Manufaa ya ujenzi wa barabara ya kiwango cha lami itakayo unganisha Karatu na Mwadui moja kwa moja

[z12f]

Manufaa ya ujenzi wa barabara ya kiwango cha lami itakayo unganisha Karatu na Mwadui moja kwa moja kupitia kaskazini mwa ziwa Eyasi (via Maswa Game reserve).

1) Itaongeza utalii kanda ya ziwa na kanda ya kaskazini. Na kuongeza mapato ya fedha za kigeni kwa kiasi kikubwa.

2) Itaongeza bei ya mazao ya kilimo (na bei ya mifugo) kanda ya ziwa.

3) Itapunguza muda na gharama za usafirishaji kanda ya ziwa. Muda wa safari kutoka Mwanza hadi Arusha utapungua.

4) Itaongeza undugu kati ya kanda ya ziwa na kanda ya kaskazini.

5) Itasaidia watu wa kanda hizo kuwa na exposure zaidi na kupata huduma nzuri zaidi. Interaction ya wachagga na wasukuma itawasaidia wasukuma wa vijijini kiakili, kwenye mambo ya elimu ya msingi na sekondari, kwenye mambo ya huduma nzuri za mabasi ya usafiri, kwenye mambo ya huduma nzuri za afya (hospitali na pharmacy nzuri), itakua shida kwa wasukuma kutapeliwa mazao yao as wanunuzi wataongezeka kutoka Arusha, Nairobi etc. Wachagga watapata exposure kwenye mambo ya madini (almasi, dhahabu etc) na biashara na nchi za upande ule.

6) Itasaidia biashara kati ya kanda ya kaskazini na kanda ya Ziwa. Pia itaongeza ajira na kujiajiri. In the longrun, vijana wengi watapata ajira kwenye sekta ya usafirishaji, maduka, kilimo, mifugo na utalii.

7) Itasaidia sana wasukuma kuendelea, hususan wasukuma wa mkoa wa Simiyu. Kuna miradi michache ya barabara/miundo mbinu ambayo inaweza kuwasaidia wasukuma wa Simiyu zaidi ya mradi huu. Mikoa ya Mwanza, Kagera, Geita, Mara na Kigoma nayo itafaidika. Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi na Eastern Congo nao watafaidika.

8) Itachochea ukuaji wa viwanda kwenye kanda hizo mbili.

9) Itakuza uchumi wa Arusha, Moshi, Mwanga, Same na Tanga. Na itasaidia sana wachagga kuendelea. Wachagga wataweza kuuza mazao yao (ndizi, ulezi etc) kwa unafuu huko kanda ya ziwa. Wachagga vile vile watanunua vitu/mazao kwa bei nafuu kutoka kanda ya ziwa. Vijana wachagga wa vijijini vile vile watanufaika.

10) Itasaidia kanda nyingine za Tanzania kuendelea. Kupanuka kwa uchumi wa kanda ya ziwa kutasababisha watu wa kanda hii kununua bidhaa za viwanda (cement etc) na mazao mbali mbali kutoka maeneo mengine ya Tanzania e.g. Dsm, Dodoma, Mbeya, Lindi/Mtwara, Ruvuma etc.

NB: Kutokana na ufinyu wa bajeti, tunaweza tukaanza na barabara ya vumbi halafu baadae tuka upgrade ikawa ya lami.

Update

Nimecheki ramani, yes ni kweli, barabara za vumbi zipo. Kuna barabara ya vumbi inatoka mji wa Ngorongoro inapitia Kakesio then Banyu (in Maswa Game Reserve) then Banyu tena (after Maswa Game reserve) then Lalago (karibia na Mwadui; kwenye main road ya Mwanza na Musoma). Hii ndio barabara ambayo nashauri ni vizuri ikawekewa lami hivi karibuni, ili itumiwe na watalii na magari madogo binafsi. Barabara hii ni vizuri itumike wakati kuna mwanga wa jua, isitumike usiku. This road is approximately 180 kms.

Baadae barabara ya Seronera, Ruhoga, Nata, Mugela mpaka njia ya Ushashi-Musoma nayo inaweza kuwekewa lami. Ili pia itumike na watalii na magari madogo binafsi. Hii barabara inapitia ndani ya Serengeti National Park na Grumeti Game Reserve. Barabara hii pia ni vizuri itumike wakati kuna mwanga wa jua, isitumike usiku.

Kuna mdau ambae ame elezea kwa urefu na kina, debate ya commercial highway.

Baadae kama kuna mipango ya kujenga commercial highway, ni vizuri commercial highway hiyo ikapitia kusini mwa ziwa Eyasi (nje ya eneo la hifadhi).

 

[Bilionea Asigwa]

Naona unaongelea makabila, makabila makabila...

Huwezi kujenga hoja za msingi bila kuweka makabila??

Mfano ni kilometer ngapi kutoka Mwadui kwenda Karatu kwa barabara na ujenzi wa barabara hii utaokoa kilometer ngapi ambazo mfano mtu wa Mwanza kwenda Karatu anahitajika kukimbia kwa gari akizungukia Singida??

Ni athari gani za kimazingira, mfano kwa kuwa barabara itapita Hifadhi ya Maswa, ni madhara gani tutayapata kwa barabara kupita hapo??

Faida za kujengwa kwa barabara hii ni zipi ukilinganisha na faida za ujenzi wa barabara ya Musoma-Mugumu-Arusha ambayo inapita katikati ya hifadhi ya Serengeti na ndio mshindani mkuu wa barabara hii unayoipigia chapuo??

 

[z12f]

Naona unaongelea makabila, makabila makabila...

Huwezi kujenga hoja za msingi bila kuweka makabila??

Mfano ni kilometer ngapi kutoka Mwadui kwenda Karatu kwa barabara na ujenzi wa barabara hii utaokoa kilometer ngapi ambazo mfano mtu wa Mwanza kwenda Karatu anahitajika kukimbia kwa gari akizungukia Singida??

Ni athari gani za kimazingira, mfano kwa kuwa barabara itapita Hifadhi ya Maswa, ni madhara gani tutayapata kwa barabara kupita hapo??

Faida za kujengwa kwa barabara hii ni zipi ukilinganisha na faida za ujenzi wa barabara ya Musoma-Mugumu-Arusha ambayo inapita katikati ya hifadhi ya Serengeti na ndio mshindani mkuu wa barabara hii unayoipigia chapuo??

Maswali yako ni mazuri. Hii barabara sio mshindani wa barabara ya Musoma-Mugumu-Arusha au barabara ya kupitia Singida. Nimefurahi kwamba imeeleweka barabara hii inapitia wapi. Mi najua ni fupi zaidi kutoka Arusha kwenda Mwanza kupitia barabara hii ila sijui by km ngapi. Wataalamu wa ramani na GIS wanaweza wakatusaidia. Kuhusu makabila unaweza sema wananchi wa mikoa husika badala ya makabila ya mikoa husika.

