirements for management of critical ecosystems and species are only being partially implemented.

Fair: Requirements for management of critical ecosystems and species are known but are not being implemented

Poor: Requirements for management of critical ecosystems and species have not been assessed and/or active management is not being undertaken

19. Cultural/ historical resource management Are the site’s cultural resources adequately

Very good: Requirements for management of cultural/ historical values are being substantially or fully implemented

F The Cultural/historical resources management fall under another department (not NCAA)

The management of these areas should be under NCA management.

Good: Requirements for management of cultural/ historical values are only being partially implemented

Fair: Requirements for management of cultural/ historical values are known but are not being implemented

57

managed? Poor: Requirements for management of cultural/ historical values have not been assessed and/or active management is not being undertaken

Management and Tourism

20. Visitor facilities Are visitor facilities (for tourists, pilgrims, etc) adequate?

Very good: Visitor facilities and services are excellent for current levels of visitation

G Visitor facilities and service are not sufficient

Improve visitor facilities

Good: Visitor facilities and services are adequate for current levels of visitation but could be improved

Fair: Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current levels of visitation

Poor: There are no visitor facilities and services despite an identified need

21. Commercial tourism Do commercial tour operators contribute to World Heritage Site management?

Very good: There is good co-operation between managers and tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences and protect site values

F Operators are mostly interested in their own operations and don’t contribute to WHS management

Establish better co-operation between managers and tourism operators

Good: There is limited co-operation between managers and tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences and protect site values

Fair: There is contact between managers and tourism operators but this is largely confined to administrative or regulatory matters

Poor: There is little or no contact between managers and tourism operators using the World Heritage Site

22. Visitor opportunities Have plans been developed to provide visitors with the most appropriate access and diversity of experience when visiting the World Heritage Site?

Very good: Implementation of visitor management policies and programmes is based on research and monitoring into visitor use and requirements and the carrying capacity of the World Heritage Site

G Roads and tourist infrastructure is being elaborated to satisfy visitor’s expectations

Tourism plan should be in place and be implemented.

Good: Policies and programmes to enhance visitor opportunities are being implemented but these are not based on research and monitoring of visitor use and requirements

Fair: Consideration has been given to policies and programmes to enhance visitor opportunities but little or no action has been taken

Poor: No consideration has been given to the provision of visitor opportunities to the World Heritage Site

58

23. Education and awareness programme Is there a planned education programme that addresses all audiences (i.e. local communities as well as visitors)?

Very good: There is a planned, implemented and effective education and awareness programme fully linked to the objectives and needs of the World Heritage Site

G Education & awareness programme for local communities in place

Good: There is a planned education and awareness programme but there are still serious gaps either in the plan or in implementation

Fair: There is a limited and ad hoc education and awareness programme, but no overall planning for this

Poor: There is no education and awareness programme

24. Access Is visitor access sufficiently controlled? For example, through patrols, and permits etc.

Very good: Visitor management systems are largely or wholly effective in controlling access to the site in accordance with objectives

G More effective mechanisms are needed to increase efficiency e.g. establishment of Smart Card system

Establishment of Smart Card system (Internet Permit system)

Good: Visitor management systems are moderately effective in controlling access to the site in accordance with objectives

Fair: Visitor management systems are only partially effective in controlling access to the site in accordance with objectives

Poor: Visitor management systems are ineffective in controlling access to the site in accordance with objectives

Management and Communities/Neighbours

25. Local communities Do local communities resident in or near the World Heritage Site have input to management decisions?

Very good: Local communities directly and meaningfully participate in all relevant management decisions for the site

G They have been involved in decision making at all levels

Should be improved to enhance active participation.

