EASTERN AND SOUTHERN AFRICA UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA Tourism Sector Background Note World Bank Group November 2024 © 2024 The World Bank Group 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), the International Development Association (IDA), the International Finance Corporation (IFC), and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), collectively known as The World Bank Group, with external contributors. The World Bank Group does not guarantee the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the content included in this work, or the conclusions or judgments described herein, and accepts no responsibility or liability for any omissions or errors (including, without limitation, typographical errors and technical errors) in the content whatsoever or for reliance thereon. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of any of the organizations of The World Bank Group concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this volume do not necessarily reflect the views of IBRD/IDA, IFC and MIGA, their respective Boards of Executive Directors, and the governments they represent. The contents of this work are intended for general informational purposes only and are not intended to constitute legal, securities, or investment advice, an opinion regarding the appropriateness of any investment, or a solicitation of any type. Some of the organizations of The World Bank Group or their affiliates may have an investment in, provide other advice or services to, or otherwise have a financial interest in, certain of the companies and parties named herein. Nothing herein shall constitute, or be construed, or considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges, and immunities of any of IBRD/IDA, IFC and MIGA, all of which are specifically reserved. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because the World Bank Group encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given, and all further permissions that may be required for such use (as noted herein) are acquired. The World Bank does not warrant that the content contained in this work will not infringe on the rights of third parties, and accepts no responsibility or liability in this regard. All queries on rights and licenses should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA Tourism Sector Background Note COUNTRY CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT REPORT Table of Contents Acknowledgmentsv Acronyms and Abbreviations vi 1. Introduction 1 2. Approach 2 3. Current Status of NBT in Tanzania  3 3.1. General tourism statistics 4 3.2. Revenue to protected area authorities 6 3.3. Visitor fees 8 3.4. Visitation to protected areas 9 3.4.1. Number of visitors 9 3.4.2. Seasonality of visitation  10 3.5. NBT case studies in different Tanzanian ecosystems 11 3.5.1. Terrestrial: northern circuit value chain 12 3.5.2. Terrestrial savannah: Serengeti National park 13 3.5.3. Terrestrial mountain: Mount Kilimanjaro National Park 17 3.5.4. Terrestrial: southern safari circuit 18 3.5.5. Terrestrial: wildlife management areas 19 3.5.6. Islands: Zanzibar & Chumbe Island Coral Park 21 3.6. Policy context 25 3.6.1. Protected area visitation targets  25 3.6.2. Visitor fees and protected area budgets 26 3.6.3. Tourism concession regulations 26 3.6.4. Environmental impact assessment 27 3.6.5. Tax and subsidies for protected area expansion 27 ii  |  Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania 4. NBT Potential in Tanzania Under a Changing Climate  29 4.1. Changes in precipitation, temperature and drought risk  29 4.1.1. Implications for terrestrial NBT 31 4.2. Changes in sea level rise 33 4.2.1. Implications for marine NBT 34 5. Key Policy and Investment Needs to Achieve Policy Potential 38 Appendix A: Consultee Database 43 Appendix B: Supplementary Information on Wildlife Management Authorities in Tanzania 44 Appendix C: Investment Plans for Protected Areas in Tanzania  48 List of Tables Table 1: Trend of revenue (TZS) earned from domestic and international visitor arrivals at TANAPA, NCAA, TAWA, and TFS (2017–23) 6 Table 2: Historical revenue trends from trophy hunting and wildlife photographic tourism revenues for the wildlife division ($) 7 Table 3: Cost components of a typical safari holiday ($1,826 in-country spend) in tanzania, 2009 12 Table 4: Cost components of a typical mountain climbing holiday ($1,376 in-country spend) in Tanzania, in 2009 17 Table 5: Average climbing staff pay (wages and tips) on mount Kilimanjaro  18 Table 6: Annual estimated profit and loss, for randilen and enduimet WMAS (2015) 21 Table 7: Ministry’s non-tax revenue for 2022/23 and collections for 2023/24 (til April 2024) deposited to the consolidated fund through the TRA 26 Table 8: Estimated revenue for the 2024/25 26 Table 9: Description and timeframe for policy actions 36 Table 10: Policy recommendation overview 40 Table 11: Summary of investment prospectus for TANAPA (2023) 48 Table 12: Summary of investment prospectus for TAWA 49 List of Figures Figure 1: Protected areas in Tanzania 3 Figure 2: Trend of international visitor arrivals and receipts (2012–23) 5 Figure 3: Trend of revenue (TZS) earned from domestic and international visitor arrivals at TANAPA, NCAA, TAWA, and TFS (2017–23) 7 Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania  |  iii Figure 4: Visitor arrivals at national parks and game reserves by activity (2023) 9 Figure 5: Seasonality of visitor arrivals at the NGORONGORO crater and in West Kilimanjaro forest reserve (2023) 10 Figure 6: Temperature-based impact on terrestrial wildlife and visitors per month in the Serengeti in 2017 11 Figure 7: Case study circuits and destinations 11 Figure 8: Zoning for tourism in the serengeti (2014–24) and proxy distribution of safari lodges 14 Figure 9: Distribution of boreholes in SENEPA in 2019 15 Figure 10: WMA revenue in nominal $ 19 Figure 11: Value chain analysis of tourism in randelin WMA ($ values) 20 Figure 12: VCA of tourism in Zanzibar: revenue from each sector and benefit of each to ‘the poor’ 22 Figure 13: Ecosystem goods and services provisioned through financing from CHICOP 25 Figure 14: Tourism arrivals and private credit 28 Figure 15: Precipitation change in Tanzanian protected and conserved areas 29 Figure 16: Projected change in water supply and demand 30 Figure 17: Temperature change and drought risk in Tanzanian protected and conserved areas 31 Figure 18: Sea level rise and Tanzania’s marine protected areas 33 Figure 19: Zanzibar and Chumbe island 34 Figure 20: Brand and profitability of national parks and associated WMAS 44 List of Boxes Box 1: Economic benefits of tourism 6 Box 2: Chumbe finances and economics in a nutshell  24 iv  |  Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania Acknowledgments The Tanzania Country Climate and Development Report (CCDR) was prepared by a multisectoral World Bank Group team led by Diji Chandrasekharan Behr (Lead Environmental Economist, East Africa Environment Department), and William Battaile (Lead Economist, Macroeconomics, Trade & Investment, Eastern and Southern Africa), under the supervision of Paul Jonathan Martin (Manager, East Africa Environment Department) and Abha Prasad (Manager, Eastern and Southern Africa Macroeconomics, Trade and Investment Department), and the direction of Iain Shuker (Regional Director, Planet vertical, Eastern and Southern Africa). The Tourism Sector Background Note was an input to the CCDR. The team members included: Dr Anna Spenceley, Laurent Xavier Frapaise and Irving Rodolfo Mc Liberty Zurit. Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania  |  v Abbreviations and Acronyms AA authorized administration ASP aspirational (scenario) BAU business-as-usual (scenario) CCDR Country Climate and Development Reports CHICOP Chumbe Island Coral Park Limited CSF Conservation Strategy Fund EIA Environmental Impact Assessments EMA Environmental Management Act GDP gross domestic product GMP general management plan HWC human-wildlife conflict IEc Industrial Economics Incorporated IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature km 2 (square) kilometers MNRT Ministry for Natural Resources and Tourism MPA marine protected area MSME micro, small, and medium-sized enterprise NBT nature-based tourism NCAA Ngorongoro Conservation Area NGO nongovernmental organization ODI Overseas Development Institute PA protected area RCP Representative Concentration Pathway SCIP community-initiated projects SENAPA Serengeti National Park SLR sea-level rise TANAPA Tanzania National Parks TAWA Tanzania Wildlife Authority TFS Tanzania Forestry Services TRA Tanzania Revenue Authority VCA value chain analysis WMAs wildlife management areas WTP willingness to pay WWF World Wide Fund for Nature vi  |  Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania 1. Introduction Nature-based tourism (NBT) is a key source of revenue for Tanzania’s economy. The Tanzania Economic Update (2021)1 found that by 2019 Tanzania’s tourism sector contributed an estimated 17 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) and directly employed over 850,000 workers, making it the country’s second-largest component of GDP and third-largest source of employment. Tourism has been Tanzania’s largest foreign exchange earner since 2012, and in 2019 it accounted for over one-quarter of the country’s foreign-exchange earnings. Moreover, as the tourism value chain is linked to numerous other economic sectors, it plays an outsized role in growth, employment, and poverty reduction. However, the sector’s risk vulnerability is high. Tanzania has long focused on utilizing tourism as a mean to extract value from natural endowments, but the sector has further untapped potential to drive sustainable development and economic transformation. The World Bank has been conducting Country Climate and Development Reports (CCDRs), which are diagnostics focused on the interlinkages between climate action (and inaction) and development/growth. Tanzania’s CCDR will also include multisectoral deep dives that are centered around three areas: 1. Determining actions to strengthen people’s resilience to climate change and enabling them to benefit from low-carbon development in rural landscapes and urban areas. 