 

[z12f]

Labda na wataalamu wa barabara wanaweza kukubaliana na hoja hii

 

[Kibanga Ampiga Mkoloni]

Nimemuelewa mwandishi na naunga mkono hoja, na hii barabara itapunguza magari mengi kupita serengeti mbugani na itapita huko kwenye pori la akiba.

kama nakumbuka hii ni barabara activities walikuwa wakiipigia debe kipindi kile serengeti inataka kupigwa lami na utetezi wao ulikuwa wazi kuwa hii barabara ni ya faida kwa watu wengi kuliko serengeti maana hii itapita vijiji vingi sana.

 

[Kibanga Ampiga Mkoloni]

Tena hii barabara ina hela kabisa ipo za bure world bank walikuw atayari kutoa.

Tanzania urged to accept World Bank funding of alternative Serengeti highway route

Tanzania urged to accept World Bank funding of alternative Serengeti highway route
William McLennan
| 3rd March 2011

Migrating wildebeest help to maintain the Serengeti as a major carbon storage (© Boyd Norton)

World Bank offers to help fund the cost of road if it avoids bitterly opposed route through the Serengeti National Park

A controversial road through the Serengeti, one of the world’s most famous migratory routes, may be re-routed with funding from the World Bank.

Tanzania’s plans for a 480-kilometre road to link up the east of the country with Lake Victoria were to be routed through the Serengeti National Park for around 50 kilometres. The government said it would bring ‘essential economic development’ to the region and allow the transport of newly discovered Ugandan oil to Tanzanian ports in the East.

However, environmental groups and scientists claim the Serengeti route would intersect the path of the renowed ‘great migration’ where millions of wildebeest, gazelle and zebra migrate annually from the Tanzanian Serengeti to the Kenyan Masai Mara, in search of water. Wildebeest populations may decline from 1.3 million to 200,000 if the road prevents them from accessing this water, the Frankfurt Zoological Society told the Ecologist.

An alternative ‘southern route’, which avoids the Serengeti National Park completely, has been proposed by opponents and looks closer to being accepted after intervention by the World Bank this week. The Bank says it is in talks with Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete to discuss funding the alternative route.

In a statement released yesterday the World Bank said it was ‘willing to support Tanzania in selecting and, where appropriate, financing the most beneficial alternative to the Northern Serengeti Road to meet the development needs of northern Tanzania, while preserving the unique character of the Serengeti.’

Professor Andrew Dobson, of Princeton University, who has worked in the Serengeti for more than 20 years and was one of 27 scientists to sign an appeal against the proposed road in the leading journal Nature, welcomed the Bank’s intervention.

‘The development of these more ethical alternative routes will allow the Serengeti migration to proceed as it has done for hundreds of thousands of years, preserving one of the world's greatest natural wonders and also one of Africa's major carbon sinks’ he told the Ecologist.

As yet there has been no formal response from President Kikwete or his administration and the Tanzanian High Commission knew nothing of this news when contacted yesterday. The President has previously been adamant the highway through the national park should go ahead.

 

[Kibanga Ampiga Mkoloni]

Soma na hii barua:

https://tnrf.org/files/DearKikweteSerengeti.pdf

World Bank offers to fund alternative route to Road through Serengeti
SUBMITTED BY WEBSITE OFFICER ON 4 MARCH 2011 - 9:17AM
0 0 0 googleplus0

On March 1st, the World Bank's Country Director for Tanzania, John S. Adams, sent a letter to President Kikwete announcing the World Bank's offer to fund an alternative route to the proposed major road that would cut through Serengeti National Park. The proposed alternate route that the World Bank is ready to fund, is a southern road that would pass south of the Park.
Read the entire letter here.

 

[Kibanga Ampiga Mkoloni]

Soma na hawa:

http://vijana.fm/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Serengeti-2.pdf

 

[PatriceLumumba]

Manufaa ya ujenzi wa barabara ya kiwango cha lami itakayo unganisha Karatu na Mwadui moja kwa moja kupitia kaskazini mwa ziwa Eyasi (via Maswa Game reserve).

1) Itaongeza utalii kanda ya ziwa na kanda ya kaskazini. Na kuongeza mapato ya fedha za kigeni kwa kiasi kikubwa.

2) Itaongeza bei ya mazao ya kilimo (na bei ya mifugo) kanda ya ziwa.

3) Itapunguza muda na gharama za usafirishaji kanda ya ziwa. Muda wa safari kutoka Mwanza hadi Arusha utapungua.

4) Itaongeza undugu kati ya kanda ya ziwa na kanda ya kaskazini.

5) Itasaidia watu wa kanda hizo kuwa na exposure zaidi na kupata huduma nzuri zaidi. Interaction ya wachagga na wasukuma itawasaidia wasukuma wa vijijini kiakili, kwenye mambo ya elimu ya msingi na sekondari, kwenye mambo ya huduma nzuri za mabasi ya usafiri, kwenye mambo ya huduma nzuri za afya (hospitali na pharmacy nzuri), itakua shida kwa wasukuma kutapeliwa mazao yao as wanunuzi wataongezeka kutoka Arusha, Nairobi etc. Wachagga watapata exposure kwenye mambo ya madini (almasi, dhahabu etc) na biashara na nchi za upande ule.

6) Itasaidia biashara kati ya kanda ya kaskazini na kanda ya Ziwa. Pia itaongeza ajira na kujiajiri. In the longrun, vijana wengi watapata ajira kwenye sekta ya usafirishaji, maduka, kilimo, mifugo na utalii.

7) Itasaidia sana wasukuma kuendelea, hususan wasukuma wa mkoa wa Simiyu. Kuna miradi michache ya barabara/miundo mbinu ambayo inaweza kuwasaidia wasukuma wa Simiyu zaidi ya mradi huu. Mikoa ya Mwanza, Kagera, Geita, Mara na Kigoma nayo itafaidika. Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi na Eastern Congo nao watafaidika.

8) Itachochea ukuaji wa viwanda kwenye kanda hizo mbili.

9) Itakuza uchumi wa Arusha, Moshi, Mwanga, Same na Tanga. Na itasaidia sana wachagga kuendelea. Wachagga wataweza kuuza mazao yao (ndizi, ulezi etc) kwa unafuu huko kanda ya ziwa. Wachagga vile vile watanunua vitu/mazao kwa bei nafuu kutoka kanda ya ziwa. Vijana wachagga wa vijijini vile vile watanufaika.

10) Itasaidia kanda nyingine za Tanzania kuendelea. Kupanuka kwa uchumi wa kanda ya ziwa kutasababisha watu wa kanda hii kununua bidhaa za viwanda (cement etc) na mazao mbali mbali kutoka maeneo mengine ya Tanzania e.g. Dsm, Dodoma, Mbeya, Lindi/Mtwara, Ruvuma etc.

NB: Kutokana na ufinyu wa bajeti, tunaweza tukaanza na barabara ya vumbi halafu baadae tuka upgrade ikawa ya lami.