Good: Local communities directly contribute to some relevant management decisions but their involvement could be improved

Fair: Local communities have some input into discussions relating to management but no direct involvement in decision-making

Poor: Local communities have no input into decisions relating to the management of the World Heritage site

26. Indigenous people Do indigenous and traditional peoples resident in or regularly

Very good: Indigenous and traditional peoples directly participate in all relevant management decisions for the site

G Indigenous peoples contribute to the various planning instruments – General Management Plan development workshops,

Good: Indigenous and traditional peoples directly contribute to making some relevant management decisions but their involvement could be improved

59

using the site have input to management decisions?

Fair: Indigenous and traditional peoples have some input into discussions relating to management but no direct involvement in decision-making

Invasive Alien Plant workshops and Strategic Tourism Plan workshops

Poor: Indigenous and traditional peoples have no input into decisions relating to the management of the site

27. Local, peoples welfare Are there programmes developed by the World Heritage managers which consider local people’s welfare whilst conserving the sites resources?

Very good: Programmes to enhance local, indigenous and/or traditional peoples welfare, while conserving World Heritage Site resources, are being implemented successfully

G NCAA has embarked on community development programmes (extension services- health, education, veterinary services) .

More efforts needed for stock improvement and infrastructure (dip tanks, water troughs, crushes) to balance with conservation objectives Good: Programmes to enhance local, indigenous and/or

traditional peoples welfare, while conserving World Heritage Site resources, are being implemented but could be improved

Fair: Programmes to enhance local, indigenous and/or traditional peoples welfare, while conserving World Heritage Site resources, exist but are either inadequate or are not being implemented

Poor: There are no programmes in place which aim to enhance local, indigenous and/or traditional peoples welfare

28. State and commercial neighbours Is there co-operation with neighbouring land/sea owners and users?

Very good: There is regular contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land/sea users, and substantial co-operation on management

G There is currently co-operation in the management of common boundaries

Need to increase co-operation to minimise human /wildlife conflict around NCA.

Good: There is contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land/sea users, but only some co-operation on management

Fair: There is contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land/sea users but little or no cooperation on management

Poor: There is no contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land/sea users

29. Conflict resolution If conflicts between the World Heritage Site and stakeholders arise, are mechanisms in place to help find solutions?

Very good: Conflict resolutions mechanisms exist and are used whenever conflicts arise

G Conflict of interest has made Conflict Resolution Management to be ineffective

Review NCA Act Cap 284 (R.E 2002) to address conflicts together with other legislations like Wildlife Conservation Act of 2009.

Good: Conflict resolutions mechanisms exist but are only partially effective

Fair: Conflict resolution mechanisms exist, but are largely ineffective

Poor: No conflict resolution mechanisms exist

60

Tool 8b: Assessment of Management Processes - Summary

Management area Question Rating Distribution of rating

Management structures and systems

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

VG G VG G F VG G G G G G G G G

Very good: 21% Good: 72% Fair: 7% Poor: 0%

Resource management

15 16 17 18 19

G G F G F


Management and Tourism 20 21 22 23 24

G F G G G


Management and Communities /Neighbours 25 26 27 28 29

G G G G G


61

Analysis and conclusions In general the management processes are regarded as being adequate, but some areas for improvement were identified.

Comparison with previous assessment NA

Gaps and challenges

Elements of the following management processes were found to have gaps: Monitoring and evaluation; Research (in terms of there being a need to re-establish research priorities); Cultural/ historical resource management; and Commercial tourism. Challenges related to the gaps identified include how to: Ensure a proper mechanism for monitoring and evaluation of plans; Re-establish research priorities for management-orientated survey and research work that is most needed specifically by NCA; and Establish better co-operation between tourism operators and WHS managers


The gaps identified should be addressed as recommended in each instance as shown in Tool 8 Worksheet a – e.g. the Cultural/ historical resources should be managed by NCAA; and the NCA Board should appoint a GMP implementation and monitoring team. As per Tool 5b, the restructuring of the General Management Plan into the framework of a best practice Environmental/Risk Management System would be an opportunity for the NCAA to take a further step towards achieving exemplary protected area management effectiveness.

