Sustainable Tourism and Benefit-Sharing in Zanzibar

© Kamla-Raj 2008 J. Hum. Ecol., 24(2): 93-109 (2008)

Sustainable Tourism and Benefit-Sharing in Zanzibar:The Case of Kiwengwa-Pongwe Forest Reserve

Makame Kitwana Makamea and Emmanuel Kwesi Boonb

aDepartment of Commercial Crops, Fruits and Forestry, Zanzibar, TanzaniaE-mail: [email protected]

bHuman Ecology Department, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, BelgiumFax: +322 477 49 64; E-mail: [email protected]

KEYWORDS Sustainable Tourism. Environmental Benefits. Benefit-Sharing. Sharing Mechanism. Zanzibar

ABSTRACT Sustainable tourism (ST) development in Zanzibar is considered as one of the vital activities thatcould generate income for day-to-day management of protected areas through benefit-sharing. This paper examinesthe potential of benefit-sharing from sustainable tourism in the Kiwengwa-Pongwe tourism zone (KPTZ) inZanzibar from two major routes: water services and tourist attractions from Kiwengwa-Pongwe forest reserve(KPFR). Nine (9) out of thirteen (13) hoteliers and 35 tourists participated in a willingness to pay (WTP) surveyconducted in August 2006. Data were obtained through questionnaires, interviews, focus group discussions and fieldobservations. Great potential exists for the Kiwengwa-Pongwe tourism zone in Zanzibar to generate significanteconomic benefits from tourism business. However, the inexistence of an appropriate benefit-sharing mechanismmakes the attainment of this goal difficult. If a benefit-sharing mechanism is properly instituted to allow anequitable economic, social and environmental benefit-sharing, tourism stakeholders and the surrounding communitieswould be able to generate enough revenue for financing a number of local sustainable development initiatives.

1. INTRODUCTION

The issue of sustainable tourism (ST) wasclearly addressed by the World Summit onSustainable Development held in Johannesburgin 2002, and presented in Chapter IV, paragraph43 of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation.The chapter, among other things, emphasizes thepromotion of sustainable tourism developmentand capacity-building in order to contribute tothe strengthening of rural and local communitieswhich includes, among many actions, developingprogrammes that encourage people to parti-cipate in eco-tourism, enabling indigenous andlocal communities to develop and benefit fromeco-tourism, and enhancing stakeholdercooperation in tourism development andheritage preservation, in order to improve theprotection of the environment, natural resourcesand cultural heritage (WSSD, 2002).

According to Eagles et al. (2002: 161) and theWorld Tourism Organisations (WTO, 1999: 5),tourism involves the activities of personstravelling to and staying in places outside theirusual environment for not more than oneconsecutive year for leisure, business and otherpurposes and also refers to the provision ofservices in support of this act. It is regarded as amajor source that provides material benefits for

the poor and can bring cultural pride, a sense ofownership and control (Benavides and Perz-Ducy, 2001: 59). It is considered to have greaterimpacts on employment, economic growth ndforeign exchange earnings in particular.

There are many developed definitions of STthat are based on touristic activities that respectand conserve a location’s economic, environ-mental, and socio-cultural balances. Accordingto WTO (1999: 18, 389), ST refers to the kind oftourism that meets the needs of the presenttourists and host regions while protecting andenhancing opportunities for the future. In itspurest sense, ST is an industry which makes alow impact on environment and local culture,while helping to generate income, employment,and conservation of local ecosystems (Hens,2006: 36-47).

ST is said to be informative in the sense thattourists learn about the destination and how tohelp sustain its character while deepening theirown travel experiences. On the other hand,residents learn that the ordinary and familiarmeans of life may be of interest and value tooutsiders. ST is also supportive of the integrityof the place and is beneficial to local residentsand the conservation of resource. It respectslocal culture and tradition, strives for quality, notquantity. It thus embraces all segments of the

94 MAKAME KITWANA MAKAME AND EMMANUEL KWESI BOON

industry and uses guidelines and criteria thatseek to reduce environmental impacts throughmeasurable benchmarks, and improve tourism’scontribution to sustainable development andenvironmental conservation. The only way thatmay ensure sustainable tourism requiresenhanced cooperation and concrete partnershipsamong tourism actors that include industry,government at all levels, local communities,protected areas managers and planners, and thetourists themselves (Eagles et al., 2002: 49). Inthis case, benefit sharing is an importantmanagement tool to consider in motivatingstakeholders.

2. GLOBAL SIGNIFICANCE OFSUSTAINABLE TOURISM

Sustainable tourism has proved to be aneffective instrument for realizing the MillenniumDevelopment Goals (Frangialli, 2006: 1). It hasproved to be important in addressing the firstgoal related to poverty alleviation: providingsustainable development opportunity toisolated, poor communities, even in the mostremote rural areas.

Globally, tourism contributes significantly tothe nations’ gross national products (GNP). Thesector produces 4.4% of the total gross domesticproduct (GDP) and employs around 200 millionpeople (WTO, 1999: 213). This is a result of anincreased annual number of tourists tointernational destinations from 25 million in 1950to 808 million in 2005, generating revenue of morethan US$800 billion (WTO, 2006a). In Africaalone, international tourist arrivals has increasedfrom 28 million to 40 million between 2000 and2005 - an average growth of 5.6 % a year, comparedto a worldwide 3.1 % a year - resulted in adoubling of receipts from US$10.5 billion toUS$21.3 billion (WTO, 2006b).