HABARI,
"z12f,
Hongera kwa post nzuri ila hapa "Itaongeza bei ya mazao ya kilimo (na bei ya mifugo) kanda ya ziwa"
Hapa nadhani umeteleza kidogo usafiri unapokuwa mzuri na bei ya mazao yanapungua sio kuongezeka mkuu.

LUMUMBA

 

[Kibanga Ampiga Mkoloni]

 

[mtimkav]

Hata wakulima wa vitunguu huko mang'ola itawasaidia kwa upande wa usafiri

 

[mtimkav]

Lakini vipi ujenzi wa lami karatu wilayani inamaana serikali haijaona umuhimu wake mana ni aibu mgeni anaekwenda Serengeti akitaka kulala karatu apambane na vumbi

 

[Kibanga Ampiga Mkoloni]

HABARI,
"z12f,
Hongera kwa post nzuri ila hapa "Itaongeza bei ya mazao ya kilimo (na bei ya mifugo) kanda ya ziwa"
Hapa nadhani umeteleza kidogo usafiri unapokuwa mzuri na bei ya mazao yanapungua sio kuongezeka mkuu.

LUMUMBA

hapana hujamulewa usafiri unapokuwa mbaya sana, ni kuwa kuyafukia hayo mazao ni ngumu so wanunuzi hawaendi na wakienda wananunua kwabei ndogo sana.

ukiboreshwa usaafiri wanunuzi ni wengi na bei itakuwa ya competition.

 

[Kibanga Ampiga Mkoloni]

serengeti highway – a road to 50 000 lost jobs, or more?
By Brian Sandberg 2 Comments
Categories: Africa, Serengeti and Tanzania
Tags: GDP, Job losses, Serengeti National Park, TANAPA, Tanzania, Tax revenues, Tourist arrivals


I’ve built a simple tourism-sector economic modelling tool for Tanzania to review any possible impact that a commercial road through the Serengeti might have on the nation’s economy.

Based on certain key assumptions, carefully measured, it shows that the following economic effects are ‘possible’ over the 5-year period, 2012-2016:

• 32 589 jobs (direct and indirect) will be lost in the “Northern Safari Sector”;
• 20 738 jobs (direct and indirect) will be lost in the national economy, outside this sector;
• More than US $ 600m will be lost in total period GDP;
• More than US $ 400m will be lost in total period foreign exchange earnings;
• Approximately US $ 50m will be lost in total period national tax revenue collections; and
• Almost US $ 9m will be lost in total period national park fees in the “Northern Sector”

For any nation, this is serious collateral damage and must be diligently reviewed.

I don’t make these forecasts lightly, but with very careful consideration.

I am not an economist, but I did – as a layman – do some economic forecasting of SA’s economy and employment sector for the Buy South African campaign in the mid-1990’s. A fair portion of my projected outcomes has proved reasonably correct more than 10 years later, so I think I can pass for some form of opinion-maker in this field.


SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

There are many complex issues surrounding the proposed development of a commercial road through the Serengeti. I’ve raised some of these before, but I haven’t yet dealt with the simple fact of eco-tourism in Tanzanian economic terms.

As my primary interest is human socio-economic development within Africa – within a responsible framework, considering environmental and human rights – I’ve created this dynamic economic modelling tool so that one might reasonably predict possible changes in employment, GDP revenues, tax and national park incomes, based on variables in tourism revenues.

No matter the multitude of issues involved in human development, everything boils down to basic economics and affordability.


STATE REVENUES – TAXATION and NATIONAL PARK FEES

The income generator for the government of Tanzania is its tax base and other related revenue sources. In terms of the “Northern Safari Sector”, this would also include park fees for the 3 main attractions in the region, namely Serengeti NP, Lake Manyara NP and Tarangire NP.


TAXATION:

There is no empyrical data available regarding taxation revenues for the Tanzanian national fiscus, based solely on the tourism sector’s GDP.

The WTTC (World Travel & Tourism Council) produce detailed annual reports on countries and regions in partnership with a research unit from Oxford University, and in collaboration with nations and their respective government departments.

The 2010 WTTC Report for Tanzania projects that the country’s tourism sector will grow by an average of 5.9% per annum between 2011 and 2020 and that employment will rise at 2.2% p.a. over this period.

It places the nation’s tourism GDP at US $ 1,759 bn for 2010 for direct and indirect sources.

Trying to establish the tax-base contribution from this is difficult and requires a significant in-depth study and much research. However, it is not unreasonable to consider, given the VAT rate, the corporate tax rate and the standard citizen income taxation rates, coupled with fuel levies for aviation and road transport, that not less than 8% of total GDP will accrue to the Tanzanian treasury.

My own assessment is that the correct contributory percentage should be around 12% and possibly as high as 15/16%. Hence, I’ll stick with my conservative guesstimate of a mere 8%.

This, of course, would mean that not less than US $ 140m from the 2010 tourism sector’s almost US $ 1.8bn GDP revenues would derive to the benefit of the state as taxation income. Given the WTTC’s projection of tourism growth in Tanzania, the result could mean that between 2012 and 2016, tax revenues for the nation, in the order of US $ 900m, will accrue.

Now, in any African nation’s books, this is a significant contributor to human socio-economic development and this country’s rich natural treasures clearly add value to the collective peoples of the land.


NATIONAL PARK FEES:

In a 2008 case study by Mitchell (et al) for TANAPA (Tanzania National Parks Authority), tourism and its associated revenues were reviewed. TANAPA, allowing for US $ exchange rates prevailing at that time, reported earnings from their 3 ‘northern sector’ parks in 2006/7 as being a little more than US $ 25m for that financial year.

Allowing for annual growth in tourist arrivals in the region, this would mean TANAPA earnings from these 3 parks (of which the Serengeti NP generates roughly 70% of the northern sector’s total) should be in the order of US $ 150m for the 5 year period 2012-2016.

It is interesting to note that in 2006/7, almost one-third of TANAPA’s total revenues were generated by the Serengeti National Park and almost 50% of their national total derive from the northern sector’s 3 parks.

Again, this is not an insignificant contribution to state coffers for the protection and management of such a rich natural heritage.


“BRAND ALIENATION” – HOW SERIOUS THE THREAT ?

Anyone who has studied consumer behaviour and spending patterns internationally, will understand the principles of brand management and protection.

So how does “branding” involve the Serengeti?

Simple. The Serengeti (and I must include the Maasai Mara, too) enjoys iconic status in the wildlife biosphere sector of our planet’s nature. The fact that the Serengeti is one of the most famed locations for wildlife photography and filming in the world, the fact that millions of people have flown across oceans for the past 30-40 years to simply wonder in awe at its natural majesty, and the fact UNESCO and humanity regard it as one of the earth’s greatest treasures, all add up to create massive “brand status value” for this unique, pristine wilderness.

It is to large mammal habitation and migration on planet earth what Google is to internet search engines worldwide, what FIFA is to football, what Michael Jackson is to pop music, and more.