62

Tool 9: Assessment of Management Plan Implementation

1=completed 2=substantial progress 3=planning complete; work commenced 4=policy/planning complete 5=planning in progress 6=reactive work only 7=not commenced Natural Resources Management Program

SN OBJECTIVE 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Target date/s (for activities to completed/ operationalised according to GMP)

Overall Status of actions (completed, on track, behind)

1 To ensure management decisions are made based on scientific and indigenous knowledge of the area’s natural resources and ecological processes

2 2 2 2 2 2007, 2008 1 action done, 2 actions behind

2 To ensure the landscape and its exceptional resources are preserved 6 6 6 6 2 (banned cultivation, closed a

quarry)

2007, 2008, 2009, 2014, 2016

1 done, 2 on track, 3 behind

3 To ensure that human, livestock and wildlife populations have access to quality and adequate water resources

2 2 2 2 2 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010

2 done, 4 behind

4. To ensure viable populations of both common and endangered wildlife resources are maintained

2 2 2 2 2 2007, 2008 4 done, 2 behind

5 To increase the number of wildlife populations in the area 2 2 2 2 2 2007, 2008 4 done or in process, 4 behind

63

Antiquities and Cultural Resources Management Program

SN OBJECTIVE 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Target date Status

1 To ensure paleontological and archaeological sites that have provided valuable evolutionary information to mankind are adequately preserved for the benefit of all regeneration

2 2 2 2 2 2007, 2008, 2009

4 done, 13 behind

2 To ensure indigenous residents culture, norms, traditions and values are respected by visitors

3 3 3 3 3 2007, 2008 5 behind

Community Development Management Program


1 To enhance active participation of NCA indigenous residents in the decision making in matters related to conservation, development and tourism

2 2 2 2 2 2006, 2007, 2008

6 done, 2 behind

2 To ensure improved income for NCA indigenous residents 3 3 3 3 3 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2015

7 done, 23 behind

3 To ensure continuous food security among NCA indigenous residents 2 2 2 2 1 2007, 2008, 2009

4 done

4 To ensure quality health services to NCA indigenous residents 2 2 2 2 1 2006, 2007, 2008, 2015

6 done

5 To ensure basic services such as education and water supply are provided to NCA indigenous residents

2 2 2 2 1 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2015

17 done

6 To reduce incidences of property damage and costs associated with wildlife infringement

2 2 2 2 1 2006, 2009 4 done

Tourism Management Program


1 To make sure that values that have made NCA to accorded the status of a world heritage site and a biosphere reserve are realized by NCA indigenous residents, visitors, general public and the world at large

5 4 3 3 3 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010

13 done, 6 behind

2 To ensure that active participation of NCA indigenous residents in tourism activities is realized

2 2 2 2 2 2007, 2008 4 done, 2 behind

3 To make sure that revenue from tourism within limits of acceptable use (LAU) are maximized

5 3 3 3 3 2006, 2007, 2008

1 done, 7 behind

64

4 To improve the appreciation of NCA natural, cultural and historical values to visitors 2 2 2 2 2 2007, 2008 1 done, 2 behind

Administration and Operations Management Program

SN OBJECTIVES 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Target date Status

1 To ensure carrier possibilities for staff so that administrative, management and operational issues are carried out efficiently and effectively

3 3 3 3 3 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010

6 done, 1 on track, 4 behind

2 To improve the NCAA staff social well being and performance through ensuring better remuneration and installation of training plan

5 3 3 2 2 2016 2 done, 2 behind)

3 To reduce HIV/AIDS threats to both NCAA staff, their families and NCA community 2 2 2 2 1 2006 2 done

Analysis and conclusions A good management plan, with good objectives, is in place. However, several of the objectives and targets set within it are behind schedule. Internationally, experience indicates that management programmes, as per Environmental Management Systems (EMS) are more likely to lead to the achievement of objectives than are the more traditional ‘management plans’.