2. Identifying climate smart actions that bolster resilience and improving the productivity of renewable natural asset-based sectors. 3. Examining how climate change informed urbanization, connectivity, and emerging industries could contribute to growth. This report aims to contribute to the CCDR to inform the second deep dive and covers the following in relation to NBT: • Description of how the impact of climate change on land cover (out to 2050) under the business- as-usual (BAU) economy scenario could impact the suitability of the areas that are currently and potentially key for wildlife, such as the northern corridor and areas in the south, and assessing how this could impact the potential revenue of the sector (with a focus primarily on the foreign exchange earnings). • Build a spatial “map” of: (a) current tourism potential locations, and (b) potential tourism value under: (i) the BAU economy scenario and (ii) aspirational (ASP) economy scenario. • Presentation of key policy and investment needs to meet the potential tourism value under the two economy scenarios while also ensuring these investments are resilient to the potential impact of climate change on NBT. 1 https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/794611627497650414/teu-16-transforming-tourism- toward-a-sustainable-resilient-and-inclusive-sector. Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania  |  1 2. Approach The report relied on information provided by the World Bank Group and stakeholders consulted, and analysis of insights collated. No fieldwork was undertaken during the assignment. The methodology captured both qualitative and quantitative information from documentation, spatial data analysis, and consultations with stakeholders as follows: Consultation with stakeholders: Consultees with access to data and insights that could support the deep dive were contacted by email and telephone interview. The consultees included World Bank consultants working on associated aspects of the CCDR, and stakeholders based in Tanzania. A list of consultees approached is attached in the appendix A, in addition to a template covering letter. Review of relevant documentation: Reports and data shared by consultees and identified through online desktop searches were reviewed, to draw out relevant tourism insights. Mapping: Climate data was sourced from Industrial Economics Incorporated (IEc), as were the projected scenario methodologies, which combines various climate projections under various socioeconomic pathways (SSP) and representative concentration pathways. The main scenario explored in this analysis is a dry/ hot 2050 climate future, in which precipitation values are particularly low/decreasing and temperatures increase significantly. Three Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP)/SSP scenarios were averaged to devise the dry/hot 2050 climate future for temperature and precipitation.2 Sea level rise (SLR) data was sourced from Copernicus’ 30-meter resolution digital elevation model, and values for SLR were sourced from literature reviews of projected SLR under different climate scenarios and historical coastal flooding due to natural hazards, such as tsunamis. Protected areas data was sourced from the Protected Planet database, which provides both terrestrial and marine protected areas (MPAs). All layers were overlayed to compare trends and risks associated with coastal flooding, drought in protected areas (PA), and projected changes in temperature and precipitation throughout Tanzania. The climate data in the report, such as flood probability, is only based on the intersection of a projected change in precipitation and temperature, and does not factor other climate parameters, such as soil moisture, wind speed, ground and reservoir levels, and so on. This only represents the intersection of two climate variables in a dry/hot 2050 climate future. SLR data is not based on the aforementioned projection; SLR values were derived from a 30-m elevation model that considers precipitation values from 0 to 5 meters; these values were chosen based on the available literature’s projected SLR to 2050, as well as sea level increases during natural hazards, such as tsunamis. Therefore, the SLR values should not be interpreted as functions of the climate models used to inform temperature and precipitation projections by 2050. The analysis largely relies on secondary sources and archived studies obtained. Data was sought from key stakeholders in Tanzania remotely, including the Department of Tourism and each PA authority. Despite different attempts, it was not possible to obtain systematic data on: (a) the distribution of NBT facilities, (b) NBT employment, or (c) revenue from tourism in PAs (whether gate fees, vehicle fees, filming or concession fees). Alternative measures were used in the absence of this information, for example using Google Maps on distribution of NBT facilities, and case study examples of particular parks where data could be obtained, such as the Serengeti. This means that the review was limited in terms of quality and scope of tourism and economic data that could be used in the analysis. Data sources used are cited throughout the report in footnotes, and extra information is provided in the appendixes. 2 SSP3-7.0 EC-EARTH-VEG, SSP 2-4.5 CNRM-ESM2-1, SSP 2-4.5 GFDL-ESM4. 2  |  Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania 3. Current Status of NBT in Tanzania Tanzania’s tourism is predominantly nature-based and largely focused on three assets: the Serengeti, Mount Kilimanjaro, and Zanzibar. Tourism focuses on the country’s exceptional natural assets including wildlife, iconic landscapes, and coastal coral reefs and sandy beaches. Wildlife is the country’s primary leisure tourism attraction, followed by beach tourism in Zanzibar, and the majority of international tourists combine a wildlife experience with a beach excursion.3 Protected wildlife areas in Tanzania cover a total area of 246,260.6 square kilometers (km2), covering being 26.6 percent of the country’s land area.4 These PAs include 22 national parks, 28 game reserves, 44 game-controlled areas, one conservation area, and two marine parks5 (figure 1). As a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Tanzania became party to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework6 in December 2022, including Target 3 to “Ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30 per cent of terrestrial, inland water, and of coastal and marine areas effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably governed systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures.” Figure 1: Protected areas in Tanzania Designation Conservation Area Forest Reserve Game Reserve Game controlled area Marine Park Marine Reserve National Park Ramsar Site, Wetland of International Importance Sanctuary and Closed Forest Reserve Wildlife Management Area World Heritage Site (natural or mixed) Multiple Designations 0 125 250 500km 3 World Bank (2015) Tanzania’s tourism futures: Harnessing natural assets, September 2015, World Bank Group report number 96150-TZ: pp 3. 4 United Republic of Tanzania Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (2015) Tanzania Wildlife Management Authority (TAWA) Financing plan 2015–20, March 2015. 5 Solimar International (2021) Tanzania’s southern circuit marketing and promotion strategy (2021–26). 6 https://www.cbd.int/article/cop15-final-text-kunming-montreal-gbf-221222. Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania  |  3 Successive governments have prioritized environmental and cultural preservation: Tanzania ranks third in Africa in terms of the share of protected land and is home to seven UNESCO World Heritage Sites. However, the costs of maintaining these assets is considerable, and sustainable tourism has untapped potential to generate value for the government, the private sector, and local communities. Many of the areas near Tanzania’s national parks are among the poorest in the country.7 National parks are often in remote rural areas with limited infrastructure and high poverty rates. Limited connectivity and a lack of physical, financial, and human capital hinders the ability of many local communities to participate in the economic activities supported by national parks.8 Historically, Tanzania’s natural assets been valued primarily through their capacity to generate tourism revenues. However, the global climate crisis is offering a new perspective on the importance of these resources. The mounting scientific evidence that excessive atmospheric carbon is driving an accelerating process of climate change has resulted in unprecedented financing being made available to either reduce carbon emissions or to protect and expand natural areas that sequester carbon and sustain biodiversity. Companies that have committed to net-zero emissions strategies are seeking to finance carbon-sequestration activities such as forest regeneration and the preservation of natural landscapes. Protected area authorities can capitalize on this interest.9 3.1. General tourism statistics The Travel and Tourism Competitive Index 2019 report released by the World Economic Forum notes Tanzania is 10th in the tourism growth ranking of over 50 African states. 