It is as iconic in its own brand-value sphere as Coca Cola is to soft drinks globally.

Any respected, international-brand guru will tell you that when a brand’s image is tarnished, for any reason whatsoever, its income generating capability is affected. Supporters vote with their feet and exit the brand’s market space. Simple and true. Proven over and over and over again.

I quoted the iconic Coke. On 23 April 1985, for the first time ever in 99 years, the executive of Coca Cola tampered with its global brand image and taste when they launched New Coke.

There was a global outcry and a massive backlash. At enormous loss to the company and with a hastily ramped-up, expensive, mega-marketing campaign worldwide, Coke Classic (“old” Coke, re-branded again) was launched on 10 July 1985, less than 3 months after the ill-fated change. The lesson to any product or service provider offering a globally significant branding experience is – do NOT tamper, in any way, with the brand’s underlying ethos and the source of its revenues.

This process of changing the status (like Coke did) is called “brand alienation”, because it alienates the major fans.

Now, in Tanzanian economic terms, my modelling tool attempts to measure the consequences of such alienation should the Serengeti’s iconic wilderness status be affected in any way.

I do NOT wish to get involved in specifics, but rather demonstrate variables. To generate outcome projections, one needs to create some very critical assumptions. The first is a simple scenario.

Will a new commercial road affect the natural ungulate migration in any way whatsoever? I will assume YES, because there is researched evidence of such an outcome. I’m not saying 1% of the wildlife will die, or 99% will die. What I am saying is very simply that the migration behavioural pattern will be altered and that it will be NEGATIVELY altered. I’m NOT applying a quantitative value to that outcome.

Now, in this day of instant messaging and social networking and global campaigning, there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind, whether the average Tanzanian or their government likes it or not, there will be some Serengeti-fan anger. I’m not talking tourism boycotts, although a few off-beat souls will scream out globally for such, but I am talking about very negative sentiment being spread.

There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever, especially given international Afro-pessimism (that we South Africans witnessed so strongly in the run up to the FIFA 2010 World Cup), that eco-tourists globally, who are by nature “earth-sensitive”, will be appalled that any nation’s 21st century government can engage in a human behaviour that knowingly undermines an environmental treasure.

What will the result of this be? Undoubtedly negative publicity will lead to “brand alienation”. It costs an international Serengeti tourist thousands of dollars to simply travel to experience the unique wilderness. What consumer, in any market, will spend their personal and hard-earned money, to support and promote an experience that is seen to be destructive on the environment and humanity’s future security?

I might be exaggerating matters, but there WILL be an economic fall-out effect. The question is – HOW MUCH?


THE 7.5% ‘SANDBERG’ GUESSTIMATE FACTOR

I decided that I would randomly ask 30 people that I know, who support tourism in Africa, AND have been to the Serengeti, AND who are not African, what they believed would be the potential loss of tourist revenues for Tanzania, ASSUMING a commercial road through the park were to be built in 2012.

The average guesstimate for a tourism decline over FIVE YEARS (2012-2016) amongst my small survey sample group was 19,2%. The lowest projection was 10% and the highest projection was “more than 50%”. Most people were in the band 15-25%.

I then took the lowest of the main band – i.e. 15% – and halved it, to be very conservative.

Thus, my calculations on job, GDP, forex earnings and tax/park revenue losses are based on a 7.5%“brand alienation” factor.

I have split this is follows:

2012 – decrease 2.5%
2013 – decrease rises to total 4.5% (i.e. only 2% for that year compared to 2.5% previously)
2014 – decrease rises to total 6.0% (i.e. yearly decline now 1.5% compared to previous 2 years)
2015 – decrease rises to total 7.0% (i.e. only 1.0% decline for that year) and
2016 – decrease rises to total 7.5% (i.e. only 0.5% decline for that year).

And so, based on this 7,5% ‘brand alienation‘ factor, I return to my opening statement:

Based on certain key assumptions, carefully measured, it shows that the following economic effects are ‘possible’ over the 5-year period, 2012-2016:

• 32 589 jobs (direct and indirect) will be lost in the “Northern Safari Sector”;
• 20 738 jobs (direct and indirect) will be lost in the national economy, outside this sector;
• More than US $ 600m will be lost in total period GDP;
• More than US $ 400m will be lost in total period foreign exchange earnings;
• Approximately US $ 50m will be lost in total period national tax revenue collections; and
• Almost US $ 9m will be lost in total period national park fees in the “Northern Sector”.
  As I said at the start – to any nation, especially a “developing” one such as Tanzania, these are very serious economic consequences.
  

VARIABLE ANNUAL CHANGES IN “BRAND ALIENATION”

ONE PERCENT PER ANNUM – over 5 years

Total projected loss of direct and indirect jobs in Tanzania – 35 552
Total projected loss in national tax revenues for the 5 year period – US $ 27 659 594
Total projected loss in TANAPA park-fee earnings for the 5 year period – US $ 4 785 829

FIVE PERCENT PER ANNUM – over 5 years

Total projected loss of direct and indirect jobs in Tanzania – 177 758
Total projected loss in national tax revenues for the 5 year period – US $ 138 297 968
Total projected loss in TANAPA park-fee earnings for the 5 year period – US $ 23 929 146

TO CONCLUDE…

The one thing I am certain of is that Tanzania WILL attract negative tourist sentiment and therefore “brand alienation” IF the planned commercial road goes ahead.

How much economic damage will result is dependent upon 3 factors:

(a) How the government deals with the issue transparently, amongst all stake-holders;

(b) How the government deals with UNESCO in terms of the World Heritage Site status; and

(c) How much environmental damage results from affected wildlife migration and behavioural patterns.

YOU decide if there will be a decline in “Northern Sector” tourism, and – if so – to what level. Should you have a different take on projected tourism revenue changes per annum over 5 years, feel free to mail me with your thoughts. I’ll input the figures and mail you the related projections. Then YOU can see for yourself whether the outcome of such a road will actually benefit the region and the country as a whole, or whether it will make the challenge of meeting the Millenium Development Goals even more difficult.

To round off, on a very personal level – I tend to think the nett result of this commercial road development will result in job losses and tax revenue declines somewhere between my 7.5% overall factor projection and the 5% per annum drop-off. This could mean potential direct and indirect job losses in the order of about 80-90 thousand over 5 years, and THAT is NOT what Tanzania (or any African country) needs at this stage in a globalization!

Whichever way you look at it, some very, very serious reviews need to be made by the people of Tanzania and their government.

I pray I am utterly wrong!

Brian Sandberg

 

[Kibanga Ampiga Mkoloni]

“lady justice” and the great serengeti commercial road debate
By Brian Sandberg 3 Comments
Categories: Tanzania
Tags: environmental rights, equality, Human Rights, justice, Lady Justice, Serengeti, Serengeti National Park, socio-economic development



We all talk environmental rights when it comes to the great Serengeti “commercial road development” debate, but what about affected human rights?