Comparison with last assessment (if any) N/A

Gaps and challenges Several of the objectives set within the GMP are behind schedule. The EoH team did not document why the actions behind schedule have not yet been undertaken nor when and how they will likely be implemented.


It was recommended that (in future assessments or if the current EoH can be slightly extended for this purpose) more details need to be captured regarding why each of the specific actions are behind schedule. It was recommended that the NCAA EoH team should undergo a training course on Ensuring Effective Management. The NCA Board should appoint a team to oversee the implementation of the GMP on behalf of top management. As per Tool 5b, the restructuring of the GMP into the framework of a best practice Environmental/Risk Management System is recommended.

65

Tool 11a: Monitoring management outcomes

Indicator thresholds Confidence

level of threshold

Management responses Monitoring

activity/methods Frequency

Timing

Person responsible

Cost and funding source

Level beyond which urgent management action will be needed (usually an upper and lower limit)

The likely accuracy of the threshold (high, medium or low)

Review here the management responses if the indicators threshold is exceeded

Summarise how information will be collected (survey, use of monitoring equipment, etc) and whether monitoring is already taking place (current) or new (needs to be developed)

How often will monitoring be conducted?

When? By whom? List the likely cost and whether money is currently available

Indicator: Healthy Black Rhino population in Crater

Major Site Values/Objectives assessed by the indicator: Biodiversity value

Justification for selection: Healthy Rhino population indicates Healthy Ecosystem in the Crater

Higher level=50 (since habitat change & emigration restricted, historically up to 120) Lower level=20

Medium HL= Translocate LL= Thorough investigation and research into the cause the decline of Rhino

Current: Special patrol group do daily recording of rhino population. New: More detailed investigation into carrying capacity.

Daily Early morning and late in the afternoon

Special Ranger group

NCAA (salaries, uniform, vehicle) & FZS (equipment, vehicles & maintenance

Indicator: Seasonal ungulate migratory movements


Justification for selection: Maintenance migration cycle is an indicator of ecosystem health

Broken migration pattern/ cycle

High Investigate and research Current: None, however some surveys done in the crater New: Implement monitoring programme

Twice a year April and September

Ecological monitoring department

NCAA budget

66

Indicator: Poaching


Justification for selection: Poaching is the major causes for the loss of biodiversity

If the annual number of incident annual increases by more than 10%

Good Investigate Current: Patrols and reports

Crater – daily, Other areas- twice a month

Year round Conservation Services department

NCAA budget

Indicator: River health


Justification for selection: Healthy rivers is an indicator of healthy ecosystem

Below acceptable levels/significant change in aquatic biodiversity

Good Investigate Current:: None New: Implement river health monitoring programme

Currently none Annually

- Ecological Monitoring Department

NCAA budget

Indicator: Indigenous plant encroachers in the crater (e.g. Bidens schimperi, Gutenbergia cordifolia )


Justification for selection: Low numbers of encroachers indicates healthy ecosystem

More than 30% cover in the crater floor

High Mowing, prescribed burning is sought. Investigation and research

Current: no actual monitoring but there is a burning and mowing programme New: Implement monitoring programme to establish coverage and risks

Once a year

End of wet season (May)

Ecological Monitoring & Community Department

NCAA budget

67

Indicator: Indigenous plant encroachers in the Highlands (e.g. Bidens schimperi, Gutenbergia cordifolia, Eleusine jaegerii, Heliotropium steudneri)


Justification for selection: Low numbers of encroachers indicates healthy ecosystem

More than 30% cover in the Highlands

High Mowing, prescribed burning is sought. Investigation and research

Current: no actual monitoring but there is a burning and mowing programme New: Implement monitoring programme to establish coverage and risks

Once a year

End of wet season (May)

Ecological Monitoring & Community Department

NCAA budget

Indicator: Livestock numbers in NCA


Justification for selection: High numbers leading to heavy utilisation of rangelands and result in degradation of rangelands

