Donate here

 Download a pdf of the postcard here:   2012_donation_postcard

Let us know if you are making an anonymous donation.

Whose Victory?

Unfortunately, some in the media have claimed a great victory for conservation, believing that plans for a road across the Serengeti have been stopped. Some conservation organizations have diplomatically praised President Kikwete for his wisdom.

But we do not share this view, knowing that  those who have pushed for a commercial route through the Serengeti can claim their victory as well.

If their plans continue,

• They will get their road across the Serengeti.
• They get improved connecting roads on either side of the park.
• They get a bonus southern route around the Serengeti.
• The way will be paved for more development.

The current Tanzanian government has been refused funds for the Serengeti highway by every major donor, government, and lending institution in the world.

Those who want a true commercial highway clearly cannot achieve it now. But they can make inroads and later connect the dots.

A New Road Across the Serengeti is Likely

In its recent letter to the World Heritage Committee, the government of Tanzania stated that the road through the Serengeti will not be paved, but will “remain gravel road.”

The truth, however, is more complicated. No gravel road exists across this 53 km stretch. Much of this area is designated as a Wilderness Zone, with no public access.

The 10-year Serengeti management plan, painstakingly developed in 2005 by scientists, Park officials, and conservation organizations clearly indicates that the area in the northwestern part of the Park is particularly sensitive.

As shown on the map below, from the 10-year management plan, the area of the proposed road cuts through areas designated as “Low Use” and “Wilderness” zones.

The Low Use Zone “will have a lower number and density of visitors” and “more limited road network and lower bed capacity.”  The Wilderness Zone in green “is subject to minimal disturbance. As a result, visitor access will be restricted to walking safaris, with game viewing by vehicle prohibited. The only infrastructure permitted will be a limited number of access roads that can be used by Park management and support vehicles for walking safari operations.”

These areas were not designated lightly. They are critical to the migration of two million animals as they make their way between Kenya and Tanzania. Of special concern to scientists is the fragmentation of this ecosystem.

Fool Me Once…

The media has been fooled before. Over the past year, the government spin publicly “gives in” and downgrades the road to gravel, saying it won’t be paved with tarmac after all.

In reality, the road was initially announced as gravel.

In November, 2009, the Tanzanian delegation to the UNESCO World Heritage Centre announced the road through the northern Serengeti. Representing their government, they stated a “53 km stretch within the Serengeti would be a gravel and not a tarmac road.”

Yet in September of 2010, appearing to give into pressure, President Kikwete said that, okay they’ve decided not to pave the road. Again on February 9, speaking to the World Bank, he repeated, “we will not build a tarmac road.”  And at this year’s World Heritage Committee meeting in Paris, the mantra was repeated: no tarmac road.

In fact,  the initial road surface has never been the real issue. Tanzania’s original statement of a gravel road prompted the WHC to warn of dire consequences to the ecosystem.

“The World Heritage Centre and IUCN consider that, if built, the North Road could critically impact the property’s Outstanding Universal Value and justify its inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger.”

Read more

What is different now?  The government curiously says that the current road across the same 53 km stretch across wilderness zone will “remain” gravel, though no such road exists.  They do not exclude commercial use, stating that it will be “mainly for tourism and administrative purposes as it is currently.”  And clearly, it will be the only connection between upgraded roads being planned on either side of the Serengeti.  Whatever route is now there, which is not much, will have to be upgraded to make this connection happen.

One good piece of news – the road will remain under the management of the Park. This will mean gates and restrictions. But for how long?

Just the Beginning

When the road was announced, conservation organizations and scientists immediately sounded the alarm. Though initially announced as gravel, no one, in fact, ever believed that the road would remain unpaved.

Tony Sinclair, one of the world’s leading experts on the Serengeti, wrote:

“The soils are largely of silt and cannot take heavy vehicle traffic. Although the road may be initially of murrum (a clay soil) or gravel, the increasing flow of vehicles will inevitably lead to a tarmac road. This will result in road kills when as many as one million wildebeest will be settled, not just crossing, along this road… Essentially the Serengeti as we know it will no longer exist. History has shown that once we start this process of road development, there is no turning back on the sequence.”

Last year, Serengeti Watch conducted a survey of 302 world scientists. 71% of them believed that if the road was built, the collapse of the migration would be very or extremely likely, or inevitable. See the petition and survey

Even the government’s own Environmental Impact Statement assumed that the road would not be paved, yet predicted it would carry hundreds of thousands of vehicles a year.  Those estimates will certainly be reduced, as yet another impact study is prepared. The expected volume of traffic should go down, and this is good.