Tourism can contribute to overall socio-economic development through the provision ofroads, telephones, piped and treated watersupplies, waste disposal and recycling andsewage treatment (Benavides and Perz-Ducy,2001: 65) and which can facilitate opportunitiesfor further development and maximized benefitsfor the sector. It can help in the sustainablemanagement of protected areas and support theprotection of natural resources as local communitiesrealise the value of their asset through benefitsharing. Tourism represents 40% of all exports of

services, making it one of the largest categories ofinternational trade, with more potential that couldbenefit poor countries (WTO, 2006a).

3. TOURISM DEVELOPMENT TRENDS INTANZANIA

Tourism plays a vital role in the economy ofthe United Republic of Tanzania (URT). It is themajor source of foreign exchange; it accountsfor about 16% of the GDP and nearly 25% of thetotal export earnings with an estimated 14,800jobs in 1999 (Luhanho 2001). Furthermore, in2005 foreign exchange receipts from tourismaccounted for US$1,083.50 million from 624,020tourists (Fig. 1) (URT, 2006: 149). The target is toreach one million tourists by the year 2010.

Zanzibar experiences the same general trendoccurring in the URT. Being a heaven for naturetourism, Zanzibar has been influenced by adramatic increase in number of visitors from 42,141tourists in 1990 to 113,237 in year 2005, mostlyenjoying the spice tour (CTZ, 2001; News 24.Com, 2005; Agence France-Presse, 2005). Thecontribution of the tourism sector to GDP rosefrom 5.1% in 1995 to 5.5% in 1999 (Orjala, 2006:28). This sector employs about 45,000 people andis likely to surpass agriculture as Zanzibar’sleading revenue earner by 2015. Currently, thetourism sector contributes 35% to the GDP (News24. Com, 2005; Agence France-Presse, 2005).

4. SUSTAINABLE TOURISMDEVELOPMENT AND BENEFIT SHARING

IN ZANZIBAR

Sustainable tourism development in Zanzibarhas been viewed as one of the areas that couldhelp run the day-to-day protected area manage-ment activities through benefit-sharing. Eco-tourism, which is regarded as a sub-set ofsustainable tourism (Watkin, 2003: 6) is the mainform of tourism in the country and focuses on anactive conservation of natural and culturalheritages that include local and indigenouscommunities in its planning, development,operations and benefit sharing (WTO, 1999: 119).

Where as the traditional system of reserveadministration in Zanzibar has been to depositrevenue accrued from protected areas in thetreasury, advocacy has been made to allow somerevenue retention for management and commu-nity (sharing) development. Since 1997, there has

95SUSTAINABLE TOURISM AND BENEFIT SHARING IN ZANZIBAR: THE CASE OF KIWENGWA

Fig. 1. International Tourism Trends in Tanzania, 1990-2005Sources: Data from Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Tourism Division

(Cited by Luhanho 2001 and URT 2006).

Fig. 2. The trend of tourist revenue sharing at Jozani National Park, 1990 - 2002


been a system of sharing the revenue (Fig.2) fromthe tourism businesses with communitiesthrough the Forest Authority’s initiatives. Forexample, the revenue in the Jozani National Parkis shared proportionally (Finnie 2003: 32).

Moreover, the Forest Authority has develop-ed a community-managed project (Pete-JozaniMangrove Boardwalk) (Fig. 3) as an additionalvisitors’ attraction to the park, so as to enhancethe revenue sharing system with partnercommunities. The benefits shared are used tofund a number of community developmentprojects such as schools, health services, safewater supply and many others.

including the Department for Commercial Crops,Fruits and Forestry (DCCFF) staff working forthe KPFR conservation project (7), practitionerson water management (3) and village keyinformants (16). In order to evaluate the accuracyof data collected from household questionnairesand interviews, two focus group discussionswere held in each shehia1 as per Kasemir et al.(2003). Each discussion involved 5 – 6community members, who are well informed onthe community natural resources incentives,benefit sharing mechanisms and sustainabletourism.

5.2 Study Site

This study was conducted in Kaskazini(North) Region of Unguja Island. The study areacomprises primarily of the Kiwengwa-PongweForest Reserve (Fig. 4), which is about 37 kmnorth of Zanzibar Municipality. The reserve islocated between coordinates 538000 to 544100Eastings and 9329900 to 9343700 Northings(DCCFF 2003: 3). It is the only single largestexisting natural forest found in the Northern zoneof Unguja Island surrounded by fifteen villagesincluding Gulioni, Kairo and Kumbaurembo(Kiwengwa), Pwani Mchangani, Kandwi,Kinunduni, Mchekeni, Mgonjoni, Kibuteni,Upenja, Gamba, Mwadudu, Pongwe, Ndudu andChokaani.

The research was confined to five villages intwo shehias in the Kaskazini (North) and Kusini(South) Regions of Unguja Island. The selectionof these shehias was based on the communitycommitments towards natural resourcesconservation in KPFR and the opportunity forsustainable tourism in the area. The selectedvillages are Gulioni, Kairo and Kumbaurembo (inthe shehia of Kiwengwa) and Pongwe and Ndudu(in the shehia of Pongwe). According to the 2002census (URT 2003: 180,183), the total populationof Kiwengwa is 2,429 people of whom 1,308 aremale and 1,121 are female. Pongwe has about 513people of whom 253 are male and 260 are female,and a total of 415 and 115 households inKiwengwa and Pongwe respectively.