Large stock 166,000 Small stock 170,000

Good Implement stocking number policy (e.g. household above recommended number must be sold)

Current: No proper monitoring. However livestock numbers can be estimated from vaccination programmes

Annually Wet season, when forage and water are abundant

NCA veterinary teams

NCAA budget

Indicator: Number of indigenous residents living in NCA


Justification for selection: High numbers will lead to habitat degradation (more settlements, fragmentation, greater demand on natural resources such as firewood, timber)

25 000 Good Relocation of indigenous residents to other areas

Current: Census done in 2008

Every 3 to 4 years

N/A NCAA & NGO NCAA & Natural Peoples World (1994)

68

Indicator: Northern Highlands Forest Reserve coverage


Justification for selection: Unsustainable harvesting of forest resources will lead to decreased forest coverage and indicate degradation of forest

42.7 km2. Medium Monitor forest coverage and investigate the cause of change

Current: No monitoring New: Implement monitoring programme, restrict forest access and provide alternative sources

Annually Dry season Ecological Monitoring Department

NCAA

69

Tool 11b: Assessment of Outcomes of Management

Indicator Threshold

Status of indicator in relation to threshold Comparison

with last assessment

Management interventions: urgency and details of

actions These should have been

recorded in worksheet 11a

These should have been developed and in worksheet

11a

Using the monitoring data gathered for each indicator assess the status and trend of the indicator in this text field. Is the status of significant concern; developing concern or fine? Is the condition

improving, unchanged or deteriorating?

How does this compare with any

previous assessments?

Identify any specific actions needed in response to information collected in the monitoring and assessment of

objectives

Healthy Black Rhino population in crater

Upper = 50 rhino

Lower = 20 rhino

Condition is improving. The number is increasing. In 2006 there were 14, now there are around 32

N/A A more detailed investigation into the carrying capacity is suggested

Seasonal ungulate migratory movements

Broken migration pattern/ cycle

Condition is unchanged N/A It is recommended to institute a monitoring programme of the migration cycle at NCA

Poaching

If the annual number of incidents annually increases by more than 10% (measured against

comparable law enforcement

efforts/ patrols)

Condition is improving N/A

River health

Below acceptable levels/significant change in aquatic biodiversity

Not yet in place N/A A river health monitoring programme should be put in place

70

Indigenous plant encroachers in the crater (Bidens schimperi, Gutenbergia cordifolia)

More than 30% in crater Situation is deteriorating. it is estimated that approximately 65% of crater floor covered by pioneer plants

N/A Put in monitoring programme to monitor spread, and effectiveness of control methods. More mowing and burning (not enough machinery, staff, money)

Indigenous plant encroachers in the highlands (Bidens schimperi, Gutenbergia cordifolia)

More than 30% in Highlands

Situation is deteriorating. They seem to be increasing slowly, it is roughly around 15% now (educated guess)

N/A Put in monitoring programme to monitor spread

Livestock numbers in NCA

Increase above 170 000 small stock and 166 000 cattle

Long term trend shows the situation is unchanged

Short term, decrease in numbers in 2009 due to severe drought by 10-15%, number recovering

N/A

Number of indigenous residents living in NCA

Increase above 25 000 Situation is deteriorating. The 2008 census showed there are 62 000 people residing within NCA

N/A More efforts on relocation and controlling immigration

Northern Highlands Forest Reserve coverage

42.7km2 Not established N/A It is recommended to implement a monitoring programme, restrict forests access and provide alternate sources for resource requirements currently obtained from the Northern Highlands Forest Reserve

71

Analysis and conclusions The condition of 3 of the 9 management outcome indicators identified is improving, 2 are essentially unchanged, 2 have not yet been established or put in place, and the situation with 3 is deteriorating.