What about equality? What about social and environmental justice for all? Anyone who thinks they can wade into this space – especially “online” – by waving their “green” banner, is quite simply a naive keyboard mouse.

Let’s review, briefly, the history of the region that is home to this priceless natural treasure.

BACKGROUND


For more than 2000 years, wild animals have roamed and grazed these “endless plains”. For the past several centuries, the proud and noble Maasai peoples have lived on these lands, in complete harmony with nature.

Then, through European exploration about a century ago, this utterly unknown, pristine wilderness was discovered. Over the next few decades, the British government, then “rulers” of the region, created conservation areas and moved the indigenous Maasai from their ancestral lands. Over time, fences were raised, controls were implemented and more and more humans were forcibly removed to much poorer grazing lands that were somewhat arid and dry. Natural conservation areas grew and eventually a national park of international renown took shape.

Post-independence, the father of modern Tanzania, President Julius Nyerere and his government pledged that these great lands and their rich nature would be preserved for posterity. The Serengeti National Park grew in extent. More people were moved to more poor areas and, finally, in 1981, this iconic wonderland was inscribed as a World Heritage Site, under UNESCO.

So – I have to ask myself: here is the world celebrating this new, priceless, global-land ownership, but at what price did it come to my fellow African brothers and sisters, and their ancestors? And what is the world doing to repay this “debt”?

Let’s move on…

CONSERVATION and ECO-TOURISM


From before this inscription and subsequent to it, more lands have been declared conservation areas and today the wider national parks region includes the Ngorogoro Conservancy Area.

All the while, the communities affected by such developments and the growth of eco-tourism regionally have been increasingly marginalized.

Tanzania is actually one of the world’s poorest nations. It has a little over 43m people (according the World Bank estimates in 2009). It’s land area is roughly equal to the combined areas of France, Germany and Belgium.

In terms of conservation, approximately 14% of its land area is protected, making it number one in the world. Tourism is the nation’s largest economic driver and almost 25% of their foreign income is from this source.

BUT – the world stands by and almost shouts at the government for “daring to consider” to construct a commercial road through this natural icon, that is home to the planet’s greatest hoofed animal migration. (Almost 2 million animals migrate annually.)




PROPOSED COMMERCIAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT IN THE REGION


Now that you’ve previewed the actual migration routes and the potential implication of a commercial road development, let’s review a regional map, showing the greater infrastructure and geography, current, planned and under consideration by various role-players in this matter.

The singular issue vests with the most basic fact – there is NO decent road infrastructure east or west of the northern park regions where those most affected by resettlement now live. Collectively, there is almost a half a million people east of SENAPA and another 1.5 million in the west Mara Region whose basic human and socio-economic upliftment needs are involved in this road development matter.

It is their voices and needs that I hear so strongly.

And they’re not speaking specifically about land restitution rights, schools, healthcare and basic infrastructure (i.e. water, sanitation, energy, etc) needs which are other critical issues to them.

Their starting point is a decent road network, because they know that from that can flow all the other socio-economic development needs in due course.

This is where the world seems to have “lost the plot”.



SO WHY THE “SCALES OF JUSTICE”?


From this overview, one can clearly see a critical issue that needs to be fully addressed. Greatly improved ROAD infrastructure within communities living east and west of the park. Nothing more. Nothing less.

So who is actually thinking “social justice” here?

The Frankfurt Zoological Society (FZS) has published a position on this matter. (One needs to remember, their focus is environmental and not human development, so a balance to their perspective is needed.)

Zoologische Gesellschaft Frankfurt

I’m not going to get into analyzing this statement, suffice to say – as was recently pointed out to me – their position seems to hinge on “fencing” the planned commercial road, and thus causing a great disruption to animal migrations.

You interpret this statement of theirs as you see fit. Please don’t listen to me on this.

Then there is the African Wildlife Foundation. Unlike FZS, the AWF has a clear focus of working with communities affected by conservation. They have highly respected programmes in this regard, so are therefore a very credibile source of opinion – in my mind, anyway.

NOW – here is the crunch of the tenet that I have long held, from their statement of 16 June 2010:

1.
” AWF supports the construction of a tar road linking Wasso in Loliondo Division, Ngorongoro District, with Mto was Mbu. However, as an alternative to dissecting the Serengeti ecosystem with an on-going tar highway, AWF recommends Tanzania link Mugumu, the capital of the Serengeti District, to the national and regional road network westward, towards Musoma and Lake Victoria, rather than linking them eastward toward Loliondo (see map). This would leave the northern Serengeti in its current pristine state.”
AWF Opposes Proposed Serengeti Highway

and

2.
In their detailed statement of this date – which EVERYONE who cares should read, as a starting point – AWF states, under Point (8.b) that “…We know of no evidence of any significant direct trade between Mugumu and Loliondo.” To me, this implies no seemingly valid reason to “join” the road networks east and west of the park, as other commercial options exist, even if more expensive to the transporter/carrier.
http://www.awf.org/documents/Serengeti_Road_Position_Statement.pdf

It needs to be VERY clearly noted that their statement (and accompanying maps) place new road infrastructure east and west of the Serengeti FIRST on any regional/national road construction programme. They, in fact, call the east and west roads – Phase ONE.

So, at least they understand prioritizing marginalized people FIRST, unlike some others in this debate!

BEFORE I CONCLUDE, think about this…


1. 27 scientists wrote in the highly respected “Nature” magazine about their concerns of major disruptions to nature’s balance in this region;

2. Websites and online campaigns have been launched that have gathered thousands of subscribers, together with petitions of many thousands of signatories; and

3. Tour operators have been canvassed because a severely disruptive natural phenomenon will greatly affect their eco-tourism businesses.

If you are but ONE of these parties, I ask the most simple question – did you speak out “fully informed”, considering all matters present, as any good court would do, or did you “buy” the first “tree-hugger” banner that came your way?

If you were a scientist, did you – in honest, scientific terms, consult a human ecologist?

If you were an environment petitioner, did you consult a “human rights” activist?

If you were a “tour operator”, did you consult the communities that have actually created a centuries-old legacy that has given you a commercial opportunity today?

If not, how foolish of you. As Fiona Coyne would say – “You are the WEAKEST LINK – goodbye!”

THE “SO-CALLED” SOLUTION


I hope by my making these points above, your mind is ticking. That’s all I seek to do, to engage objective debate.

This is NOT about a “southern” route or any other route. It is NOT about better community infrastructure, such as schools, hospitals, etc, but rather about the much needed “road” to such future infrastructure, for the great benefactors of Tanzania – and the world at large – namely the MAASAI PEOPLE.

Given that we have a nation with a Per Capita GDP of around US$ 600 per annum in respect of Tanzania, and therefore a weak fiscus and low tax base, how can any reasonably educated citizen of the world think that this nation has boundless resources. It does not, as evidenced by its high borrowings.

This means quite simply – Tanzania must cut it’s suit according to it’s cloth AND deliver on decades old promises – build overdue road infrastructure east and west of the Serengeti FIRST, and then see what funds are left to develop other community infrastructure next – e.g. the south.