10 That year, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the tourism sector contributed an estimated 17 percent of its GDP and directly employed over 850,000 workers.11 Traveler spending was estimated to generate nearly $2.6 billion for the economy.12 This made it the country’s second-largest component of GDP after agriculture and third-largest source of employment.13 Post-pandemic, Tanzania’s travel receipts almost doubled from $1.3 billion in 2021 to $3.4 billion in 2022, mirroring an increase in the number of tourist arrivals14 and an increase in the yield-per -tourist (figure 2). Although the average length of stay of international visitors in Tanzania peaked at 13 nights in 2019, and fell to 9 nights in 2022, the average expenditure per night by international visitors on package tours in 2023 had surpassed 2019 levels ($419 per night). This contrasts with the average expenditure of non-package visitors, which dropped to $178 in 2023 (down 18 percent from the 2019 level of $216 per night).15 The purpose of visit of the vast majority of visitors is leisure and holiday, represented by a peak proportion of 88 percent arrivals in 2022.16 7 World Bank Group (2021) Transforming tourism: Toward a sustainable, resilient and inclusive sector. Tanzania Economic Update, July 2021. Issue 16. 8 World Bank Group (2021) Transforming tourism: Toward a sustainable, resilient and inclusive sector. Tanzania Economic Update, July 2021. Issue 16. 9 World Bank Group (2021) Transforming tourism: Toward a sustainable, resilient and inclusive sector. Tanzania Economic Update, July 2021. Issue 16. 10 WBG (2024) Country climate and development report: concept note. Draft for discussion. 11 United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) (2023).Tourism Doing Business Investing in the United Republic of Tanzania. Available at: https://www.unwto.org/investment/tourism-doing-business-investing-in-the-united-republic-of-tanzania [Accessed 2nd February 2024]. Cited in ALU (2024) Wildlife economy investment index (WEII) Tanzania profile. 12 Solimar International (2021) Tanzania’s southern circuit marketing and promotion strategy (2021–26). 13 United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) (2023).Tourism Doing Business Investing in the United Republic of Tanzania. Available at: https://www.unwto.org/investment/tourism-doing-business-investing-in-the-united-republic-of-tanzania [Accessed 2nd February 2024]. Cited in ALU (2024) Wildlife economy investment index (WEII) Tanzania profile. 14 Tanzania Invest, (2023). Tanzania tourism arrivals. Available at: https://www.tanzaniainvest.com/tourism [Accessed 2nd February 2024] Cited in ALU (2024). Wildlife economy investment index (WEII) Tanzania profile. 15 The United Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Natural Resources and tourism (2023) 2023 Maliasili Statistical bulletin. 16 The United Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Natural Resources and tourism (2023) 2023 Maliasili Statistical bulletin. 4  |  Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania Figure 2: Trend of international visitor arrivals and receipts (2012–23) 4,000 3,500 3,373.8 3,000 2,604.5 2,412.3 2,527.8 2,500 2,259.0 2,131.6 2,006.3 1,902.0 1,853.3 2,000 1,712.8 1,500 1,808 1,527 1,310.3 1,506 1,455 1,284 1,327 714.6 1,000 1,077 1,096 1,140 1,137 923 500 621 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Visitor arrivals (000) Receipts ($ million) Source: The United Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Natural Resources and tourism (2023) 2023 Maliasili Statistical bulletin. Benchmarking A 2007 World Bank study in Zambia found that “tourism creates nearly 200 full-time formal jobs for each $250,000 of investment, compared with only around 100 stable jobs in the resources sector.”17 In another study, the International Finance Corporation found that, on average, higher-quality hotels and lodges create 1.5 to 3 direct, full-time jobs per hotel room.18 Tourism in Tanzania has a ‘multiplier’ effect on other sectors, such as agriculture, construction and transport, of at least 1.6. This means that for every $1 spent on tourism, an additional $1.60 is spent in other sectors. Furthermore, every dollar spent on tourism generates nearly an additional dollar in local income (box 1). It is notable that the global average multiplier ratio for tourism is 18.5 percent higher than the average multiplier of major economic sectors around the world.19 17 World Bank, Zambia: Economic and Poverty Impact of Nature-based Tourism, 2007. 18 IFC, IFC Hotel Projects Create Significant Economic Opportunity, 2011. 19 Matinyi, R., Shutzer, M., Jones, S. and Dougherty, J. (2015) A strategy for tourism development in Southern Tanzania, USAID Tanzania, July 2015. Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania  |  5 Box 1: Economic benefits of tourism Tourism generates economic benefits including through income, employment, encouraging entrepreneurial activities, contributing to foreign exchange earnings and the balance of payments. Tourists spend considerable money in PAs or in activities associated with them through entrance fees, accommodation, activities (such as guided drives and walks), and when they buy food, drink and crafts. This money can be accrued by different actors, including governments, PA agencies, travel agents, tour operators, accommodation providers, retailers, service providers and members of local communities. In the case of partnerships, two or more of these actors may benefit (such as accommodation joint-venture partnerships between the private sector and a host community entities). Intermediaries can also benefit financially from these products and services, including: (1) tour operators, who are paid for putting a package of accommodation, travel, and activities together; (2) travel agents or e-booking sites, who charge for transactions between the tourist and the service or product provider; (3) providers of products and services to tourism enterprises, tourists and retailers; (4) retailers, who sell craft, or food that is produced by others. Sources: Mathieson, A. & Wall, G. (1982) Tourism: Economic, physical and social impacts, London: Longman; Leung, Spenceley, Hvenegaard and Buckley (2018) Tourism and visitor management in protected areas: Guidelines for sustainability, IUCN Best Practice Guidelines. 3.2. Revenue to protected area authorities There are four key agencies in Tanzania responsible for conservation: Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA), Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCAA), Tanzania Wildlife Authority (TAWA) and Tanzania Forestry Services (TFS).20 The trend in revenue earned from domestic and international visitor arrivals between Tanzania and these PA agencies varies extensively. The tourism revenues generated come from entrance fees, accommodations, permits, and other tourism activities. Over the seven years between 2017 and 2023, TANAPA has accrued 50–63 percent of the country’s annual PA tourism revenue, while the NCAA generated 25–32 percent of all tourism revenue. Over the same period, game reserves and Wildlife Management Areas under TAWA captured 5–24 percent of revenue, and TFS less than 1 percent (table 1; figure 3). Table 1: Trend of Revenue (TZS) earned from domestic and international visitor arrivals at TANAPA, NCAA, TAWA, and TFS (2017–23) Year TANAPA % NCAA % TAWA % TFS % 2017 207,587,218,000 63% 103,090,458,000 31% 19,202,957,607 6% - - 2018 214,486,751,736 62% 108,149,417,000 32% 20,109,785,000 6% - - 2019 292,539,502,030 63% 147,043,375,161 32% 20,864,030,536 5% 275,125,895 0% 2020 85,614,710,442 55% 47,862,177,819 31% 20,913,213,013 14% 69,552,400 0% 2021 127,028,556,252 50% 63,852,180,870 25% 60,651,257,787 24% 373,886,117 0% 2022 293,079,503,086 58% 144,354,627,647 29% 63,070,304,315 13% 1,218,882,279 0% 2023 379,790,063,492 60% 195,748,756,367 31% 58,730,532,598 9% 1,378,844,855 0% Source: Adapted from Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Natural Resources and tourism (2023) 2023 Maliasili Statistical bulletin. 20 Previously, parastatals including TANAPA were able to retain tourism income and use them to cover their expenditures. Currently, all tourism revenue generated by the agencies go to the National Treasury, and submit annual budgets to Treasury for funding. 