But after the government’s latest announcement, a leading infrastructure expert wrote us saying, the road from Mugumu to Loliondo (those sections on the margins of the park) not being paved is “clearly progress against the previous statement that only the road through Serengeti section will not be tarmac.”  But he adds,

“That is however only 20% (of the entire route) and likely not a great deterrent against large scale through traffic. The fundamental question remains: what would be the purpose of this road?””

Motives

Recently, information has come to light about other motives behind the highway. In fact, if some have their way, the highway will  actually be a railway.

In 2010, the Uganda and Tanzanian governments signed a Memorandum of Understanding for the development of a new transportation route between Uganda and the Indian Ocean port of Tanga in Tanzania. The route would extend from Lake Victoria through the Serengeti, on to Arusha, and then to the Indian Ocean.

Tanzania’s Transport Minister, Omar Nundu, spoke earlier this year about the plans for this new route. He stated the project would involve the construction of a new port at Mwambani harbor, near Tanga. It would also include a Tanga-Arusha-Musoma Railway. (Musoma is on Lake Victoria.)

This would give Uganda an alternate means of exporting oil and minerals, in addition to the railway through Kenya. It would also provide the Chinese with another route for minerals from the African interior, particularly coltan, a mineral used in cell phones. Along this route lies Lake Natron, virtually the only breeding ground for East Africa’s lesser flamingos.  President Kikwete has recently vowed to mine Lake Natron for soda ash, regardless of what any environmental impact study says.

And the terminus of this route, Mwambani Harbor, where the Coelocanth Marine Reserve would be sacrificed.   Read more about these development plans

The Future

So with the recent statement on the Serengeti road, have these big plans now changed?  One June 23, one day after the letter to the World Heritage Centre was released, The Guardian newspaper interviewed Deputy Minister for Transport, Athuman Mfutakamba. The article says

“that apart from improving Tanga port, they would also construct a new port in Mwambani area. He noted that the new port would mainly serve as a gateway for consignments transported to the northern part of the country, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and Southern Sudan after completing the Arusha-Musoma railway.”  (underline added) http://www.ippmedia.com/frontend/index.php?l=30451

The Serengeti highway has been proposed three times in the past. Inevitably, as population and trade grows, the Uganda-Tanga commercial route will be more and more compelling. Road traffic will grow, settlements will expand, and with it, what experts have feared (and predicted) all along, demands that the road be paved and fenced.

Hope

There is always hope. Not hope that traffic will be kept to a minimum, but that the Serengeti road won’t be build at all, that the area will be kept intact for the migration.

Hope that the world will see through what one world authority on wildebeests has termed “smoke and mirrors”  and understand the struggle is far from over. Hope that authorities will understand the economic asset that the Serengeti represents.

And hope that people living around the park, and throughout Tanzania, will see real benefits and protect the Serengeti for future generations.

With a growing population and expanding human needs, increased pressure is inevitable.  This is a critical time. To make the Serengeti ecosystem viable, we must make sure that the Serengeti provides for the needs of the people whose heritage it is.

We cannot afford to lose the Serengeti, because once gone, it will be gone forever.

Click on the link below to download the letter:

Letter to World Heritage Centre from Government of Tanzania

Please stay in touch with our Facebook page for more information. We do not consider this the final word in the Serengeti Highway saga by any means.

Below are links to a study that was commissioned by the Tanzania government on the environmental impacts of the proposed commercial route through the northern Serengeti National Park. The 600 page document is divided into six parts which can be downloaded.

eia part i – Includes executive summary

eia part ii

eia part iii

eia part iv

eia part v

eia part vi

As of December 2, 2010 302 Scientists from 32 countries responded.

Click below to download the petition and survey, including petitioners’ names, organizations, and all comments on impacts.

Scientist Petition and Survey

SUMMARY – as of December 2, 2010

•    The petition states…  “the road will result in severe, negative, irreversible impacts, with little mitigation possible.”

•    It agrees with warnings by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee and adds…  “The type of road surface matters little. The migration itself could easily collapse, with a devastating effect on all wildlife, the grasslands, and the entire ecosystem.”

•    The petition concludes by asking that an alternative route be found.

•    Included in the petition is a survey of likely negative impacts. Most scientists conclude that the collapse of the migration would be likely to inevitable.

•    Scientists also give background information on their own experience and reasons for believing that the Serengeti ecosystem would be in danger.