Agriculture and fishing form the basicoccupations for livelihood sustenance and foodsecurity in the study area. Tourism orientedbusinesses, including guidance, product supply

1 Shehia refers to the lowest administrative unit in the region that constitutes one or more villages.

5. APPROACH AND METHODS

5.1 Sources of Data

Information was obtained from four mainsources: questionnaires distributed to hoteliersand visitors at Kiwengwa-Pongwe tourism zone,interview of key informants, focus groupdiscussions and visual observation by theauthors in August 2006. Questionnaire data forwillingness to pay for water and tourism servicesfrom KPFR were obtained from 9 hoteliers (70%)and 35 tourists. Household data on community’ssocio-economic characteristics, existing benefit-sharing mechanisms, and potential benefits ofenvironmental services and the role of benefit-sharing in sustainable tourism was obtained from106 respondents (20%). Semi-structuredinterviews were conducted to 26 key informants

Fig. 3. Pete Jozani Mangrove Board walk. A CommunityTourist Project


Fig. 4. Map of Unguja Island showing the location of the study area.Source: Institute of Marine Sciences GIS Unit (2005)

500000 550000 600000

500000 550000 600000

9350000 9350000

9300000 9300000

9250000 9250000

SOUTH

CENTRAL

NORTH

N

0 9 18 27 36 45


(fruits, vegetables and fish products) to touristhotels have overtaken the traditional means ofearning income for family maintenance. Otherminor occupations include sea weed farming,Government employment, petty cash businessand extraction of forest products for domesticand commercial purposes.

5.3 Data Analysis

Data from this study were both qualitativelyand quantitatively analyzed. Qualitative datawere analyzed using content and structuralfunctional analytical techniques in whichcomponents of verbal discussions from differentrespondents were broken down into the smallestmeaningful units of information, values andattitudes of respondents. Quantitative data wereanalysed with the aid of Statistical Package forSocial Sciences (SPSS) version 15 and ExcelSpread Sheet in Office 2003. Frequency distri-bution tables and computation of proportions inpercentage were used in analyzing the socio-economic variables for the households, hoteliersand tourists visiting Kiwengwa-Pongwe tourismzone.

Financial benefits from KPFR were determinedthrough the analysis of willingness to pay (WTP)surveys for water services and reserve attractions.WTP survey data were analyzed through theexamination of the frequency distribution ofresponses to WTP questions. The analysis aimedat determining the consistency of the respondents’answers and the establishment of statisticalrelationships that were used to aggregateresponses of the population of hoteliers andvisitors under study. Respondents’ answers

yielded a data set of individual willingness to pay‘point estima-tes’which were used to constructthe frequency distribution. Answers to yes/noquestions placed each respondent’s WTP in aninterval defined by the last value accepted andthe last value rejected. This information was usedto predict the WTP for water services to hoteliersand entry fee for attractions to visitors at specifiedprices/fees.

Frequency distributions of WTP bids wereused to estimate the total WTP for a given levelof water services and attractions, and the revenuefrom providing the services from KPFR at aspecified price/fee was estimated. Total WTP wascalculated by multiplying the frequencydistribution of the sample by the total populationto get the estimated population in each WTPinterval. By assuming that the mid-point of eachinterval is the mean WTP. The population wasmultiplied by this mean to estimate the total WTP.The total expected revenues were estimated byfirst predicting the total number of individualsthat would be willing to pay for the service at aspecified fee/price and then multiplied by theprice.

6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

6.1 Benefit - Cost Sharing and Mechanism Involved

Kiwengwa-Pongwe tourism zone (KPTZ) hasa great potential to fully gain local economicbenefits from tourism business in the area. Butthe fact is that there are very low benefits enjoyedby the community because there is neither a legal

100.00

8

6

4

2

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00Per

cen

tag

e re

spo

nse

s

Yes No I do not know

Responses

Fig. 5. Household responses for any formal agreementthat allows access to benefitsSource: Field data, 2006

Fig. 6. Household response for any formal agreementthat allows benefitSource: Field data, 2006

sharing

No56%

Yes31%

I do not know13%


agreement nor a recognised mechanism forsharing benefits. According to the interviewsconducted in August 2006, 94% of the respon-dents answered ‘No’ for any formal agreementthat allows access to benefits (Fig. 5), while 56%recognized the in-existence of such kind ofagreement (Fig. 6).

The respondents mentioned a number ofreasons for not accessing these benefits:inexistence of sharing mechanism (44.3%), lack oflocal institutions to facilitate sharing opera-tions(15.7%), inexistence of the benefits them-selves(11.4%) as well as the inexistence of a formalagreement that allows sharing (4.3%) (Fig. 7).

As cited by Eagles et al. (2002: 29), IUCN advisesthat protected areas, especially in Africa berepositioned ‘in the context of communitydevelopment and the local economy’. This can bepossible through improved communication,improvement of road infrastructures, promotion ofeducation in the local communities and health careservices. These issues are receiving attention inKiwengwa-Pongwe tourism zone. Some hamlets inthe area are receiving funds from hotels for villagedevelopment. For example, in Kumbaurembo villagethe local government is getting some funds fromthe neighbouring hotels to develop infrastructurelike roads, schools and sports facilities.

Moreover, 51% of the respondents stated thattheir community is directly connected to the watersupply system of hotels extracting water fromKPFR. A contrary situation exists in the Pongwearea where potable water is still an unsolved puzzleto even hoteliers. With regard to health services,the study found that only 2.2% of the respondentsin Kiwengwa area are aware that some hotels areproviding health service free of charge on the basisof an arranged schedule.