6  |  Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania Figure 3: Trend of revenue (TZS) earned from domestic and international visitor arrivals at TANAPA, NCAA, TAWA, and TFS (2017–23) 400 350 300 250 In billion 200 150 100 50 0 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Tanzania National Parks Ngorongoro Conservation Area Tanzania Wildlife Authority Tanzania Forestry Services (TANAPA) (NCAA) (TAWA) (TFS) Source: Adapted from Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Natural Resources and tourism (2023) 2023 Maliasili Statistical bulletin. A review by GiZ of revenue generated by the Wildlife Division (prior to the establishment of TAWA) between 2006 and 2014 illustrates historical revenues from tourism hunting, photographic tourism and live animal trade. Table 2 shows that over an eight-year period the value and relative contribution of photographic tourism varied greatly: from 4 percent of tourism revenue in 2007/08 to 23 percent in 2013/15. Over this period photographic tourism generated $20.2 million in revenue, compared to $135.7 million from trophy hunting. For the Ngorongoro Crater Area specifically, it is understood that the 391,000 visitors received in 2022 generated $58 million in revenue.21,22 Table 2: Historical revenue trends from trophy hunting and wildlife photographic tourism revenues for the Wildlife Division ($) Tourism type 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Totals ($) Trophy hunting 12,030,510 14,704,370 19,760,812 18,444,881 23,536,347 15,062,218 15,917,431 16,282,175 135,738,744 Photographic 623,645 664,736 2,387,728 2,706,603 2,863,287 2,080,978 3,904,808 4,980,372 20,212,157 tourism Total ($) 12,654,155 15,369,106 22,148,540 21,151,484 26,399,634 17,143,196 19,822,239 21,262,547 155,950,901 % of annual total Trophy hunting 95% 96% 89% 87% 89% 88% 80% 77% Photographic 5% 4% 11% 13% 11% 12% 20% 23% tourism Source: Wildlife Division data, cited in Spenceley, A. (2016) Assessment of the development of non-consumptive tourism activities under Tanzania Wildlife Management Authority (TAWA): Part 2: Results and analysis, Report to GiZ and the Wildlife Division. 21 URT. (2022c). Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, the 2022 Maliasili statistical bulletin. 22 Recent disaggregated data on revenue for different PAs, and different tourism fees was not made available by the PA authorities, which would have allowed more detailed analysis. Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania  |  7 For the four PA agencies (TANAPA, NCAA, TAWA, and TFS) photographic tourism revenues are dependent on the presence of wildlife, and also of having tourism facilities near where wildlife can be seen. If changes in climate impact on the habitat and water availability, and wildlife populations and distribution changes within PAs as a result, then it is likely that these NBT revenues will decline. 3.3. Visitor fees Revenue generated from visitation is largely dependent on tariffs charged to tourists, combined with the number of people paying those fees. In the early 2000s, TANAPA and Conservation Strategy Fund (CSF) partnered to assess fee levels, and their analysis suggested that TANAPA could increase revenues and decrease crowding in the northern parks through strategic fee increases.23 TANAPA subsequently increased fees several times without negatively effecting visitation, in turn resulting in a significant growth in revenues. Interestingly, work by the CSF and TANAPA has found from willingness to pay (WTP) studies that demand for various parks in Tanzania is relatively inelastic among non-resident visitors surveyed (3,200 visitors).24 For the Serengeti, it was suggested that phasing in a $60 increase in the Serengeti conservation fee over several years could have raised an additional $7.8 million in 2016 and $14.8 million in 2020, equivalent to a 57 percent increase in total revenue from the park. However, it was not recommended to increase the fees at Kilimanjaro, because of a relatively high price sensitivity and perception among a large percentage of visitors that fees are already too high. The study further recommended that any fee increase for Lake Manyara and Arusha, be modest (around $5) to keep pace with in-country inflation. The low levels of non-resident visitation in the southern and western parks argue against fee increases, as any additional revenue would be minimal. Increasing fee rates for Tanzanians, representing 13 percent of visitors, was not recommended, as domestic travelers may be more sensitive to small increases in fees. To illustrate, when park tariffs are compared for non-East African adult rates in the peak season rates in 2020–21 and 2023–24 seasons, only five national parks increased their prices: Serengeti increased by $10 to $70, Nyerere increased by $20 to $70, and Tarangire, Lake Manyara and Arusha increased by $5 each to $50 per day. Similarly, a benchmarking exercise was conducted by GiZ for the Wildlife Division in 2015 for wildlife management areas (WMAs) and GCAs (prior to TAWA’s existence), and also made a series of proposals to adjust tourism fees and bring them in line with comparable destinations.25 At that time, entrance fees charged by the Wildlife Division for Selous, Ikorogo, Grumeti and Maswa Game Reserves were the same as charged by TANAPA for the Serengeti. Although the value of the entrance fees were the same, stakeholders interviewed noted that the quality of the wildlife product and visitor facilities was much lower in the Wildlife Division reserves, and therefore these rates were comparatively high. By contrast, the entrance fees charged in WMAs were the lowest in the country, at $10 for adults. The rates were also compared with fees charged at PAs in other southern African countries: South Africa, Kenya, Botswana, Namibia, and Zimbabwe. The study found that the value of entrance fees charged by the Wildlife Division was second highest, surpassed only by Kenya’s national parks, at $80, while the lowest rate for an adult non-citizen was $6 in Namibia. Regularly performing WTP studies and benchmarking analyses for tariffs at all Tanzania’s PAs, in light of a dynamic wildlife experience under a changing climate, will help them to remain competitive. Pricing should reflect value for money, should be competitive with other destinations, and reflect the uniqueness of Tanzanian wildlife attractions and assets. 23 Bonine, K., B. Chang, E. Dembe, B. Loibooki, N. Mndeme, A. Mziray, B. Neary, L. Pendleton, J. Reid, M. Tamanaha. 2004. Maximizing Revenues and Conservation in Tanzanian National Parks. CSF and TANAPA, California, USA, and Arusha, Tanzania. 24 A. Bruner, B. Kessy, J. Mnaya, J. Wakibara, and J. Maldonado (2015). Tourists’ Willingness to Pay to Visit Tanzania’s National Parks: A Contingent Valuation Study, Conservation Strategy Fund, 2015, https://www.conservation-strategy.org/publication/tourists-willingness-pay-visit-tanzanias- national-parks-contingent-valuation. 25 Spenceley, A. (2016) Assessment of the development of non-consumptive tourism activities under Tanzania Wildlife management Authority (TAWA) Part 2: Results and analysis, Report to GIZ & see park fees at https://www.tanzaniaparks.go.tz/uploads/publications/en-1647862168- TARIFFS%202022-2023.pdf. 8  |  Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania 3.4. Visitation to protected areas 3.4.1. Number of visitors The number of visitors to national parks in Tanzania varies extensively, and is heavily clustered. Of 22 national parks, two—Serengeti and Tarangire—captured 61 percent of all domestic and international visits in 2019, and 52 percent in 2023, after the COVID-19 pandemic. The Serengeti was the most-visited PA in the country, with 486,004 visitors in 2019 and 557,141 visitors in 2023. Collectively, the national parks managed by TANAPA received 1,281,380 visitors in 2019, and 1,790,682 in 2023 following the pandemic (40 percent more than 2019). National parks also offer a broad range of charged activities, including walking safaris, bush meals, boating and ballooning (figure 4). The dramatic variation in visitation between TANAPA’s national parks suggests considerable opportunity to invest in less popular areas, diversify visitor experiences across Tanzania, extend length of stay, to spread visitor expenditure around the country (and in communities around PAs), and as a consequence grow the NBT economy as a whole. Figure 4: Visitor arrivals at national parks and game reserves by activity (2023) 1% 3% 2% 4% 5% 5% 32% Walking Safari Canopy Walkway Bush meals Ballooning 12% Boating Canoeing Night Game Drive Sport Fishing Rhino viewing Other 17% 19% Source: Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (2023). In 2023 there were 108,089 international visitors and 63,121 domestic visitors across all game reserves (collectively equivalent to 10 percent of all national park visitors). Among these arrivals, visitation at game reserves by hunters and observers (who do not hunt) is dramatically very small, peaking at 2,094 in 2022. The comparable data on visitation at WMAs, managed by communities, was not available. Income data for TAWA does not establish the proportion of revenue from consumptive and non-consumptive visitation, which would be important in establishing the rate of return for different types of NBT. The number of visitors in forest reserves is also far below national parks, with 146,884 visitors in 2023 (and so equivalent to 8 percent of the number of national park visitors). The most visited forest reserve, West Kilimanjaro, received 62,015 visitors in 2023, of which 80 percent were domestic arrivals. Similarly to the national parks, there is a considerable variation in the number of visitors to different forest reserves, potentially raising opportunities for investment in less-visited reserves, and diversification of visitor attractions across the portfolio of reserves. The number of visitors to the Serengeti is comparable with 2019 pre-COVID-19 pandemic visitors to the Masai Mara (300,000) and Amboseli National Park (190,000), but lower than the Kruger National Park (950,000). Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania  |  9 Collectively, diversifying and expanding the range NBT across the conservation estate, managed by the four key agencies (TANAPA, NNCA, TAWA and TFS) could present immense opportunities for sustainable growth, and a climate resilient approach. 3.4.2. Seasonality of visitation The seasonality pattern of visitation varies considerably during the year. The Ngorongoro Crater generally has its peak visitation period between June and October and a further increase between December and February. Also, the seasonality pattern of international and domestic visitors varies considerably between PAs. To illustrate, when West Kilimanjaro demonstrates greater extremes in seasonality than the Ngorongoro Crater, while the Ngorongoro Crater has a greater proportion of international tourists than West Kilimanjaro does (figure 5). This suggests opportunities for smoothing seasonality through marketing, promotion, and pricing variations throughout the year in different natural destinations, which could relate to the seasonality of locally specific natural attractions in different ecosystems. This would also create a climate resilient approach for the future. Figure 5: Seasonality of visitor arrivals at the Ngorongoro crater and in West Kilimanjaro Forest Reserve (2023) a) Visitor arrivals at the Ngorongoro Crater National Park b) Visitor arrivals at West Kilimanjaro Forest Reserve 90,000 9,000 80,000 8,000 70,000 7,000 60,000 6,000 50,000 5,000 40,000 4,000 30,000 3,,000 20,000 2,000 10,000 1,000 0 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec International Domestic Source: Adapted from Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Natural Resources and tourism (2023). Note: y axis = number of visitors. For the Ngorongoro Crater these patterns of both international and domestic visitors probably relates to peak holiday periods for international and domestic visitors. Similarly in the Serengeti, visitation to different is highest during the dry season (particularly for seasonal, temporary camps), and in relation to when this core attraction can be observed. With a changing climate, if the seasonal wildlife migration period changes, this pattern of visitation may change (figure 6). When the proportion of international and domestic visitors are compared over the year, there are interesting patterns. Before the COVID-19 pandemic (2017–19) the proportion of international visitors was consistently over 50 percent throughout the year, aside from in December when the proportion of domestic visitors surpassed it. In 2020, in the midst of the pandemic, the proportion of international visitors dropped to less than 10 percent for most of the year, and 90 percent were domestic. Post-pandemic (2021–22) the proportion of international visitors recovered, but only to 2019 levels by September 2022. This suggests that domestic markets can be resilient to some crises. However, the current pricing tariffs are much lower for Tanzanian citizens than for non-East African citizens, or non-East African expatriates. 10  |  Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania Figure 6: Temperature-based impact on terrestrial wildlife and visitors per month in the Serengeti in 2017 Relationship Between Rainfall, Tourism Season and Known Wildlife 60,000 Migration Viewing Areas Rain seasons Tourism seasons 50,000 200 Mean monthly rainfall (mm)/Number 40,000 150 of tourist arrivals’ 100 30,000 100 The Mara River 20,000 50 0 10,000 at at at North at Southerm Central Northwest-North MNR-Kenya Back to -50 0 Tanzania- Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Eastern Time (Months) Serengeti Bandas Campsite Hotel Public Camping Seasonal Camping Special Camping Source: Kilungu et al, 2017 cited in EIC presentation; KfW/TANAPA (2019) 3.5. NBT case studies in different Tanzanian ecosystems To better understand the NBT sector in Tanzania, it is useful to review case studies of terrestrial and coastal destinations. Several examples are described below, including for the northern safari circuit (and within that, the Serengeti and Mount Kilimanjaro National Parks) the southern safari circuit, the case of community- managed WMAs, and coastal island destinations of Zanzibar and the Chumbe Island Coral Park (figure 7). Figure 7: Case study circuits and destinations Source: Adapted from https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2172384. Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania  |  11 3.5.1. Terrestrial: northern circuit value chain The northern safari circuit, stretching from Arusha to the Serengeti National Park in Northern Tanzania, is one of the most valuable strips of tourism real estate in Africa. It accounts for more than half of Tanzania’s total foreign earnings from tourism and in addition is one of the few destinations in Sub-Saharan Africa, outside of South Africa, which operates at a scale to attract mainstream international tour operators. The circuit comprises the Serengeti, Lake Manyara and Tarangire National Parks and the NCAA (which contains the Ngorongoro Crater). There are several entry points to the circuit, the most common being Arusha and Nairobi, Kenya. An overview of two value chain analyses (VCAs) for the northern circuit conducted in 2009 are provided here. A VCA undertaken for the Tourism Confederation of Tanzania estimated that 41 percent of tourist expenditure on an 8-day safari package, and 67percent of a 21-day hunting safari, remains within the country. The study estimated that very little revenue is captured locally for ground logistics, while 12 percent (about $500 per package visitor) are captured through local shopping, sightseeing and meals.26 A further VCA by the SNV Netherlands Development Organisation similarly found that the largest cost component of in- country expenditure by northern circuit safari tourists was accommodation – averaging $141 per tourist per night (table 3). This reflects the high level of demand for bed space, particularly around the Ngorongoro Crater. Park fees are the second highest cost to tourists, with each safari tourist package paying an average of $345 in fees per safari. Given the scale of accommodation spending ($200 million per year) and that 12 percent of this turnover is pro-poor, even a small change in this percentage would translate into a significant impact for local communities and entrepreneurs.27 Extrapolating the cost elements of the individual tourist safari to an estimated 300,000 annual northern safari circuit tourists, the result is a total in-country tourist expenditure of just under $550 million per year. The direct beneficiaries of the Northern Safari value chain are driver guides and non-managerial accommodation staff. Indirect beneficiaries include those supplying local hotels and restaurants with local produce (food) as well as those providing cultural goods and services.28 Table 3: Cost components of a typical safari holiday ($1,826 in-country spend) in Tanzania, 2009 Expenditure type Proportion Average cost (where available) Accommodation 37% $141 per tourist per night Park fees, including daily entrance fee, daily camping fee or 19% $345 per safari hut fee, and rescue fee Tour operator margins 14% Transport 13% $167–333 gross monthly wages to driver guides Wages 9% Food and drink 1% Shopping, including souvenirs, and donations 7% $134 per tourist Source: Mitchel, J., Keane, J. and Laidlaw, J. (2009) Making success work for the poor: Package tourism in Northern Tanzania. London, UK: ODI. 26 Strategic Business Advisors & Serengeti Advisers (2009) Tanzania Tourism Value Chain Study, Final Report, Tourism Confederation of Tanzania. 27 Mitchel, J., Keane, J. and Laidlaw, J. (2009) Making success work for the poor: Package tourism in Northern Tanzania, Final report, London, UK: Overseas Development Institute. 28 Mitchel, J., Keane, J. and Laidlaw, J. (2009) Making success work for the poor: Package tourism in Northern Tanzania, Final report, London, UK: Overseas Development Institute. 