REMEDY those affected by decades of displacement and re-settlement FIRST.



To me – any other position decries social justice and I therefore weep for such foolish thoughts of humanity.

Brian Sandberg –
Durban. South Africa.

(Written on 16 December 2010 – our national Day of Reconciliation in South Africa. How seemingly inter-linked this date and thinking is? Can the government and all the peoples of Tanzania “reconcile” with their greatest benefactors of prosperity ever – namely the Maasai people, who are now so tragically marginalized? Hmmmm?)

 

[Kibanga Ampiga Mkoloni]

Trans-Serengeti Highway? A Bad Idea

• Share
• Tweet
• Share
• Share

Ever since the 70s there has been discussions of constructing a Trans-Serengeti Highway. Until recently this absurd proposal was dead. It has now been revived and is at a critical juncture as National elections in Tanzania loom and political parties try for leverage and recognition on the world stage.

Such an endeavor would be an ecological disaster. It would interrupt migration patterns, endangering human lives and spoiling the beauty of the vast plains. It is wrong on so many accounts and it saddens me to even think of it being proposed. This ill-conceived project changes all the rules, and would destroy the integrity of a priceless world heritage that has been protected by the people of Tanzania since the birth of their country.

The planned highway (in red on the map) will cut across a pristine and remote wilderness area of the Serengeti. Yet the choice need not be about deciding between people and nature. A safer alternative route to the south can bypass Serengeti altogether and provide more economic benefit for the people of Tanzania! It would connect with paved highways to western, central, and eastern regions of the country, serving several times the number of people.

Education and petitioning of the Tanzanian government is essential and now is the time. Many Conservation organizations, those of us in travel industry, and individuals are doing what we can to prevent this travesty. You can read more here Highway Development Threatens Serengeti

 

[Kibanga Ampiga Mkoloni]

Serengeti-road - only crisis or opportunity?
After the most conflicting opinions on the Internet regarding the state of the negotiations about the 'Serengeti Highway', and the following clarification from the Federal Minister Niebel: 'In Paris, the Tanzanian Government expressed an openness to be involved in the planning of alternatives (to the ''Serengeti Highway'')'.

It is perhaps the time to contemplate and highlight the facts once again in an unemotional manner.



Introduction

It is only possible to offer an unemotional consideration to whatever has led ultimately to the development of the Serengeti Highway, or which could prevent its construction, when one factors in the economic development of both countries in which the Serengeti is situated: Tanzania and Kenya. The largest part of the Serengeti Mara ecosystem is to be found in Tanzanian territory, but Kenya contains, along with the especially fragile Masai Mara, the most important part of the Serengeti, with its roughly three-month long dry season. The Mara River is in addition the most important reservoir of water in the northern ecosystem.



Background

Since its independence Kenya has had a capitalist form of government, whereas until the last twenty years Tanzania has muddled along with socialism. This has led to Kenya, through a massive amount of developmental help from the western world, and a much better building of infrastructure, becoming the strongest national economy of East Africa. Kenya's economic strength is about double that of Tanzania, and that has been the case since the construction of the Trans-Africa Highway from Mombasa to Kampala in Uganda - surfaced and with four lanes over long stretches - along the most important east-west trade route of East Africa. Trade, the availability of transport, logistics, and the provision of services have allowed Kenya to develop more quickly and with more economic success than Tanzania. Even tourism to the country has been, over decades, overtaken by that of Kenya. Tanzania was not able to obtain the amount of help from the western world that Kenya did, and even a modern deep-water port at Tanga remains stuck in the planning stages. Because of the Trans-Africa Highway, the city of Mombasa has risen to become the most important port on the East African coast, well ahead of Durban in South Africa.



Both Kenya and Tanzania are spending huge amounts of money on developing as nature-reserves enormous regions of their territory in addition to the Serengeti area. The non-existence of uncompromising taxation systems, an ineffective administration lacking modern information technology, and corruption, ensure that these reserves are even today highly unprofitable. Both countries constantly require money infusions from the industrialised nations. Also, without international aid and donations, it will certainly not be possible to maintain the nature reserves for much longer.

In Kenya and Tanzania, because of the climate, just 10 to 20% of the national territories can be used as agricultural land.
There are considerations which prevent the realistic maintenance of the nature conservation areas - beyond a notable increase of income and taxation - and also an improvement within the food sources of this quickly growing indigenous population. This leads as usual to local conflicts of interest. Within the large and poor population, acceptance of the idea of nature reserves is steadily dwindling. Land-reforms decided by earlier Kenyan governments, which involved the displacement of pastoral tribes from their agricultural areas, sent the population and its livestock into the Mara ecosystem, where, during the last few decades, numbers have increased umpteen times. The abundance of fodder available in the Masai Mara for livestock and animal breeding has led to the settlement of the previously pastoral-living Masai.

Since that time the strong and steadily growing competition for food between the livestock of the Masai people and the indigenous wild animal population in the Masai Mara is a long-lasting cause for dispute, and causes quickly falling numbers within the latter group.This problem doesn't just extend to the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem alone, for in many other nature conservation areas within East Africa the same problems exist, leading to similar conflicts and decrease of the wild animal population. Even the large lion population of East Africa, regarded earlier as being completely invulnerable, has decreased by around 70%.

In Tanzania, because of the high income from hunting tourism, lions continue to be pursued. Meanwhile, in Kenya, their population has reached such a critical point that we can reckon on them being extinct in the wild in less than twenty years.
This development clearly means that besides the future maintenance costs of the protected areas in East Africa, enormous sums from financial resources must be expended on compensation, resettlement projects, and the education and training of the nomadic and partly-nomadic population. This could be obtained from adjacent countries, international investment funds, or charitable organisations alone. In addition to this, there is a need of strongly sustainable economic growth, aided by the industrialised nations, in order to increase national income directed towards development.

We in the West tend to believe that all of Africa's problems lead back predominantly to corruption, and this does actually apply within many sectors. In the absence of functioning economic processes and taxation systems, salaries and wages, (most of which in any case are well below subsistence level), corruption in many parts of Africa has developed what might be called a 'shadow' economic system. Everybody tries to earn a living by soliciting business with others, in order to somehow feed themselves and their family. Because of this, the state coffers of African nations, whether large or small, lose enormous amounts of money. This can only be stemmed through a policy of development which offers much stronger education and training possibilities, and also puts into place properly functioning administration systems.

To summarise: the necessity of economic growth in East Africa cannot be purely for the benefit of the elite or the corrupt upper class, (as is commonly thought), but above all for fundamental things like ensuring that the population is fed, be that through farming or the additional purchase of food. Without an improvement of the economic situation, agriculture will penetrate further and further into the conservation areas. The northern Masai Mara - from the North Bridge up to Aitong, most suitable for the farming of wheat or maize - will in fewer than twenty years be under the plough, through continuous negative development, and with it a domino-effect will be triggered, which won't stop when it reaches other natural areas. We can presume that the worldwide desire for ecological fuels from bio-mass will just accelerate this effect. These consequences will exceed the damage brought about by the building of the 'Serengeti Highway' by a long way; not only will the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem thereby collapse, but also many other nature reserves.
Therefore we nature conservationists first have to accept that East Africa has the same right to economic development that we in western industrialised nations have presumed, with little regard for our own environment.