Although environmental and social benefitsdo exist in Kiwengwa-Pongwe tourism zone, thescope of this study does not cover them. Theyare the focus of other studies still underway.Because Kiwengwa-Pongwe is a newly desig-nated reserve (2005), there are very few studieshave been conducted in the area. However,tourism development was in place before officialgazettment of the reserve.

In any sustainable tourism developmentpursuit, both benefits and costs are accrued atthe economic, social and environmental levels.If these are not well managed, attaining sustain-able tourism becomes questionable. In terms offinancial and economic costs, tourism canincrease demand for goods, services andfacilities. Kiwengwa-Pongwe tourism zone is wellbalanced in this respect as the zone is also wellcovered by tourist hotels, quality lodgings andrestaurants. Furthermore, the area has a lot ofattractions (Table 10) and many traditionalsouvenirs.

Social costs are normally expensive astourists may disturb community value systemsand activities and compete for recreationalplaces. Poorly planned tourism developmentprojects and programmes can lead to increasedcongestion, littering, vandalism and crime (Eagleset al., 2002: 31). This has been witnessed in

Fig. 7. Household responses for the reasons of notgetting the benefitsSource: Field data, 2006

0 10 20 30 40 50

No benefits to beshared

No mechanisms forsharing

No agreements toallow sharing

No local institutionsto facilitate sharing

I do not know

Percentage response

0 10 20 30 40 50Percentage responses

Develop mechanism that will allow benefit sharing

Build management capacity of local institutions

Involve community in management

I do not know

Fig. 8. Community opinions on how to improvethe ituation as far sustainable NR management isconcernedSource: Field data, 2006

In their opinion, involvement of the communityin management (40.8%), provision of education tothe community (32%) and development ofappropriate benefit-sharing mechanisms (24.3%),are the only ways that can help to develop andsustain tourism and natural resources management(53.8%) on top of building community trust inconservation (36.8%) in the area (Fig. 8).


Kiwengwa village where hotel owners werecompeting with the community with regard tothe access road which passes through right inthe middle of the hotel area and dividing twosub-villages. This led to chaos and mis-understanding to the point that the centralgovernment had to intervene to ensure peaceand sustainable tourism in the area. Thecommunity lost their access road and was forcedto construct a new road from the other side ofthe village. The community sacrificed theiraccess road upon realizing the benefits ofsustainable tourism ahead. However, the fruitsof their labour are still quite remote.

Kiwengwa-Pongwe tourism zone is a victim ofcongestion as a number of people come to work inthe hotel sector. Different nationalities, mainly fromEast Africa, are attracted to job opportunitiesavailable in the area. Business partners frommainland Tanzania have found a good market fortheir goods and ‘services’, mainly paintings andwood carvings. However, some of these peoplecome to the area for different purposes. For example,there have been a few occasions during which armedrobberies have been reported in some hotels.

Tourism at Kiwengwa-Pongwe zone hasimposed very high costs in terms of biodiversityloss. Initial poor planning of the sector hasresulted in clearance of vast forested areas toallow for hotel development. Furthermore, as thehotels do not have a good area for the disposalof their solid waste, the wastes are secretly andhaphazardly dumped in the KPFR. Though anumber of training programmes on properdisposal of solid wastes have been conducted,there is no possibility of recovering the costs.The only way is to share the cost and benefitsfrom what has been established. In other words,to make good the opportunity costs incurredfrom biodiversity loss, a most plausible solutionis to share the benefits and costs of tourismdevelopment equitably amongst the variousstakeholders.

6.2 Willingness to Pay for Environmental Services

The coastal area of Kiwengwa-Pongwetourism zone is covered by a range of touristhotels, of which about 66% are of three to fivestars status (Fig. 9). About 78% of these hotelsextract potable water directly from the Kiwengwa-Pongwe Forest reserve catchment area (Table 1).At least, 43% of these hotels extract more than

Hoteliers WTP survey restricted the studyto only two prediction scenarios (Table 3).Assuming that hoteliers are willing to pay for allwater that they extract from KPFR at the price of

Fig. 10. Hoteliers' Willingness to Pay responseSource: Field data analysis, 2007

Yes

No

34%

11%22%

33%

No status

Three Stars hotel

Four Stars hotel

Five Stars hotel

Fig. 9. Status of hotels around Kiwengwa-Pongwetourism zoneSource: Field data analysis, 2007

5000 litres of water per day. This is a reservedcatchment that is managed using a participatoryapproach by the surrounding communities andthe Government of Zanzibar.

If an appropriate sharing mechanism isinstituted to facilitate water benefit sharing withhoteliers, the surrounding community of KPFRwill generate adequate funds to finance a goodnumber of local development initiatives.

The WTP survey for water services revealsthat 78% of hoteliers are willing to pay for waterextraction from KPFR (Fig. 10) and that 83% arewilling to contribute between US$1-5 per 100 litres(Fig. 11) of water extracted. The majority of thehotels are extracting between more than 5000 litresper day (42.9%) and 100 – 500 litres a day (28.6%)(Table 1). The only problem in KPFR is lack of anappropriate benefit-sharing mechanism.