SURVEY ON IMPACTS

Results indicate that scientists believe these to be extremely serious. Many, in fact, concluded that the impacts, including the collapse of the wildebeest migration, would be inevitable. The impacts listed
are:

Combined % Saying Inevitable, Extremely Likely, Very Likely

Disruption and obstruction of migration routes:                  85%
57% said it would be inevitable. 28% said extremely likely.

Introduction of invasive plants, animals, and disease:              91%
35% said inevitable. 67% said very likely or extremely likely.

Increased mortality due to wildlife-vehicle collisions:             98%
67% said inevitable. 21% said extremely likely.

Intensive, organized poaching, especially reintroduced rhino:         88%
32% said inevitable. 38% said extremely likely.

Loss of habitat from human settlement and agriculture:             87%
40% said inevitable. 32% said extremely likely.

_________________________________

Eventual collapse of migration:
54% said very or extremely likely. 17% said inevitable.                 71%

Results of Survey on Likely Impacts. Click to enlarge.

Samples of Comments on Impacts

John Sidle, Wildlife Biologist
US Forest Service, USA
I must assume that the government of Tanzania and its consultants have reviewed the large body of literature on this subject. In the United States almost all of the highways were constructed before we knew about the blocking effect that highways have on wildlife. We have a network of roads in the U.S. that has had the unintended consequence of slaughtering wildlife and curtailing seasonal movements. We now try to mitigate through overpasses and underpasses for wildlife on existing roads. But it is an expensive and problematic retrofit. I think that Tanzania should take advantage of the lessons learned in the U.S. and find a solution that avoids concentrations of wildlife such as in the Serengeti.

Dr. Richard Estes
IUCN Species Survival Commission, USA
For 47 years the wildebeest of the Serengeti ecosystem has been the focus of my studies of African mammals. In addition to observations of the 1.2 million wildebeest that live on the Serengeti short-grass plains during the rains between November and May, I have followed their movements at the end of the rains, which coincide with the annual rut. In recent years, increasing numbers of wildebeest have headed north instead of west and northwest; the new road would cut straight across the route of these “armies”.

The Serengeti population is the last and greatest of all wildebeest populations. The proposed road is a classic example of a development project that puts short-term human interests above the conservation of natural ecosystems, completely ignoring the 1979 UNEP Convention on Migratory Species, which Tanzania ratified in 1999.

Fencing the road through SNP could lead to a 90% reduction in the population, as occurred following fencing of Kruger and Etosha National Parks, not to mention the mortality that accompanied construction of veterinary cordon fences in Botswana.

Professor Norman Owen-Smith
University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa
A truck highway will not be compatible with the seasonal movements of around a million wildebeest and numerous other ungulates back and forth across this route, and will ultimately lead to the blocking of this northward migration into the dry season range in northern Serengeti and Masai Mara. This will have substantial consequences for the numbers of wildebeest and other species that can be supported within Serengeti National Park, and reduce its supreme international status as a wildlife heritage.

Professor E.J. Milner-Gulland
Imperial College London, UK
Based on the many years of research that has been carried out into the dynamics of the ecosystem, it is very clear that the proposed road could do permanent and irreversible damage to this area, which is of critical global importance both for biodiversity and for humanity. I hope the Tanzanian government will reconsider this proposal.

Traci Birge, Researcher
ARONIA R & D, Finland
The government has an obligation to serve all citizens, and rural residents are a group in need of infrastructural improvements to help them improve their economies and opportunities and help move rural goods to urban centres. However, the proposed highway route would be devastating for the ecology of the Serengeti, and would have long-term negative effects on local residents, wildlife and ecology and would be a terrible blow for global biodiversity. The highway will both fragment habitats and lead to human encroachment into the Serengeti. Please find a more sustainable and less environmentally costly alternative to the proposed highway route.

Anna Estes
University of Virginia, USA
In Mikumi [National Park], ecological concerns lost out to economic ones. TANAPA was at first allowed to have checkpoints at either end of this road, but was made to remove them when the transportation industry complained about delays. Likewise, TANAPA initially had a higher frequency of speed bumps on the road, and was forced to remove some. There is no reason to suspect that the situation will differ at all in Serengeti, considering the potentially much higher volume of commercial traffic. A study that exists as a government document reported a frequency of one vehicle/minute on the Mikumi road.

Download the pdf to read all comments.