12  |  Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania 3.5.2. Terrestrial savannah: Serengeti National park The World Bank’s “Tanzania’s Tourism futures” report (2015) suggested that the main threats to the Serengeti were the demands for grazing land, poaching, aggressive expansion of tourism and plans for intrusive development. It was anticipated that climate change would initially manifest itself as increased frequency of extreme droughts (both longer and drier) followed by unusually excessive rains and subsequently significant erosion.29 This section reviews the Serengeti’s tourism and revenues, water, and community relations. Tourism and revenues As noted earlier, the Serengeti is the most-visited PA in the country, with 486,004 visitors in 2019 and 349,298 visitors and 2022. The majority of visitors use seasonal (non-permanent) camping (53 percent), by contrast to hotels (37 percent) and campsites (5 percent), and with a peak in visitation between in July and August. In terms of revenue generation, the Serengeti National Park (SENAPA) is second to only Kilimanjaro National Park, and together the two parks accounted for about 77 percent of TANAPA’s total revenue, contributing $22.4 million during the 2009/10 financial year.30 The neighboring district authorities also benefit through tax revenue and levies; for example, in 2003 the Serengeti District Authority collects about $1.2 million per annum from five hotels/camps operating within the park. Tourist shops in the park also generated $4.2 million per annum in taxes.31 The General Management Plan (GMP) for the Serengeti (2014–24) zones SENEPA for tourism (figure 8). There is a High Use Zone (21 percent of the park), with the highest levels of tourism infrastructure and facilities, a Low Use Zone (52 percent of the park) with a more limited road network and bed capacity, and a Wilderness Zone (27 percent of the park) that prohibits vehicles, and restricts tourism activities to walking safaris (figure 8).32 The management plan stipulates that no development is permitted unless it is in accordance with the zonation scheme.33 A revised and updated management plan is currently in development, but was not available for review, but which ideally will adjust the zonation in light of predicted future changes in wildlife and water distribution. In 2014 the GMP recorded 1,630 beds in the high-use zone, and it was proposed to increase this to 2,570 beds by 2025. In the low-use zone, there were 444 beds in 2003, and it was proposed to increase this to 1,158 by 2025.34 However, a KfW survey indicates that these figures had vastly exceeded by 2019, with a total of 5,994 beds across the SENPA across nearly 300 facilities. The majority of beds (61 percent of the total) are situated within special (mobile, moving) camps.35 Stakeholders consulted suggested that the special camps are not supposed to stay in one location for more than four months, but some have remained in the same place for 20 years. There is seemingly little control over special camps, in terms of the number of tents, beds, whether there is a generator, the number of staff or even the presence of plunge pools.36,37 While the public camps do not have bed-counts, they may have around 100 persons at a time staying.38 29 World Bank Group (2015) Tanzania’s tourism futures: harnessing natural assets, September 2015, report no. 96150-TZ. 30 Kibira, G. M. M (2021) The economic value of Serengeti National park in Tanzania and implications for adjacent local communities, University of Cape Town, Thesis presented for a doctor of Philosophy. 31 Gereta et al. (2003), cited but not referenced in TANAPA (undated) Serengeti National Park general management plan (2014–24). A new GMP is in development, but a draft has not yet been obtained. Currency rate used from 1 January 2003 of TZS 947: $1, https://www.oanda.com/currency- converter/en/?from=USD&to=TZS&amount=1100. 32 TANAPA (undated) Serengeti National Park general management. 33 TANAPA (undated) Serengeti National Park general management. 34 TANAPA (undated) Serengeti National Park general management. 35 KfW/TANAPA (2019) Preparation of an integrated water resources management plan. Serengeti ecosystem development and conservation project. Analytical report. October 2019. 36 Pers. Com. FZS, February 2024. 37 Stakeholder reports suggest that Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) in the Serengeti are only undertaken if a finance agency loaning the capital investment requires them. There is a sense that TANAPA conservationists do not have control over the development of the natural environment, nor the revenues they receive (which are accrued by the TRA). 38 KfW/TANAPA (2019). Preparation of an integrated water resources management plan. Serengeti ecosystem development and conservation project. Analytical report. October 2019. Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania  |  13 Figure 8: Zoning for tourism in the Serengeti (2014–24) and proxy distribution of safari lodges a) GMP zoning for tourism b) Distribution of safari lodges Sources: TANAPA (undated); Google. Water The park is drained by the Mbalageti, Grumeti and Mara Rivers all flowing westwards to Lake Victoria. The Mbalageti River drains 2,680 km2 of the southern open, treeless grasslands, whilst the Grumeti River drains much of the central and northern hills with a catchment area of 1,100 km2; nearly all of which are in the park. The Mara River drains a large area in Kenya (10,300 km2), and flows through the park draining only the far north region of the Serengeti. The park, alongside the Maswa Game Reserve, also protects the watersheds of Simiyu, Mbalageti and Duma Rivers. Together these watersheds constitute an important water supply for more than 1.5 million people living to the south and west of the park, which is critical to the success of their main economic activities of agriculture, fishing and livestock keeping.39 The four categories of water users within the park are: TANAPA facilities (including airports, ranger posts, gates, picnic sites, and administration facilities), moving/temporary camps, permanent camps, and lodges. For tourism the sites using water, and their water demands are summarized as:40 • Public campsites: supplied by TANAPA from boreholes using water bowsers (70 liters per day). • Picnic places: have no water or wastewater infrastructure. • Special campsites (mainly privately operated as “Moving Camps” but if empty to be booked by anybody): currently not supplied by TANAPA. The camps receive water from other lodges or permanent tented camps, springs or boreholes in the park, mainly by water bowsers (which add to the traffic problem in the park) (80 liters per day). • Permanent tented camps (privately owned) and lodges: need to have their own borehole (those facilities need to drill boreholes before they get permission for the camp/lodge) (220 liters per day for permanent tented camps; 350 liters per day for lodges). All lodges have a swimming pool and some also have a spa. Guest bathrooms include baths, which encourage large volumes of water use. 39 TANAPA (undated) Serengeti National Park general management. 40 KfW/TANAPA (2019) Preparation of an integrated water resources management plan. Serengeti ecosystem development and conservation project. Analytical report. October 2019. 14  |  Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania Figure 9: Distribution of boreholes in SENEPA in 2019 Source: KfW/TANAPA (2019). There are around 106 boreholes across the SENEPA, and “...you don’t have a camp unless you have water”.41 The distribution of these is illustrated in figure 9. The conversion of special camps/moving camps to lodges increases the demand for permanent concrete structures within the park, as well as increasing the water demand/wastewater to be managed. Currently, it appears that there is no clear organization, nor restrictions with regards to new camps and lodges in the park, and there is no limitation on the number of tourists entering the park.42 There is also a need for improved water monitoring (groundwater and surface water) and to use that data to spatially and temporally plan the location of tourism facilities (whether permanent or mobile). 41 Pers. Com. FZS, February 2024. 42 KfW/TANAPA (2019) Preparation of an integrated water resources management plan. Serengeti ecosystem development and conservation project. Analytical report. October 2019. Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania  |  15 Moving camps currently require the transport of water via bowsers from long distances, increasing traffic in the park. This can also be said for various government facilities such as ranger posts, gates, airstrips and the visitor centers. Water bowsers (1,500–2,500 km/day) cause traffic load, environmental impact and are not desirable for tourists, therefore more decentralized water supply alternatives (clustering) are favorable. Facilities help each other with drinking/gray water supply (clustering) such as lodges supplying government facilities as well as moving camps. Whilst increased water supply from various water supply alternatives is an asset, this could quickly turn into a disadvantage for the park if it encourages increasing amounts of lodges to be built and increasing numbers of tourists. The risk of the Bologonja spring becoming an ‘open tap’, resulting in an endless supply of water and potentially affecting the river, would have damaging consequences for the park’s ecosystem if not controlled properly. Although there is ground water available in the park it seems that the average yield of a borehole between 80 and 150 meters deep is in a range of less than 15 cubic meters per day.43 The existence of more and/or deeper boreholes could result in increased pressure from the tourism industry; former temporary camps could become permanent facilities with higher numbers of visitors and increased per capita water consumption. Other demands on the same groundwater sources are not known, nor are the structure and recharge rates of the aquifers. So far, the limited availability of water resources acts as a naturally limiting factor to which TANAPA and the tourism sector responded with corresponding touristic products – and comparatively smaller ecological footprint, such as the tented camps, and the public and special campsites.44 There are no long-term data measurements or any consistent monitoring done of groundwater sources, surface water, or rainfall within the park. The real supply quantities of the water sources, such as the Turner borehole or Bologonja spring, river discharge data—especially for Bologonja and Lobo springs—as well as meteorological data collection is lacking. Borehole completion reports are not available (within TANAPA or the Lake Victoria Basin Water Board records) as well as no monitoring done of water abstraction from the