Comparison with last assessment (if any) N/A

Gaps and challenges With regard to the indigenous plant encroachers situation a monitoring programme is needed to monitor spread, and effectiveness of control methods (in the case of the crater floor more mowing and burning is needed). Concerning the number of indigenous residents living within the NCA, the efforts identified to address the situation need to be intensified to reverse the trend and maintain it at necessary levels.


The management interventions recommended in Tool 11 should be implemented and the progress monitored in a consistent, structured programmatic manner by a team appointed as being responsible for this task by the NCA Board.

72

Tool 12: Review of Management Effectiveness Assessment Results

Element Tool Follow-up Actions

Elements of the WCPA framework

List the tools used (adapt as necessary to the particular assessment)

Summarise follow-up actions listed at the end of each of the worksheets

Context Tool 1: Identifying Site Values and Management Objectives

None. Review during future EoH evaluations (recommended for every 3-4 years)

Tool 2: Identifying Threats Specific recommendations and suggested key follow-up actions included the following: a) Put in measures to stop immigration by people into the NCA, whilst continuing with the

resettlement programme to suitable areas outside the NCA, and conduct a study to review suggested carrying capacity.

b) Increase public relation campaign for the NCA, including to politicians to reduce political influence which may impact negatively on the conservation of the WHS.

c) Address human population growth (inside and outside NCA) through new interventions including teaching on the ‘health and economics of large versus small families’ in school curricula & targeting adults and youth with family planning programmes.

d) Preventing excessive numbers of livestock kept by including teaching on sustainability and economics of livestock farming in schools (more cattle is not necessarily better) and facilitating getting a reliable market in place for the sale of livestock and livestock by-products in place & helping to improve the quality of livestock as opposed to quantity.

e) Update and improve the current Tourism Strategy. f) Manage developments/ investments better by introducing environmental audits to ensure

compliance to EIA and additional environmental impacts, and consider introducing nature based tourism certification.

g) Address the increase in indigenous weedy encroachers and invasive alien species through continuing with existing and planned control programmes and ensuring there are sufficient resources in place to do a thorough control job.

h) Manage pollution from sewage and solid waste by developing a waste management programme including recycling where feasible.

i) Investigate and introduce appropriate interventions to reduce reliance on charcoal and wood for cooking.

j) Investigate more durable road construction and maintenance technologies including consideration of possible hard surfacing of the main road and Crater entry and exit roads, subject to thorough EIA.

73





Tool 3: Relationships with Stakeholders/Partners Undertake periodic questionnaire surveys amongst stakeholder groups to better understand challenges and successes.

Tool 4: Review of National Context Revise the Ngorongoro Conservation Act to ensure it covers all ambiguities in other legislation, as they pertain to the protection of the NCA. Revise what was noted in the UNESCO ‘Mixed site’ application. This application stated that a buffer zone is not needed, however it was agreed during the EoH process and workshop that it is essential to have a buffer zone. Thorough EIAs, and appropriate monitoring thereof during and after implementation, should be conducted for all developments within the NCA and its buffer zone.

Planning Tool 5: Assessment of Management Planning NCA Board to appoint a GMP implementation and monitoring team. Put actions in place to address additional threats identified during the process of the EoH assessment. The banning of agriculture needs to be reflected in the next revision of the GMP. Undertake the task to link all the objectives, as linked to the values and threats, with the NCA budget (including with corresponding codes). The opportunity exists for the NCAA to not only better ensure the implementation of all required management actions but also to take a lead amongst protected areas and to ensure continual improvement through adaptive management. This can be achieved by restructuring the General Management Plan into the framework of a best practice Environmental/Risk Management System (outlining the steps of all Planning, Implementing, Checking [monitoring], reviewing & annual reporting), as recommended in Resolution 50 at the IUCN World Conservation Congress, Barcelona 2008.