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
World Heritage Committee
Thirty-fourth session
Brasilia, Brazil
25 July – 3 August 2010
Item 7B of the Provisional Agenda: State of conservation of World Heritage properties inscribed on the World Heritage List

d) Plans to build a North Road through the property
In early November 2009, the World Heritage Centre was informed about plans to build a road to the northern part of the property. On November 12, a letter was sent to the State Party, expressing its concerns about the project and recalling the need to submit an EIA to the World Heritage Centre before a decision on implementing the project is taken.
A reply was received dated 11 February 2010 and additional information on this issue was also submitted in the State Party report. Both clarify that the proposed North Road would be part of the 452 Km Natta-Mugumu-Tabora ’B’-Kleins-Loliondo-Mto wa Mbu tarmac road, and traverse the northern section of Serengeti National Park for 53 Km.
The road is a nationally prioritised project and is part of the Government’s 10 year Transport Sector Improvement Programme (2002-2012), which the State Party considers justified as the construction will enable the economic development of the Lake Zone circuit. The report highlights that the 53 km stretch within the Serengeti would be a gravel and not a tarmac road.

To date, only a preliminary feasibility study and a preliminary EIA have been undertaken, which concluded that the road is feasible and that its negative environmental impacts can be mitigated. The report notes that a 15 member multi-disciplinary committee, including representatives of the Tanzania National Parks, has been created to advise the Government on the project. The State Party notes that the final detailed EIA report will be provided to the World Heritage Centre as soon as it becomes available.

The World Heritage Centre and IUCN are seriously concerned by this project, which will dissect the northern wilderness area of the Serengeti, a critical habitat for some of the most endangered species present in the property, such as the Black Rhinoceros and the Wild Hunting Dog. The World Heritage Centre and IUCN consider that, if built, the North Road could critically impact the property’s Outstanding Universal Value and justify its inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

They recall that the North Road proposal was originally submitted to the World Bank twenty years ago. It underwent an EIA in 1996 which concluded that “A trunk road open to commercial traffic through Serengeti National Park should not be implemented due to its substantial negative environmental impacts.” The EIA further noted that the North Road would “…prejudice the survival of several rare and endemic species of plants and animals and may cause mortality of migratory species.”

The World Heritage Centre and IUCN consider that the negative environmental impacts of the North Road would include:
i) restriction on animal movements and migration routes;
ii) direct wildlife mortality;
iii) habitat fragmentation and modification;
iv) increased impact from human activities, including poaching;
v) hydrological impacts and soil erosion; and
vi) introduction of exotic species.

Moreover, if the road were built, the high number of resulting vehicle-wildlife collisions would lead to consideration of fencing as a mitigation measure, which would create a barrier to the migration of wildebeest and other animals seeking the Mara River, their only water source in the dry season.

IUCN notes that road construction is recorded as leading to major impacts and losses of migratory routes in other Protected Areas. The World Heritage Centre and IUCN recall that feasible and less environmentally damaging alternatives to the North Road exist, such as the South Road proposal.

e) Visitor management

The State Party notes that visitor numbers and distribution within the property remain a major management challenge, and that the exact visitor carrying capacity for the Serengeti has been difficult to determine without a comprehensive study. The State Party further notes that it will seek external assistance from other State Parties, as well as the IUCN and the World Heritage Centre, to build internal capacity.
A comprehensive review of the Tourism Management Programme is underway to address emerging tourism challenges and to better foster sustainable tourism management. This revised programme will be submitted to the World Heritage Centre, as soon as it is approved. State of conservation of World Heritage properties WHC-10/34.COM/7B, p. 31 inscribed on the World Heritage List
The World Heritage Centre and IUCN welcome the State Party’s initiative in seeking assistance but recommend that the revised Program be submitted prior to approval so that they may better advise the State Party. They also recall that any plans for further visitor facility developments should be shared with the World Heritage Centre prior to granting planning permission to these.

f) Increasing poaching pressure

IUCN is concerned by reports suggesting a significant increase in rhinoceros and elephant poaching within Serengeti National Park. Furthermore, IUCN has also received reports that bushmeat poaching, including snaring associated with the movement of wildebeest migration, is also on the rise. This increase in poaching pressure was not reported by the State Party.
The World Heritage Centre and IUCN recommend that the State Party ensures transparent recording of elephant poaching incidents and carcass ratios in elephant censuses to help track any increase in poaching and allow for intervention measures and recommend undertaking a study to better understand offtake.