Fig. 11. Hoteliers WTP amount responsesSource: Field data analysis, 2007

83.33

16.67

020406080

100

1-5 US$ per 100litres

More than 6 US$per 100 litres

WTP bids

Perc

enta

ge

resp

ons

e

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

1 2 3 4 5

Potential fees to be charged (US$/unit)

Ex

pe

cte

dN

o.

of

wa

ter

un

its

pe

ran

nu

m

Fig. 12. Hoteliers total WTP for water services from KPFR

Source: Field data analysis, 2007

Table 2: Response of hoteliers’ WTP for waterservices from KPFR

Intervals Mid- Resp-Frequency Total Totalfor WTP poi- onse distribution num WTPbids nts data (%) ber of(US$/ water100 litres) units

(100 litres/unit)

1 - 5 3 5 83 85808 257425.386 - 10 8 1 17 17162 137293.5311 - 15 13 0 0 0 0.0016 - 20 18 0 0 0 0.0020 + 23 0 0 0 0.00

6 100 102970 394718.91


N.B: Mid-point for the last category is assumed to beUS$23

Table 1: Percentage of Water sources and amountextracted from KPFR

Sources Percentage Amount Percentage sources (%) extracted extraction (%)

Extract 77.8 100-500 28.6direct litresfrom KPFROwn water 22.2 501-1000 14.3sources litresTotal 100 More than 42.9

5000 litresI do not 14.2know theamount

Total 100

Source: Field data, 2006KPTZ is covered by 13 touristic hotels that

have the potential of extracting water directlyfrom KPFR. From Table 1, it is clear that 43% (5.5)of these hotels extract 100375 units of water peryear, whereby 1 unit is equivalent to 100 litres ofwater, (50 units/day x 365 days x 5.5 hotels). Inaddition, 29% (3.7) extract 405.15 units/year (0.3units/day x 365 days x 3.7 hotels) and 14% (0.8)extract 2190 units/year (7.5 units/day x 365 daysx 0.8 hotels).

The hoteliers’ willingness to pay for KPFRwater resources is estimated to be a mean WTPof US$3.83 per unit, with a standard deviation ofUS$2.24. The confidence limits at 0.05 level ofsignificance were found to be in the range ofUS$3.16 to US$4.51 per unit. The total annualwillingness to pay for water services wascalculated to be US$394,718.91 (Table 2), which isequivalent to the area of the graph in Figure 12.


US$3 per unit of water, the management expectsto collect an estimated revenue of US$308,910.45.Nonetheless, if the charged price is increased toUS$8, on the prediction that hoteliers will bewilling to pay 50% of the amount of water theyextract, the management will get revenuereaching US$411,880.60 (Table 3). However, thisis too ambitious from the mean willingness topay of US$3.83.

The same mechanism is possible inKiwengwa-Pongwe forest reserve since the areais very rich in tourist attractions that can easilybe paid for (Table 10). The number of touristsvisiting Kiwengwa-Pongwe Tourism zone (KPTZ)is promising. The results of the study indicatethat 56% of hotels receive more than 5,000 visitorsper year while the rest get between 1,000 - 4,999(22%) and 100 - 499 (22%) visitors per year (Fig.13). Roughly, KPTZ receives up to 52,000 visitorsper year, out of which 88% (45,760) are willing topay for the services at KPFR (Fig. 14).

Table 3: Total expected annual revenue fromHoteliers WTP

Mid- Freq Predicted Number of Expectedpoints uency % of units that revenue

distri hoteliers hoteliers arebution willing willing to pay at(%) to pay different fees

3 83 100 102970.15 308910.458 17 50 51485.08 411880.6013 018 023 0

100


Tourism based on protected areas can be akey factor in supporting the conservation ofnatural and cultural heritage (Eagles et al., 2002:27). It can generate funds through entrance andservice fees which can be used to sustain efficientresource management. For instance, in the JozaniNational park in Zanzibar an entrance fee (of US$8per head) has been instituted for visitors whowant to explore the park and enjoy the nature.This activity attracts about 20,000 touristsannually and generating about US$160,000,which is retained for park and surroundingcommunities’ development (Finnie, 2003: 31).Revenue retention and sharing mechanisms havebeen installed and stakeholders are getting theirshares accordingly (Table 4).

88.24

11.76

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

Yes NoResponses

Per

cen

tag

e re

spo

nse

s

Fig. 14. Visitors’ willingness to pay responseSource: Field data analysis, 2007

Fig. 13. Proportion of annual hotel visitation atKPTZSource: Field data analysis, 2007

22%

22%

56%

100-499 visitors

1000-4999 visitors

5000 and above visitors

When asked to state the maximum amountthat they would be willing to pay as entry fees forthe services and attractions available at KPFR ina close ended bid willingness to pay studyconducted in August (2006), 74% of therespondents indicated their willingness to pay

Table 4: Percentage shares of revenue retainedin Jozani National ParkBeneficiary/Activities Percen

tageShare(%)

1. Retained and used for National Park 33.60Management activities

2. Retained by the Department responsible 30.00for Forestry (DCCFF) for the developmentof forest resources throughout Zanzibar

3. Retained by local communities to be used to 22.40compensate farmers for crops lost tomonkeys and for local development initiatives

4. Retained by the Treasury 14.00

Source: Finnie, 2003:33


between US$1 and US$6 per head (Table 5) forthe potential services and attractions of KPFR.