Tool 6: Design Assessment Wildlife corridors need to be maintained and re-established wherever possible. NCAA to follow up on the proposal submitted for the inclusion of Oldonyo Lengai, Lake Natron, and Engaruka German ruins to be under its management as part of the NCA. An in-depth study is required to investigate the impact of harvesting/ use of natural resources within the NCA by residents and by tourist operators (e.g. wood, water). Limits should be set and alternate energy sources recommended. Access to key and sensitive conservation areas should be limited and controlled by permit only. Any proposed changes to WH site design must be informed and supported by appropriate scientific studies. Legislation and policy should be revised to strengthen the protection of the WH site.

Inputs Tool 7: Assessment of Management Needs and Inputs

Investigate what additional, or more advanced, training would be beneficial for the Rangers. The opportunity exists for improving budget allocation and use efficiency, undertaking a thorough review of each departments budget every 3 years to ensure that each one has sufficient funds to

74





cover the key issues under its responsibility (zero based budgeting), whilst continuing with the traditional budgeting methodology as required by the Ministry annually. Budgets should be clearly linked to GMP’s objectives and activities, with a similar/linked numbering system, to ensure there are funds allocated to implement all identified management needs according to the plan.

Processes Tool 8: Assessment of Management Processes The gaps identified should be addressed as recommended in each instance as shown in Tool 8 Worksheet – e.g. the Cultural/ historical resources should be managed by NCAA; and the NCA Board should appoint a GMP implementation and monitoring team. As per Tool 5b, the restructuring of the General Management Plan into the framework of a best practice Environmental/Risk Management System would be an opportunity for the NCAA to take a further step towards achieving exemplary protected area management effectiveness.

Outputs Tool 9: Assessment of Management Plan Implementation

In future assessments, or if the current EoH can be slightly extended for this purpose, more details need to be captured regarding why each of the specific actions are behind schedule. The NCAA EoH team should undergo a training course on Ensuring Effective Management. The NCA Board should appoint a team to oversee the implementation of the GMP on behalf of top management. As per Tool 5b, the restructuring of the GMP into the framework of a best practice Environmental/Risk Management System is recommended.

Tool 10: Work/Site Output Indicators N/A

Outcomes Tool 11b: Assessing Outcomes of Management The management interventions recommended in Tool 11 should be implemented and the progress monitored in a consistent, structured programmatic manner by a team appointed as being responsible for this task by the NCA Board.

75

Appendix 1 – EoH Stakeholder Workshop participants

Name Organisation Position

Dr. Victor Runyoro Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority Manager Ecological Monitoring

Amiyo T. Amiyo Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority Manager Conservation Services

Robert Mande Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority Legal Executive Office

Henry Sweddy Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority Zones Coordinator

Hillary Mushi Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority Head Ecological Monitoring Section

Joseph Mshana Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority Planning & Financial Manager

Valerie Ufunguo Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority Manager Tourism Services

Eliwasa E. Maro Ministry of Natural Resources, Department of Antiquities – Dar es Salaam Focal Point World Heritage

John Paress Ministry of Natural Resources, Department of Antiquities – Olduvai Gorge Acting Head of Station

Rehema Kaitila TANAPA-Serengeti National Park Park Ecologist

Wilson Maanga TANAPA-Kilimanjaro National Park Park Ecologist

Andrew Natsson Serena Lodge Naturalist

Joachim Joseph Ngorongoro Crater Lodge Naturalist

Benjamin Margawe Himaka NGO Secretary General

Saibulu Lesamai Aldililay Ward Acting Ward Executive Officer

Edward Ongunya Namakanoka Ward Ward Executive Officer

Satunini Berere Ngorongoro Ward Ward Executive Officer

Simon Dudui Olbalbal Ward Ward Executive Officer

Kois Tundani Nainokanoka Division Representative of Governor

Nicodemus Ingi Naiyobi Ward Ward Executive Officer

Polycarp Nicuyumba Government of Tanzania Division Officer

Peter Metere NPC Manager

Krissie Clark PAMS Foundation Director

Wayne Lotter PAMS Foundation Director