g) Invasive species

IUCN recalls that it has received reports on invasive species, including Agremone mexicana and Datura stramonium and that while they have not significantly impacted the values of the property to date, early action should be taken to remove these species and avoid risk of further spread and increased removal cost.
Draft Decision: 34 COM 7B.5
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examinedDocument WHC-10/34.COM/7B,
2. RecallingDecision 33 COM 7B.10, adopted at its 33rd session (Seville, 2009),
3. Acknowledges the progress achieved by the State Party, in collaboration with the Kenyan Government and WWF’s East Africa Programme, towards formulating sustainable water resource management policies for the Mara River Basin, and requests the State Party to ensure that these policies are rapidly put in place;
4. Welcomes the State Party’s intention to expanding the property to include Speke Gulf, which is a crucial alternative water resource during times of drought;

5. Expresses its utmost concern about the proposed North Road which will dissect the northern wilderness area of the Serengeti over 53 km, considers that this proposed alignment could result in irreversible damage to the property’s Outstanding Universal Value and would constitute a clear case for inscribing Serengeti National Park on the List of World Heritage in Danger, and notes that feasible and less environmentally damaging alternatives to the North Road exist, including the South Road proposal;

6. Also notes with concern the reports of a significant increase in rhinoceros and elephant poaching within the property, and also requeststhe State Party to review its anti-poaching strategies and law enforcement activities in order to effectively counter this threat to the values of the property;
7. Further requests the State Party to invite a joint World Heritage Centre / IUCN reactive monitoring mission to the property to assess its state of conservation, including
State of conservation of World Heritage properties WHC-10/34.COM/7B, p. 32 inscribed on the World Heritage List

potential threats such as the North Road proposal, as well as reports on a significant increase in poaching;

8. Requests furthermore the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2011, a report on the state of conservation of the property, including on the status of the North Road proposal, sustainable water management policies for the Mara River, and the status of poaching, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session in 2011.

Scientists have predicted the following negative impacts:

• Fragmentation of habitat for wildlife
• Disruption and obstruction of migration routes
• Introduction of invasive plants, animals, and disease
• Increased mortality due to wildlife-vehicle collisions
• Intensive, organized poaching, especially of reintroduced rhino
• Loss of habitat from human settlement and agriculture
• Increased human-wildlife conflicts requiring additional measures

Tony Sinclair, one of the world’s foremost experts on the Serengeti, has said:

“The Serengeti Ecosystem has been studied for 50 years and is well documented. These studies show that the whole system depends on the impacts of this massive migration, so that the ecosystem itself will change completely when the migration disappears. Essentially the Serengeti as we know it will no longer exist. History has shown that once we start this process of road development, there is no turning back on the sequence.” 1

The proposed road cuts through a critical wilderness area that is essential to the migration. The migration itself could collapse, with a devastating effect on all wildlife and the entire ecosystem.

Experts at the Frankfurt Zoological Society, the principal supporter of the Serengeti for the past 50 years, state in their report:

“We sincerely believe that the road will have disastrous effects on the entire ecosystem. The northern parts of the Serengeti and the adjacent Masai Mara are critical for the wildebeest and zebra migration during the dry season, as it is the only permanent year-round water source for these herds. Recent calculations show that if wildebeest were to be cut off from these critical dry season areas, the population would likely decline from 1.3 million animals to about 200,000 (meaning a collapse to far less than a quarter of its current population and most likely the end of the great migration).” 2

Andrew Dobson, conservation biologist at Princeton, has said:

“If the wildebeest population declines by even fifty percent it could lead to an increase in the fire frequency in the park, as less grass would be eaten – this could flip the entire system from a major carbon sink into a major source of carbon.” 3

An alternative exists, and we must convince authorities to adopt it.Click here to read more on the alternate route.

====================

References:

1.  “Road proposal threatens existence of Serengeti”
Professor Anthony R.E. Sinclair and Dr. Rene Beyers
Serengeti Biodiversity Program, Beatty Biodiversity Centre
University of British Columbia

2. “The Proposed Serengeti Commercial Road”
The Frankfurt Zoological Society

3. Ecologist. Andrew Dobson, Professor of Conservation Biology and Infectious Disease Ecology at Princeton University

More information and studies

The impacts of roads and other infrastructure on mammal and bird populations:A meta-analysis Benitez_lopez et al_Roads_2010

The following is from: Olivia Judson, Opinionator, The New York Times

For a general overview of different ways that roads impact wildlife, including a discussion of the spread of invasive plants and pathogens, and the increased risk of poaching, see Trombulak S. C. and Frissell, C. A. 2000. “Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities.” Conservation Biology 14: 18-30. For the overwhelmingly negative effect that roads have on wildlife, see Fahrig, L. and Rytwinski, T. 2009. “Effects of roads on animal abundance: an empirical review and synthesis.” Ecology and Society 14 (1): article 21. For the general problem of animal diseases being spread by animal transportation, see Fèvre, E. M. et al. 2006. “Animal movements and the spread of infectious diseases.” Trends in Microbiology 14: 125-131. For the general problem of animals and road deaths, see Groot Bruinderink, G. W. T. A. and Hazebroek, E. 1996. “Ungulate traffic collisions in Europe.” Conservation Biology 10: 1059-1067.