From the results presented in Table 5, thesurvey gives a mean willingness to pay ofUS$5.20 per head with a standard deviation ofUS$3.24. The confidence limits at 0.05 level ofsignificance were found to be in the range ofUS$4.80 to US$5.60 per head. The total calculatedwillingness to pay of visitors for the KPFR fromentry fees is US$237,952 per year (Table 5), whichis graphically depicted in Figure 15.

generate an annual gross revenue of US$91,520 asis illustrated in Figure 16. If equitably shared, thisrevenue can act as an incentive for communityparticipation in the management of naturalresources and tourism.

Table 6: Total expected annual revenue fromKPFR’s visitors

Mid- Freq- Predicted % # of visitors Expectedpoints uency of visitors who are revenue

distri willing to willing tobution pay pay at diff(%) erent fees

2 37 100 45760 915205 37 80 36608 1830408 10 60 27456 21964811 17 25 11440 125840

100


1800016141210

8642

000000000000000000000000

02 5 8 11

Potential Fees to be charged (US$)

Exp

ecte

d N

o. o

f V

isit

ors

per

yea

r

Mid point bids

Fig. 15. Graphical representation of the total willing-ness to pay of visitors of KPFRSource: Field data analysis, 2007

Table 5: Response of visitors’ WTP and total WTPfor the KPFR

Intervals Mid- Response Frequency Total Totalfor WTP points data distribu- number WTPbids tion (%) of visi-(US$) tors/year

1 - 3 2 11 37 16779 335574 - 6 5 11 37 16779 838937 - 9 8 3 10 4576 36608

Source: Field data analysis, 2007N.B: Mid-point for the last category is assumed to beUS$11

From the prediction that 80% of tourists visitingKPFR are willing to pay an entrance fee of US$5,KPFR should expect to receive 36,608 visitors andgenerate an estimated revenue of US$183,040 peryear (Table 6). However, a maximum fee of US$8may be charged based on the prediction that 60%of visitors (27,456 visitors per year) will visit KPFR.This corresponds to what is charged in JozaniNational Park (Finnie 2003: 32). On the other hand,if the smallest fee of US$2 is charged per head,100% (45,760) of visitors will be willing to pay and

Fig. 16. Expected annual gross revenues at differententry fees and predictionsSource: Field data analysis, 2007

250000

200000

150000

100000

50000

0Gro

ss R

even

ues

(U

S$)

Expected Fees (US$)

Expected annualrevnues atdifferent predictions

One of the critical challenges of benefit-sharing at KPFR is the inexistence of a benefit-sharing mechanism. The process of getting anappropriate mechanism is dependent on aneffective and efficient management system thatconsiders the community as an important andequal development stakeholder.

Considering the fact that the KPFR has asimilar ecosystem like that of Jozani National Park(JNP), the benefit-sharing mechanism of the latterhas been applied to the present study to providean insight on the financial benefit that Kiwengwa-Pongwe communities can generate from entrancefees to KPFR.

Under the prevailing benefit-sharingmechanism at JNP, local communities retain22.4% (Finnie 2003: 31), which is used forcompensation and financing local developmentinitiatives. If the same percentage will be applied


Handicraftman6%

Seaweed farmer6%

Teacher or other civilservants

3%

Retired2%

Trader8%

Tourism RelatedOccupations

14%

Subsistent farmer32%

Fishing29%

Fig. 17. Main occupations at Kiwengwa-Pongwe Tourism Zone, ZanzibarSource: Field data analysis, 2007

at KPFR, communities will be able to get aboutUS$69,195.94 and US$92,261.25 per year ascompensation for water services they provide tohoteliers according to the first and secondscenarios respectively (Table 7). On the otherhand, the community’s share of visitors’willingness to pay ranges from US$20,500.48,

US$28,188.16, US$41,000.96 to US$49,201.15 forthe first, first, second, third and fourth predictionscenarios (Table 8).

6.3 The Role of Sustainable Tourism atKiwengwa-Pongwe Tourism Zone

Sustainable tourism (ST) development aimsto take advantage of the interest shown by tour-ists so as to enhance economic opportunities,protect the natural and cultural heritage and ad-vance the quality of life of all concerned. In thisway, tourism will help to increase jobs and in-come in local areas. WTO (2006a) records indi-cate that tourism employs about 200 million peoplearound the world.

At Kiwengwa-Pongwe tourism zone, the sec-tor employs 14% of the community members (Fig.17) as tour guides, employees in the hotels andas owners of restaurants; it is third to agricultureand fishing. Moreover, tourism contributes about15.2% of the income to the local community (Table9) - second to crop and fish production.

In addition to job creation, tourism is regardedas a source of foreign exchange. Most of thetourists visiting Zanzibar are of international ori-gin and therefore provide foreign exchange foreconomic development, as it is in many coun-tries (Eagles et al., 2002: 24). But to secure suchbenefits there must be products and services for

Table 8: Expected annual community benefitaccording to different scenarios on visitors' WTPat KPFR

Predicted % # of visitors Expected Expectedof visitors who are willing revenue communitywilling to pay at shareto pay different fees

100 45760 91520 20500.4880 36608 183040 41000.9660 27456 219648 49201.15225 11440 125840 28188.16


Table 7: Expected annual community benefitaccording to different scenarios on hoteliers' WTPat KPFRPredicted % Number of Expected Expectedof Hoteliers units that revenue communitywilling hoteliers are shareto pay willing to pay

at different fees

100 102970.15 308910.45 69195.945 0 51485.08 411880.60 92261.25



Table 9: Major sources of income at Kiwengwa-Pongwe Zone

Source of income Percentage tocommunity members

(%)

1. Crop and fish production 65.702. Small scale trading 14.303. Tourist related income

(Hotel employee andother tourism businesses) 15.20

4. Civil servant 1.00

Source: Field data, 2006.