There is particular interest in the idea that, in East Africa, with the right planning of the infrastructure and other measures, a sustainable economy could be developed, from which the maintenance of the enormous protected areas is not excluded, and which could even be combined with a marked increase in national income.



The present situation

Safari tourism still provides Kenya and Tanzania with the biggest part of their foreign income. A disruption or downturn within the tourist trade would lead immediately to yet more massive payment problems in both countries, and would have a braking effect on further economic development.
It is possible to develop sustainable economic growth for Kenya and Tanzania, apart from tourism, but only through the expansion of trade, the provision of services, or the refining of raw materials. The basis of this would be the trade routes from Central Africa to the ports on the Indian Ocean.
After a broad, far-reaching establishment of peace in the Congo, (with its extremely high ore, mineral and other raw material deposits), these trade routes, with all their associated service provisions, could develop into a multi-million-dollar business.

The only established trade route with freight-capacity worth mentioning goes presently through Mombasa in Kenya. The country is now in need of an addtional deep-water port to increase the present freight-capacity, and proposals have been advanced to build one on land rented to Qatar. This would be close to Lamu, the historic town on the Tana Delta, an important and irretrievable wetland system. It is obvious that Kenya is just as ready as Tanzania to sell its spirit of nature conservation, and offer its large natural spaces to economic growth.

It is perfectly understandable that Tanzania does not want to cede future businesses and trade routes from Central Africa to the Indian Ocean to the Kenyans alone. The country is therefore planning some ways in which it might reasonably participate. When looking at the construction of its own first trade route, the obvious answer appears to be the shortest route, which would go through the Serengeti, and the financing of which could be effected by the simultaneous opening up of the mineral deposits at Lake Natron.
But it remains very questionable as to whether the mining of the soda ashes found there would lead to economic success, as Tanzania would of course be in direct competition with the USA, the mineral's world market leader, with over-sufficient supplies and resources at its disposal, and well able to crowd out and ruin the competition. An increase of the market volume would lead furthermore to a simultaneous, proportional fall in the world market prices, and in Tanzania, as with the earlier bulk buying of sisal, the idea would very quickly become economically unviable. In addition, through the exploitation of the soda ashes at Lake Natron, a large proportion of the East African flamingo population would be disturbed, and with that Tanzania would lose a further source of income which until now has hardly been accessed.

The map indicates quite clearly that the present planned route through the Serengeti (shown in red), would hardly be in a position to effect a decrease in Kenya of its serious share of the market in trade and transportation to Central Africa. A competitive situation between Kenya and Tanzania would also make no sense. The budgets of both nations would be put under yet more pressure, and the bilateral relationship would deteriorate to the extent that a future working relationship in nature conservancy and tourism would be extremely difficult.



For the red route to be economically successful, Tanzania also requires, (in addition to the deep water harbour that it is hoped China will build at Tanga), a modern container terminal on Lake Victoria, with a high capacity for heavy goods vehicles, in order to bridge the roughly two hundred kilometer long shipping route to Kampala in Uganda. It might never be possible to obtain the overall amount of investment for the planned road construction through the Serengeti, and the development of a ferry connection with an appropriately high heavy goods vehicle capacity, because of possible competition with the existing Kenyan Trans-Africa Highway to Kampala (marked green on the map). In particular, Kenya could also respond with its own, shorter ferry connection, thus linking the new, surfaced Nairobi-Narok road with Lake Victoria.

It is quite possible that the route known as the 'Serengeti Highway' will totally destroy the annual migration within the Serengeti, and would consequently lead to a considerable loss of income from tourism for both countries.



Economically worthwhile for Tanzania is simply the construction of a main arterial road (marked blue on the map), going south of the Serengeti in the direction of Mwanza, around the emerging Rwanda, and with Burundi and the Congo on its direct route before reaching the Indian Ocean. The present transport capacity of existing roads and rail connections from Kenya or Tanzania to Central Africa is nowhere near able to cover present, let alone future, demands. The existing roads and tracks which could possibly be developed are indicated on the map by perforations, as are also route changes depending on topography, and perhaps detouring new buildings. It is easy to see that the construction costs of this route are hardly any higher than that of the highway leading through the Serengeti. After peace is brought to the Congo, the new trade route might even become an even bigger economic success than the Kenyan Trans-Africa Highway, without consequently compromising the economic development of Kenya. It might even be possible to hope that the opening up of new markets for the Congo would lead to to a quicker establishment of peace within the country; Tanzania and Kenya could then perhaps profit through its trade routes.

With this road implementation inside the protected zones the Serengeti would remain undisturbed, and another plus is that the route offers many advantages for a better and ecologically-worthwhile touristic development within the whole region. The Serengeti-Mara ecosystem covers around 40,000 square kilometres, and has had a good ten percent of its surface area exploited by intense and disruptive tourism for a for a very long time. If the planners linked the new southern bypass road, through the upgrading of the existing tracks, up until Narok in Kenya, the northern point of the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem, the Serengeti could be used in its entirity (indicated in orange on the map). Thus the current and disruptive clogging of mass tourism within limited areas would be allowed to markedly slacken off. Touristic ventures could plan completely new routes, also involving Lake Victoria, and open up a whole range of new destinations for the growing market of 'eco-tourism', and in which the native population would also be involved. In particular, the area from Mwanza to Musoma and up to the Kenyan Trans-Mara region can be much better developed than by a road implementation directly through the Serengeti. If the upgrading and modernisation of the airport at Mwanza on Lake Victoria was brought into consideration, a third point of entry for tourism to the Serengeti could be opened up in addition to Nairobi and Arusha. By the use of appropriate planning, tourism in the environs of the Serengeti-Mara could perhaps be more than doubled. It could then also become more relaxed, and nature- and environmentally-friendly, through visitation restrictions, (flexible or enforced), for example: three days visiting northern Masai Mara, likewise three in Central Mara and then South Mara, and in the same manner through the Serengeti.



Conclusion
It is absolutely clear that this great opportunity for nature conservancy and sustainable economic development in East Africa is not only feasible, but with appropriate planning and implementation could lead to a total win-win situation for Tanzania and Kenya, the two countries in which the Serengeti is located.

Therefore Kenya must also become fully involved here, and not just from the viewpoint of nature conservancy. A future, successful tourism concept in the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem can only be acquired when both countries work together. It might also be worthwhile to re-open the Serengeti-Mara border crossing on the Sand River for touristic purposes. The success of a cross-border tourist concept has been more than proven by, for example, the ski-routes (inter-linked ski areas) in the Alps. A joint East African tourist visa could lower administrative expenses for all parties with vested interests, including the tourist.