For efforts to mitigate the effects of roads by means of animal underpasses and overpasses see, for example, Clevenger, A. P. and Waltho, N. 2000. “Factors influencing the effectiveness of wildlife underpasses in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada.” Conservation Biology 14: 47-56; and van der Ree, R. et al. 2009. “Wildlife tunnel enhances population viability.” Ecology and Society 14 (2): article 7. The fact that wildebeest avoid areas frequented by poachers was communicated to me in an email from Grant Hopcraft; the data are being prepared for publication.

For the myriad ways that wildebeest define and shape the Serengeti, see Sinclair, A. R. E. and Arcese, P. (editors) 1995. “Serengeti II: Dynamics, Management, and Conservation of an Ecosystem.” University of Chicago Press. For wildebeest population sizes being dependent on the migration and for their role in promoting species diversity see, for example, Sinclair, A. R. E. 2003. “Mammal population regulation, keystone processes and ecosystem dynamics.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 358: 1729-1740. This paper also discusses the impact on the landscape of wildebeest removal — see especially table 1. For the role of migrations in promoting extremely large populations of animals, see Fryxell, J. M., Greever, J. and Sinclair, A. R. E. 1988. “Why are migratory ungulates so abundant?” American Naturalist 131: 781-798.

For other aspects of the importance of wildebeest to the Serengeti, see McNaughton, S. J. 1976. “Serengeti migratory wildebeest: facilitation of energy flow by grazing.” Science 191: 92-94; and Frank, D. A., McNaughton, S. J. and Tracy, B. F. 1998. “The Ecology of the Earth’s Grazing Ecosystems.” BioScience 48: 513-521. This last paper also shows how herbivores such as wildebeest increase the productivity of the grasslands. Ending migrations has repeatedly caused animal populations to crash; given the known importance of wildebeest for maintaining the Serengeti ecoystem, it follows that the ending the migration would alter the landscape in numerous ways.

The Serengeti National Park is not only a priceless World Heritage, it is also a vital part of Tanzania’s future economic development.

Download the Presentation: Economic Impact of Serengeti Highway

KeyPoints

• The worldwide recession and resulting decline in tourism has led many African nations to develop new and more aggressive marketing strategies. South Africa and its neighbors are benefiting form tremendous World Cup exposure.

• Tanzania is attempting to climb out of a tourism decline with an increasingly negative image among the media and traveling public due to publicity about a highway across the Serengeti.

• A Serengeti highway will damage the tourist industry in three stages: threat of the highway, construction, and aftermath. The first two do not depend on environmental impacts but only world opinion. The third stage will be ongoing and therefore the most damaging.

• The Full Cost of the highway = (construction costs )+ (future infrastructure for management of wildlife + traffic + human settlement) + (loss of tourism revenue + jobs in years to come).

• The true cost to the economy of Tanzania would be hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs, increasing over time.

• There would also be intangible cultural costs due to the loss of a UNESCO World Heritage Site, damage to both the national heritage and image of the country.

• A petition from the international travel industry, with more than 5,900 signers around the world warned,

The position of Tanzania in the world travel marketplace will drop, along with the future of your tourism industry. Billions of shillings in foreign exchange needed for development will be jeopardized as travelers look elsewhere. (See Appendix)

Tanzania’s Tourism Challenge

Global tourism is recovering from one of the worst economic crises since the Great Depression. 2009 was a particularly bad year, but fortunately, the early months of 2010 suggest that recovery is underway and stronger than expected. International tourist arrivals grew by 7% in the first four months of 2010, with Africa increasing at that same average. (Source: UNWTO World Tourism Barometer.)

The decline in tourism has led many African nations to develop new and more aggressive marketing strategies. One country, though, has received an extraordinary amount of exposure from another source – South Africa, host of the 2010 FIFA World Cup. The value of this event in terms of boosting interest in travel to South Africa and the surrounding region cannot be overestimated.

A gain in one area of Africa is likely to be accompanied by a decline in another. Historically, Kenya knows this lesson well. In a few decades, it went from the premier sub-Saharan African destination to having only a fraction of Africa’s international visitors. Other regions, including Tanzania, took away market share. There were various causes, but among them was poor planning and management in the face of mounting competition.