Table 10: Eco-touristic attractions at Kiwengwa-Pongwe Zone

Ecological attractions Social attractions

1. Natural, beautiful dry and watered caves - about 1. Community gift shops.8 caves. Seven caves with water and one dry.

2. Spices as well as agricultural plots grown along 2. Swahili culture surrounding the areaon the way to the caves.

3. Natural habitats for a wide diversity of flora and fauna. 3. Native people selling local products totourists as well a acting as local guides

4. Wildlife including red colobus monkeys, variety of birds, 4. Bikingduikers, antelopes, bats and a good number of butterflies.

5. Beautiful beaches with white sands 5. Generally beach tourism including boatdriving and sun bathing.

6. Attractive landscapes. 6. Diving and snorkelling7. Good natural forest which is very rich in species

diversity of more than 100species.

Source: Field data, 2006

tourists to spend money on. It is also necessaryto minimize the amount of economic leakages ofthe local areas. This will ensure self-sustenancein tourism and reduce dependency on importedgoods and services.

Kiwengwa-Pongwe tourism zone can beconsidered to be self-sufficient in terms ofavailability of goods and services that touristscan spend on. The area is privileged by a numberof ecotouristic attractions (Table 10). Someattractions are illustrated in figures 18-29.

7. CONCLUSION

The following conclusions are drawn fromthe study on ‘Sustainable Tourism and BenefitSharing in Zanzibar’:• There is a great potential in Kiwengwa-

Pongwe Tourism Zone (KPTZ) to achievesustainable tourism through benefit-sharing.The zone has a good number of attractionsworth visiting and a natural ecosystem(KPFR) very rich in environmental servicesthat can sustain tourism. The existence ofpotential buyers of environmental services(hoteliers and a good number of visitors) from

the reserve (water and forest attractions) aswell as their willingness to share benefitsmakes sustainable tourism even more possi-ble. The existing policies and laws governingthe zone and the surrounding community’scommitment to sustainable tourism makes itsrealization feasible.

• The study has found greater willingness forbenefit-sharing from all concerned parties –hoteliers, visitors and surrounding commu-nities. But their commitment to contribute tosustainable tourism is constrained by theinexistence of a benefit-sharing mechanismthat allows them to enjoy the benefits to begenerated in the sector. Efforts to share somebenefits, such as health services, water supp-ly, education support services and infrastruc-ture development, have been made by inves-tors (hoteliers) whiles they await the esta-blishment of a benefit-sharing mechanism.The mechanism has to be put in place byDepartment for Commercial Crops, Fruits andForestry (DCCFF), which is the leadinginstitution with regard to sustainable tourism.Presently, the pace of developing the mecha-nism is very slow and needs to be acceleratedso as to motivate the various stakeholders toactively participate in sustainable tourism. Inother words, benefit-sharing mechanism isparamount at KPTZ.

• Though potential benefits of sustainabletourism at KPTZ are real, associated socialand environmental costs constitute one partof the equation. Therefore, proper planningis fundamental if these negative (costs)aspects of sustainable tourism are to beeffectively mitigated. The aim is to signifi-cantly increase the benefits side of the




equation and minimize the costs. This canonly be achieved by creating positive effects/impacts on sustainable tourism stakeholdersand the surrounding communities. Thestudy shows that there are enormousopportunities for sustainable tourism relatedbusinesses the local communities canengage in to foster sustainable developmentof KPFR.

• In addition, the potential economic benefitsfrom KPRF can play a greater role in ensuringsustainable resource management in thereserve. If the benefits are equitably shared,the joint management team will getsubstantial funds to run the day-to-dayactivities of the reserve and thereby enhancethe conservation of KPFR and the qualitywater supply to the tourism industry. Underthe prevailing benefit-sharing mechanism atJozani National Park (JNP), whereby 22.4%of financial benefits is retained, communitiesat KPFR have the potential to get betweenUS$69195.94 to US$92261.25 per year as alevy for water services from hoteliers andabout US$20500.48 to US$49201.15 per yearfrom visitors at KPFR. Though a number ofobstacles are hindering economic benefit-sharing at KPTZ, there is great potential forbenefit-sharing to positively influence localattitudes towards efficient natural resourcesand sustainable tourism management.

• More studies on environmental and socialbenefits and costs in the KPTZ are neededto produce a complete analysis of thesustainable tourism situation in KPFR. Sincesustainable tourism development dependshighly on shared costs and benefits amongstthe stakeholders, a complete package ofrelevant information is crucial for effectiveplanning. The stakeholders and the commu-nities should be educated to understand thattourism development is a double-facedendeavour. On the one hand, it can providemore job opportunities and revenue to helpsustain a community’s economy (WTO 1999:361) and on the other, it may acceleratenegative changes in the cultural and naturalenvironment. Therefore, effective planningof sustainable development should be doneso as to prevent and/or mitigate the negativeeffects while at same time maximizing thepositive impacts.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to the Flemish InteruniversityCouncil (VLIR) of Belgium for providing financialsupport for this study. We are also thankful to allrelevant assistants who assisted in datacollection in the study area as well as communityleaders, household heads, key informants, theDCCFF and Water Department staff, tourists andhotel management in the East Coast zone forproviding the required information and data forthis study.