However, for the success of both of them, the preservation of the Masai Mara must be urgently considered in the future tourism planning of the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem. The former has already lost more than seventy percent of its animal stock, and the predators, notably the big cats, can nowadays hardly find enough food to survive.
Kenya must finally get its homework done on the Mara ecosystem, and not think about relying any further on the quick, destructive profit that can be made from the tourist trade; it also needs to reduce its agriculture and livestock breeding within the heartland. If not, then in only a few years the Mara will be left with the consequences of the construction of the Serengeti Highway, which have already been identified.



Dr. Richard Leakey, in an interview concerning the nature conservancy situation in Kenya, above all that in the Mara ecosystem, was asked why his country continues to conduct itself in such a manner regarding the possible consequences of the Serengeti Highway. He gave a very apposite response:

"People who live in glass houses don't throw stones for a good reason".



A drastic decline of the income from tourism through the loss of the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem would strike Kenya and Tanzania equally, and it would take years to compensate these losses to the national economies of both countries.
No matter how one regards it, whether from an ecological or economic standpoint, the Serengeti Highway makes economically no sense at all, and harms the natural environment and possible economic development of Tanzania and Kenya in the most grievous manner.



The construction of an alternative, new trade route from Tanzania to Central Africa would not only preserve the Serengeti and revive the Tanzanian economy, it would simultaneously offer an enormous opportunity for the future for many millions of people from the heart of Africa, which has been ruptured by civil wars.

 

[Kibanga Ampiga Mkoloni]

Opinions
Groups of people who fight against the road plan suggest an alternative road that could avoid the negative impacts on Serengeti, yet still do its job as a commercial road.

Suggested by a world bank study and Tanzania National Park, an alternative route to the south, which goes around the National Park is a possibility.

Instead of the proposed road that bisects the north of Serengeti - indicated as red line - a new alternative road is a possibility - indicated as purple at the southern part of area.[1]


Similar debates over commercial road and national parks that previously happened in Tanzania can be observed for comparison. The proposal of road that passes through Tarangire National Park was denied after seeing the destruction the road through Mikumi National Park caused on its environment. If so, the damage that Serengeti will get is much greater as Serengeti's wildlife densities are nigher than Mikumi's.[2]

In addition, the Government has recently decided to reroute a planned road to go around the Katavi National Park, instead of dissecting it.[3] Why not for Serengeti?

This alternative road plan will not devalue to world famous Serengeti nor the World Herigate Site. It will also immensely contribute to the economic development of areas like Karatu, Meatu, Maswa, Bariadi and Magu.[4]

Dr. Julius K. Nyerere, the first president of Tanzania quoted,

"In accepting the trusteeship of our wildlife we solemnly declare that
we will do everything in our power to make sure that our children's
grand-children will be able to enjoy this rich and precious inheritance."[5]


It is numerous wildlife advocators' hope that the declaration will be kept.

 

[Kibanga Ampiga Mkoloni]

Whom to believe about road plans through the Serengeti
Aviation, Travel and Conservation News - DAILY from Eastern Africa and the Indian Ocean islandsNovember 16, 2016Uncategorized
Post navigation
Previous
Next

TANZANIAN GOVERNMENT AGENCY DENIES PLANS FOR A TARMAC HIGHWAY THROUGH THE SERENGETI

(Posted 16th November 2016)



When a few weeks ago plans by the Tanzanian Road Authority became public, through tender documents floated for bids, that the ill fated route for a highway across the Serengeti was being revived, did alarm bells shrill across the world.
Plans for such an environmental and ecological atrocity were initially discovered in early 2010, and when exposed here promptly denied by Tanzanian government mouthpieces and sycophants. Weeks later though was evidence presented backing up this correspondent’s claims, shaming the deniers and exposing them as the misleaders they were,
Subsequently did a global movement arise in support of keeping the highway out of the park and information about the organization is available via www.serengetiwatch.org
They, and other conservation groups and NGO’s, raised the stakes for the Tanzanian government through a campaign of global exposure before the matter eventually headed to the East African Court of Justice.
While Tanzania in a last ditch effort tried to derail the case by questioning the court’s jurisdiction, did the judges in Arusha however throw out their objections and heard the case, which ended in a resounding defeat for the Tanzanian government position.

Serengeti Highway Legal Case - Landmark Decision - Serengeti Watch

Meanwhile though did SerengetiWatch and others not rest but made constructive proposals for a route around the Southern end of the Serengeti, where a multiple of people would benefit from a good road link, only to see Tanzania play ostrich and stick their heads into the proverbial sand, ignoring not just the projected benefits but also turned down offers to have a proper feasibility study paid for by both German government and the World Bank.
For a while there was silence over the project, the Kikwete regime, even more notorious then after the unabated slaughter of elephants in the Selous had become public, left the scene and new President John Magufuli entered the stage. His early actions against the poaching syndicates impressed conservationists, until that is the Serengeti Highway plans were suddenly back.
While official sources suggested to this correspondent, off the record understandably, that the Tanzanian government had no intention to violate the court ruling by extending a paved highway into the Serengeti, could lingering doubts not be entirely dispelled, as parts of that ruling also included environmentally fragile areas adjoining the park, like the Loliondo region, an area where the annual migration of the wildebeest has to pass through as they return to the low grass plains between the park and the Ngorongoro Crater Conservation Area.
One claim by government sources though remains hotly disputed, when they describe a series of seasonal dirt tracks which on and off traverse the northern end of the Serengeti, as an all through gravel road which needs upgrading and it is very likely here, that upcoming disputes will focus on.
Regular contacts in East Africa have already suggested that another round of court battles may lay ahead, should the plans be advanced to bring tarmac right to the park boundaries on both sides of the park while more sober minded individuals are once again attempting to interest the Tanzanian government on the routing around the Southern end of the Serengeti.

For the benefit of readers has SerengetiWatch some time ago published a series of maps, outlining the migration routes of wildebeest and zebras versus the intended highway, but thankfully also included other landmark developments like a planned airport and most notably the locations of gold mines between park and Lake Victoria, which are thought to be the main beneficiaries and most ardent supporters of the new highway.

Highway Development Threatens Serengeti

One thing though is clear from among all the social media flurry – the mainstream media is once again miles behind with their reporting – that governments in East Africa are ready to sacrifice conservation when it comes to what they think is development. This is not just the case here in Tanzania, where several articles phrased ‘The Corridor of Destruction‘ connected the many single dots to one fat red line, but also in Kenya.
There it is the government’s blatant attempt to ride roughshod over objections to cross the Nairobi National Park with a railway line and where President Kenyatta insulted critics in a way totally unacceptable in a civilised society. This saga is heading to the courts too as Kenya Railways and government appear intent to ignore regulations and legislation governing the need of EIA’s for such mega projects and where they too conveniently ignored alternative route proposals which would give the national park a wide berth.
Links to the initial articles from five years ago, today as relevant as ever before, are shown below:

 

[Kibanga Ampiga Mkoloni]