It is in this setting that Tanzania begins the second decade of its 21^st Century tourism…amid strong competition for a travel market during a fragile rebound from recession.

Unfortunately, Tanzania is attempting to climb out of recession with an increasingly negative image among the media and traveling public. Controversy over the construction of a commercial highway through its primary tourism asset, the Serengeti National Park, has caused an outcry among the press, the international travel industry, and a growing segment of travelers.

Stages of Decline

The specter of the  Serengeti highway will cause damage to the tourist industry in three stages. The first two do not depend on environmental impacts but only public perception and world opinion.

Stage I.  The threat of a highway:

This stage is already in progress, beginning with an announcement by the government that the project had been approved. World reaction was swift, with internet blogs and social media instantly taking up the cause. Comments on social media sites include disbelief, shock, anger, and defiance. A petition against the highway by international tourism companies and associations quickly brought thousands of signers.

There is a long lead time for planning safaris. And as one tour company has already said.

“With over 22 years of designing safaris in East Africa behind us, we, at Safari Professionals, have advised the Tanzanian government that we are now re-evaluating our current practice of recommending Tanzania to our prospective safari travelers. Since most of our safaris are designed 1 to 2 years in advance, we have to… assume that the current plans will go forward and are likely to have a negative impact on the wildlife and our travelers’ experience.”

Stage II. Construction of the highway:

If and when the highway construction begins, world reaction will certainly intensify, with an increase in articles, photographs, and films confirming that the threat has become a reality. Comments on social media sites indicate that the reaction will become increasingly hostile. As the Serengeti lose its UNESCO World Heritage Status, Tanzania will cease to be seen as a protector of its natural heritage in the eyes of many throughout the world.

Although the authors of this do not agree, there will certainly be a call by many around the world for a general boycott of tourism to Tanzania. In an online survey of travel companies, the questions was asked:

“Some travelers have said they will not visit Tanzania if the highway is constructed. Do you think there will be a more widespread call for such a boycott if the highway is built?”

72% said this would be likely!

Stage III. Damage to the Serengeti:

The highway will have an ongoing and increasing negative impact on the Serengeti and the migration. The damage to Tanzania’s tourism industry will grow accordingly. As news of conflicts among wildlife and highway traffic, human settlement, and other factors mount, the negative press will increase. There is likely to be cross-border disagreements between Kenya and Tanzania, as the highway affects tourism to Kenya’s Masai Mara Reserve. Negative press, the degradation of the Serengeti itself, and competition from other areas of Africa will increasingly accelerate a decline of Tanzania’s tourist industry.

The Real Cost of the Highway

The projected budget of the highway is much too low. There are costs that far exceed the construction cost of surveying, preparing the road bed, and surfacing.

Tangible Costs: The Serengeti Highway is budgeted at US$ 470,000,000 nearly half a billion dollars. To this sum, however, must be added:

(a) Unanticipated infrastructure costs: The real cost of the highway in the near and long term should not be underestimated. There will be increasing traffic along highway, requiring fences and perhaps overpasses. This occurred in Bamff National Park in Canada, when a road cut across the path of just 800 elk. After collisions with vehicles, the cost of constructing barriers became extremely high. Animals will also wander out of the park, and with no buffer zone, there will be conflicts with the growing human settlement. More fences and other expenses will be required.  (Source: Serengeti Biodiversity Centre)

(b) Loss of tourism revenue and jobs. The Tanzania tourism industry provides the following:

• Gross Domestic Product (GDP):  8% or US$ 1.759 billion.
• Exports:  23% of total exports, or US$ 1.15 billion.
• Employment: 6.3% of total employment, 624,000 jobs, or 1 in every 15.8 jobs in 2010,

It was previously estimated that real GDP growth for Travel & Tourism economy is expected to be -0.1% in 2010 and to average 5.9% per annum over the coming 10 years.(Source: Word Travel & Tourism Council)

If the Serengeti highway is constructed, however, the predicted growth will undoubtedly not happen. In fact, it is apparent that Tanzanian will experience a loss in tourism revenues and jobs.

In 2010-2011, there will be increased world reaction to the highway, as shown in Stages I & II above. It is possible that there will be a “see it before it’s gone” effect, motivating some travelers. But even if it happens, it will be short lived.

In 2012, the construction of the highway will certainly cause alarm for travelers as the world press and public opinion grow increasingly vocal. Beyond 2012, there will a decline in visitors because of actual damage to the Serengeti and migration, as outlined in Stage III.