LIST OF ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONSAND TERMINOLOGIES USED

CTZ Commission for Tourism ZanzibarDCCFF Department for Commercial Crops,

Fruits and ForestryGDP Gross domestic productsGNP Gross national productsHOUSEHOLD: All people living together and share

common services in a homestead.JNP Jozani National parkKASKAZINI Swahili name for the Northern

administrative regionKPFR Kiwengwa-Pongwe Forest ReserveKPTZ Kiwengwa-Pongwe Tourism ZoneKUSINI Swahili name for the Southern

administrative regionNGOs Non-Governmental Organisation(s)MADEMA: Locally made fish traps that resemble

basket. Main raw material is wood frommacphesonia gracilis –‘mjoma’

SHEHA: The village/shehia leader.SHEHIA: Lowest administrative unit in the region

that constitutes one or more villages.SMZ The Swahili abbreviation - Serikali ya

Mapinduzi ya Zanzibar for theRevolutionary Government of Zanzibar.

URT United Republic of TanzaniaWIKIPEDIA: The Free encyclopaedia.WSSD World Summit for Sustainable

DevelopmentW T O World Tourism OrganisationW T P Willingness to Pay

REFERENCES

Archabald, K. and Naughton-Treves, L.: TourismRevenue Sharing around National Parks in WesternUganda: Early Efforts to identify and reward localcommunities. Journal of EnvironmentalConservation, 28(2): 135-149 (2001). Foundationfor Environmental Conservation.

Benavides, D. D. and E. Perez-Ducy, E. (Eds): Tourismin the Least Developed Countries. III UnitedNations Conference on Least Developed Countries,Brussels, May 2001. World Tourism Organisation.392pp (2001)..

CTZ (Commission for Tourism Zanzibar): WorkingReports (2001:.


DCCFF (Department for Commercial Crops, Fruits andForestry): Project Proposal for the Kiwengwa-Pongwe Forest Reserve Conservation Project.Submitted for Global Conservation Fund. August2003. The Revolutionary Government of Zanzibardocument. 12pp (2003).

Eagles, P. F. J., McCool, S. F. and Hynes, C. D.:Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas. Guidelinesfor Planning and Management. IUCN Glands,Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Xv + 183pp(2002).

Finnie, D.: Jozani-Chwaka Bay National Park – GeneralManagement Plan. Forestry Technical Paper 142.Department of Commercial Crops. Fruits andForestry, Zanzibar. 89pp. (2003).

Frangialli, F.: Tourism Stands Up Against Poverty,Tourism Stands Up For The MilleniumDevelopment Goals: Message From The Secretary-General. www.world-tourism.org/pdf/standup_e.pdf(Retrieved on 19th October 2006). http: //www.biodiversityeconomics.org/applications/library_documents/lib_document.rm?document_id=710 (Retrieved 20th December 2005) (2006).

Hens, L.: Tourism and Environment. In: Course readingson Tourism, Recreation and Heritage. FreeUniversity of Brussels. 47pp. (2006).

Kasemir, B., Jaeger, C.C and J. Jager, J.: Citizen partici-pation in sustainability assessment. In: Publicparticipation and sustainability Science, KasemirB., C.C Jaeger, J. Jager and T.M Gardner (Eds.).Cambridge University Press 3-36pp. (2003).

Luhanho, P. L.: Tourism Development Trends inTanzania. A Note. Pp. 361 – 364. In: Tourism inthe Least Developed Countries. Benavides D. D.and E Perez-Ducy (Eds). (2001).

News24.Com. 2005. Zanzibar Sets Tourism Record. 27/12/2005 19: 44 - (SA) http: //www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,2-11-1447_1856046,00.html (Retrieved 21st October 2006).

Orjala, M.: Life World and its Reflectios in Rural Commu-nities: The Interaction Between an Individual, aVillage Community and Nature on the Island ofUnguja in Zanzibar. Turku University Departmentof Geography Publications B Nr 8. Turku, 124pp.(2006).

URT (United Republic of Tanzania): The Status ofNational Economy for the year 2005. (Hali yaUchumi wa Taifa Katika Mwaka 2005). Ministryof Planning, Economy and Empowerment.Government Printer, DSM. 241pp. (2006).

URT (United Republic of Tanzania): Population andHousing Census. General Report. Central CensusOffice, National Bureau of Statistics, President’sOffice. Planning and Privatization. Dar-Es-salaam.Government Printer DSM. 203pp. (2003).

Watkin, J. R.: The Evolution of Ecotourism in EastAfrica: From an Idea to Industry. Wildlife andDevelopment Series No. 15. International Institutefor Environment and Development, London. 28pp.(2003).

WSSD (World Summit on Sustainable Development):Report of the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment. Johannesburg, South Africa, UnitedNations (2002).

WTO (World Tourism Organisation): InternationalTourism: A Global Perspective . 2nd Ed.WorldTourism Organisation, Madrid, 406pp (1999).

WTO (World Tourism Organisation). 2006a. Tourism -A Key Resource for Sustainable Economic and SocialDevelopment. http: //www.world-tourism.org/newsroom/Releases/2006/september/think_tank.htm (Retrieved 19th October 2006).

WTO (World Tourism Organisation). 2006b. AfricanTourism Surges Ahead – UNWTO. http: //www.world-tourism.org/newsroom/Releases/2006/september/africantourismahead.htm (Retrieved19th October 2006).

Documents

Sustainable Tourism and Benefit-Sharing in Zanzibar