Amount of Tourism Decline

How much decline in tourism will be caused by the building of the highway and the world backlash against it?  After the turmoil of the 2007 presidential election in Kenya and the civil unrest that followed, tourism revenues dropped 54 percent from 2007 in the first quarter of 2008. (Source: Reuters. May 2008)

A drop may not be of that magnitude, but it does show the volatility that African tourism can experience. This project would have a large impact because of the historic and iconic status of the world’s greatest wildlife migration and National Park.

When asked in a survey of travel companies about the likely percentage drop in tourism they would experience should the highway be constructed,

• more than 54% of respondents said 50% or more.
• 10% said their travelers would drop by 40%.
• 19% said it would drop by 30%.

The chart below uses a much more conservative percentage drop in tourism, but even so the figures are dramatic.

With the above drop in visitors, the total cost over just 8 years could be:

• $545 million in GDP
• 193,000 jobs

The impact of the highway, however, will extend indefinitely into the future, increasing as the damage to the ecosystem increases and the status and unique “brand” of the Serengeti are ultimately lost. Moreover, the income from the Serengeti National Park is used to subsidize other Tanzanian parks; these will suffer as well.

Job loss will be difficult to recover, especially as the quality that the tourist industry provides is

“labor intensive, provides a wide range of different employment opportunities – from work for the highly skilled to the unskilled; contributes to a geographical spread of employment – not only in the main centres but also in rural areas; employs more women and young people than most other industries; creates opportunities for many small entrepreneurs.” (Source: Dr. Dawid de Villiers, UN Conference on Least Developed Countries, May 2001)

Opportunity Cost

The flawed decision process that led to the highway will make donor countries, NGO’s and especially private investors leery of investment in Tanzania, especially since public opinion in donor countries would be sharply against future involvement.

As has been noted with Kenya’s tourism industry decline:

Kenya’s increasingly negative image affected not just tourists, but also investors, resulting in a further decline in both the quality of services and maintenance of tourism facilities.

“It is clear that the factors contributing to Kenya’s tourism decline are various but inter-related. Poor governance and political tensions are related to the economic downturn that ultimately affected foreign investments, infrastructural expenditure and maintenance. The downturn therefore could be viewed as a combination of political, exogenous and policy failure effects that operated individually or concurrently over a period of time.” (Source: Samuel Kareithi, University of Luton, UK, Feb 2003)

Cost to National Heritage and Image

“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.” — Dr. Julius Kambarage Nyerere

Tanzania is well known in the world for its protection of priceless natural areas. This long legacy of protection has served Tanzania well. It is an intangible asset of the country that is difficult to measure. A commercial highway through the Serengeti affects both the world perception of Tanzania and also a set of values and a conservation ethic held by the people and government.

If the highway is constructed, it is safe to say that the world will never again look upon Tanzania in the same way. Though intangible, this has impacts for the country going forward.

The negative economic impact can be avoided. There is an alternate route possible around the southern end of the Serengeti. See the discussion here.

Appendix: Travel Industry Petition

As of October 6, 2010, there have been 5,790 signers around the world of the following petition, with more signing each day. Countries included:

Australia  New Zealand  Germany  England  France  Belgium  Abu Dhabi  Tanzania     Hong Kong  Switzerland  Canada  Scotland  Kenya  Uganda  Indonesia  Nepal  United States … and many more

The country with one of the largest number of petitioners was South Africa. Among the organizations signing was the Adventure Travel Trade Association, with 550 members worldwide.

[Petition text]

Travel Industry Against the Serengeti Highway

Our company has joined others in the international travel industry to strongly protest a proposed highway across the Serengeti National Park.

There are many sound environmental arguments against this highway. It would surely destroy the integrity of a priceless world heritage that has been protected by the people of Tanzania since the birth of your country.

The economic costs will be high as well. If this project continues, we foresee great damage to the reputation and the economy of your country. Public opinion will be strong. The world will no longer look on Tanzania as a great protector of its natural heritage.

The position of Tanzania in the world travel marketplace will drop, along with the future of your tourism industry. Billions of shillings in foreign exchange needed for development will be jeopardized as travelers look elsewhere.

We urge you to listen to the advice of your friends in the travel industry around the world.  Tanzania can be proud of its heritage as a world leader in conservation. We urge you to halt plans for this highway and follow the long legacy of protection that has served Tanzania well.

Read the full article here: http://thecitizen.co.tz/component/content/article/37-tanzania-top-news-story/2762-government-on-why-serengeti-road-is-a-must-project.html

Photo by: Nikki Waterhouse