boreholes. Despite new lodges being required to build their own boreholes, no borehole information is consequently submitted to the water board or Serengeti National Park as required. Alternatives for water supply include rainwater harvesting, deep borehole drilling (and additional boreholes) water from Lake Victoria for the Western Corridor, and use of Bolognja Spring.45 There are various implications of climate change for water distribution. First, if groundwater is sourced from unconfined aquifers, then they would be re-charged by rainfall. Lower rainfall resulting from climate change could therefore reduce re-charge rates. If the aquifers are confined, and have a layer of impenetrable rock or clay above them, they will not be affected. The geology is not well understood, leading to uncertainty of the impact of climate change on groundwater resources. Second, surface water supply will decline, with lower levels of precipitation and higher levels of evaporation due to hotter temperatures. And third, demand for water may increase, because of hotter temperatures. Without adequate monitoring and geological data, the implications for climate change on ground and surface water will remain poorly understood. Communities Communities neighboring the park receive direct economic benefit predominantly through employment with SENAPA departments and tourist facilities; both within the park and the neighboring community areas. An example of the latter is Klein’s Camp, a 10,000 hectares private wildlife concession bordering the 43 KfW/TANAPA (2019) Preparation of an integrated water resources management plan. Serengeti ecosystem development and conservation project. Analytical report. October 2019. 44 KfW/TANAPA (2019) Preparation of an integrated water resources management plan. Serengeti ecosystem development and conservation project. Analytical report. October 2019. 45 KfW/TANAPA (2019) Preparation of an integrated water resources management plan. Serengeti ecosystem development and conservation project. Analytical report. October 2019. 16  |  Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania north- eastern boundary of the park, which is leased from the Maasai community.46 In line with TANAPA’s support for community-initiated projects (SCIP), the communities adjacent to the park are given technical, material and financial assistance to implement community-based development projects, such as the construction of school, health and water facilities and feeder roads to villages.47 Between 1992 and 2016 the park’s revenue sharing program has contributed $1.1 million to the local SCIPs.48 If, under a changing climate, the value generated from tourism declines, the level of support for the SCIP will also decline, impacting negatively on community livelihoods and public services. Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) costs offset benefits from tourism revenues. Annual crop losses from the Greater Serengeti Ecosystem49 have been estimated at $489,000, in addition of livestock losses of $17,600 per year. On average 22 people from villages besides the PA are injured each year, and eight killed usually by elephants). Compensation paid by government for the losses covers less than 20 percent of total financial losses, and very little for injury or loss of human life.50 The HWC compensation requires reform to ensure that losses are adequately compensated, particularly in light of potential declines in the SCIP related to climate change. 3.5.3. Terrestrial mountain: Mount Kilimanjaro National Park A VCA by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) considered the pro-poor impact of tourism expenditure.51 The study estimated that in 2009, 47 percent of a typical climbing holiday expenditure ($1,376, in country) was spent on park fees ($649 per climber), and 18 percent of tourist expenditure was accrued by the poor (just over $100 million per year). The majority of this money is captured in wages and tips, cultural goods, and services and accommodation (table 4). Table 4: Cost components of a typical mountain climbing holiday ($1,376 in-country spend) in Tanzania, in 2009 Expenditure type Proportion Cost Park fees, including daily entrance fee, daily camping fee or hut fee, and rescue fee 47% $649 Wages and tips 18% $247 Tour operator margins 16% $223 Accommodation 6% $84 Food and drink 6% $80 Shopping, including souvenirs, and donations 4% $24 Transport 3% $40 Source: Mitchel, J., Keane, J. and Laidlaw, J. (2009) Making success work for the poor: Package tourism in Northern Tanzania. London, UK: ODI. 46 The lease fee value is not known, but for context, there were 15 operational conservancies in the greater Maasai Mara in 2019, covering 1,425 km2 supporting the livelihoods of over 14,500 households, and with lease fees to the conservancy landowners were over $5 million. Source: Wilhelmsen, S. (2020) ‘Basecamp Masai Mara, Kenya’. Effects of the pandemic on ecotourism destinations and protected area management. LT&C. 11 June 2020 (Webinar). Available at: https://www.ltandc.org/ltc-webinar- highlights-the-importance-of-exchange-and-support-among-ltc- members/?fbclid=IwAR1-ZV1al4KMcj3AwS- IpxPj0Hvk5S_3MeZ82FJbdi_BH1MjiOpN70WUSsk (Accessed: 19 October 2020). 47 TANAPA (undated) Serengeti National Park general management plan (2014–24). 48 Kibira, G. M. M (2021) The economic value of Serengeti National park in Tanzania and implications for adjacent local communities, University of Cape Town, Thesis presented for a doctor of Philosophy. 49 Consisting the Serengeti District and NCAA. 50 Kegamba, J. J., Sangha, K. K., Wurm, P. A. S., Meitamei, J. L., Tiotem, L. G., and Garnett, S. T. (2024) The human and financial costs of conservation for local communities living around the Greater Serengeti ecosystem, Tanzania, Global Ecology and Conservation, 52, e02974. 51 Mitchel, J., Keane, J. and Laidlaw, J. (2009) Making success work for the poor: Package tourism in Northern Tanzania. London, UK: ODI. Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania  |  17 Climbing Mount Kilimanjaro is extremely labor-intensive, with a typical group of 10 climbers supported by two guides, 40 porters and two cooks. The ODI estimated that 35,000 tourists each spending a week on the mountain generated irregular and highly seasonal jobs for about 400 guides, 10,000 porters and 500 cooks.52 On average, it was estimated that annual incomes were $1,830 for guides, $842 for porters, and $771 for cooks in 2009 (table 5). These values were comparable with the average GDP per capita of $668 in 2009 in Tanzania (and of $1,193 in 2022).53 Table 5: Average climbing staff pay (wages and tips) on Mount Kilimanjaro Staff Daily wage ($) Daily tip ($) Pay/trip ($) Trips/year Annual income ($) Guide 10.00 5.38 108 17 1,830 Porter 5.00 3.59 60 14 842 Cook 5.00 2.87 55 14 771 Source: Mitchel, J., Keane, J. and Laidlaw, J. (2009) Making success work for the poor: Package tourism in Northern Tanzania. London, UK: ODI. Unlike most tourist destinations (including the northern circuit), hotel accommodation is a minor element of the Mount Kilimanjaro climbing value chain. This is because climbers typically spend only two nights in hotels – the night before their climb starts and the night after a climb ends. Interviews with tour operators (some of whom run hotels) and hotel surveys indicated that accommodation costs an average of $84 for each climber.54 Notably, these VCA figures are 15 years old, but implications of a changing climate are that climbing Mount Kilimanjaro could become untenable at certain times of year because of the heat. This may lead to a shortening of the climbing season, and (unless fee rates increased) an overall reduction in income for the guides, porters and cooks, and lower levels of income security. 3.5.4. Terrestrial: southern safari circuit Southern Tanzania’s principle attractions are its national parks and reserves, which primarily offer wildlife safaris, including photographic safaris, walking safaris, night game drives, and boat safaris. Of these, Mikumi National Park, Ruaha National Park, and the Selous Game Reserve are the most popular, accounting for more than 75 percent of visitors to the region. The region also boasts beach and marine attractions along the Indian Ocean coastline, mountain ranges such as the Udzungwa Mountains National Park and historical sites such as Kilwa World Heritage Site. Together these attractions provide a diverse palette of activities for potential visitors. Southern Tanzania is also home to a number of ethnic groups that can contribute to and benefit from tourism. Large portions of southern Tanzania remain relatively underdeveloped, and the majority of the region’s population relies on subsistence farming. Communities in the area, particularly those in close proximity to the parks and game reserves share resources such as water with the wildlife and livestock population.55 Actions proposed to enhance access to these parks include improving infrastructure through investments in road networks, increasing air connections and reducing the cost of flights through risk guarantees, and re- establishing rail travel for tourists in the future through public-private partnerships. For example, improving 52 Mitchel, J., Keane, J. and Laidlaw, J. (2009) Making success work for the poor: Package tourism in Northern Tanzania, Final report, London, UK: Overseas Development Institute. 53 The World Bank (undated) GDP per capita (current $) – Tanzania. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=TZ. 54 Mitchel, J., Keane, J. and Laidlaw, J. (2009) Making success work for the poor: Package tourism in Northern Tanzania, Final report, London, UK: Overseas Development Institute. 55 Matinyi, R., Shutzer, M., Jones, S and Dougherty, J. (2015) A strategy for tourism development in southern Tanzania, July 2025, Dalberg Global Development Advisors & Solimar International, USAID. 18  |  Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania the A7 road, which connects Dar es Salaam to Morogoro and serves as a gateway to other southern cities and Mikumi, Ruaha, Selous, and Udzungwa, as well as dirt roads that connect Ruaha, Selous, and Udzungwa to the major road arteries.56 Investments proposed to expansion and enhancement of tourism products Selous and Udzungwa include improved roads, trails and airstrips; and in Mikumi improving roads, the number of flights, expanding accommodation, and in both Mikumi and Ruaha - improving community engagement in tourism services.57 In 2014 it was estimated that implementing actions to strengthen the southern circuit could result in $75 million a year in total direct annual economic impact for Tanzania (not including the substantial multiplier effect of spending) and $8 million a year in additional revenues in PA revenues in Southern Tanzania.58 Note that currently PA revenues accrue to the national consolidated fund, rather than being retained by the agencies. 3.5.5. Terrestrial: wildlife management areas Several analyses have been undertaken of the revenues and costs of WMAs in relation to tourism in the past. For example, a review was conducted in 2012 of four WMAs operating photographic tourism: Enduimet, Burunge, Ikona and IdoiPawaga. At this time the level of revenue collected from non-consumptive tourism (from 501 beds in 20 lodges and camps) exceeded hunting revenue59 (figure 10 and appendix B). Figure 10: WMA revenue in nominal $ 1,200 1,000 800 US$ thousands 600 400 200 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Hunting Game viewing Source: WWF (2014) Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas: A 2012 Status Report, WWF, Dar es Salaam. In 2016, Randelin WMA had four tourism accommodations, with 80 beds, and hosted 4,088 during the previous year who stayed for 1.75 nights on average. The total estimated accommodation revenue to accommodation was $2,046,200 that year, of which 4 percent of this was retained locally in the WMA ($81,000) (figure 11). Most of the revenue was retained through local wage ($20,100), along with local boma visits and traditional dances ($18,100) and WMA fees ($27,400). Collectively, the four accommodations employed a total of 133 people, of which 47 were from WMA communities (35 percent), 83 were from other parts of Tanzania (62 percent), and 3 were expatriates (2 percent).60 56 Matinyi, R., Shutzer, M., Jones, S and Dougherty, J. (2015) A strategy for tourism development in southern Tanzania, July 2025, Dalberg Global Development Advisors & Solimar International, USAID. 57 Matinyi, R., Shutzer, M., Jones, S and Dougherty, J. (2015) A strategy for tourism development in southern Tanzania, July 2025, Dalberg Global Development Advisors & Solimar International, USAID. 58 Matinyi, R., Shutzer, M., Jones, S and Dougherty, J. (2015) A strategy for tourism development in southern Tanzania, July 2025, Dalberg Global Development Advisors & Solimar International, USAID. 59 WWF (2014) Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas: A 2012 Status Report, WWF, Dar es Salaam. 60 Spenceley, A. and Bell, D. (2016) Review of economic valuation studies and value chain analyses of wildlife-based tourism in Tanzania, Workshop 31 May 2016, The Arusha Hotel, Arusha, Tanzania. Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania  |  19 Figure 11: Value chain analysis of tourism in Randelin WMA ($values) Node Accommodation Food & Drink Shopping Entertainment & excursions Gross $1.9 m $65,000 $94,500 $19,500 Revenue (USD) Direct Tour operators Service Providers Lodges/Lodge craft shops Game viewing Village tour Tented camps (permanent/semi-perm/mobile) Traditional dancing Direct Local $20,100 WMA Wages $18,100 Services (USD) Boma visits/ dances $27,400 Middlemen Retail WMA fees Craft producers Wholesalers Markets Indirect Service No WMA $13,700 Provider Local production Goods (USD) Local wages Local of Retailers/ production wholesalers None $1,700 (0.1%) Total Value Retained $81,000 Locally (USD) (4%) Source: Spenceley, A. and Bell, D. (2016) Review of economic valuation studies and value chain analyses of wildlife-based tourism in Tanzania, Workshop 31 May 2016, The Arusha Hotel, Arusha, Tanzania. In terms of scaling up, not all WMAs are suitable for tourism. However, a number of WMAs in Southern Tanzania have potential for photographic tourism if developed and managed appropriately. The high potential WMAs in the South are primarily located around the main road access points to Ruaha and Selous as well as the buffer zone around Mikumi. Smaller-scale businesses within the WMAs should be explored and developed through the community tourism program described previously. For WMAs to become independently sustainable, larger-scale investments and revenue sources are needed. For tourism this means mid- and higher-scale accommodation facilities as well as the accompanying services and activities. Experience in the region suggests that the most effective mix of products tends to be community-owned assets (often developed with the help of donor partners) that are co-developed and concessioned to professional private operators.61 Many WMAs have struggled to become financially sustainable (table 6). In general, they are poorly connected to the larger tourism value chains in the area, and thus have limited access to markets. It is very difficult for a single community enterprise to effectively reach their target markets without sufficient linkages to the broader economy. This suggests there is need for a collective approach to community-based tourism, which can support their promotion and access to markets. This approach could provide all community products in the region and the country with improved economies of scale for market access efforts. The Honeyguide Foundation suggests that the WMAs adjacent to profitable PAs with strong brands are more likely to be commercially viable. This is because investors may choose to develop accommodation within a WMA (with 61 Matinyi, R., Shutzer, M., Jones, S and Dougherty, J. (2015) A strategy for tourism development in southern Tanzania, July 2025, Dalberg Global Development Advisors & Solimar International, USAID. 20  |  Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania lower fees and remaining space for development), and take day trips into the national park or Ngorongoro crater. There is also a need to enhance the overall products and services offered by communities to attract the markets that are traveling to the region.62 Table 6: Annual estimated profit and loss, for Randilen and Enduimet WMAs (2015) Income/expenditure Randilen WMA Enduimet WMA Total income: Hunting block fees, permit fees, conservation fees, game fees, lodge revenue $52,457 $68,956 Total expenses: Governance, administration, anti-poaching $176,655 $197,635 Gross profit/loss - $124,198 - $128,680 Source: Personal communication with Damian Bell, Honeyguide Foundation, 2015. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) African Nature-Based Tourism platform surveyed NBT tourism enterprises in collaboration with the Community Wildlife Management Areas Consortium. The objective was to assess the degree to which local communities and micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) in the NBT sector of WMAs were being impacted by COVID-19. The types of involvement in NBT included the sale of goods to tourists, owning lodging, and providing tours and transport. Staffing levels amongst the 60 survey respondents declined dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic, from 15,201 (of which only 26 percent were female) to 3,153 (of which only 15 percent were female). For WMAs to become viable areas for NBT, substantial capital investment and capacity building will be required in short and medium term. 3.5.6. Islands: Zanzibar & Chumbe Island Coral Park In 2018 the tourism sector contributed an estimated 28 percent to Zanzibar’s GDP, and 82 percent of its foreign exchange earnings. In 2017 tourism accounted for 68 percent of investments approved by Zanzibar Investment Promotion Authority. The sector also generated an estimated 22,000 direct and 50,000 indirect jobs,63 out of a total population of around 1.4 million. Furthermore, national accounts indicate that accommodation and food services in Zanzibar earned an estimated $135 million from 520,809 tourist arrivals in 2018.64 However, gains have been uneven, and because growth has been driven by undiversified resorts with limited linkages to the local economy, the sector has underperformed in terms of inclusive revenue and job creation.65 A VCA of tourism in Zanzibar conducted by SNV in 2010 found that of $172.1 million in annual tourism revenue, only $17.5 million reached the poor (10.2 percent) (figure 12). High impact – high speed interventions that were proposed to increase the proportion of tourism revenue, included upgrading Zanzibari poultry production and fish marketing centers to strengthen supply chains; vocational training for clothing and diversification of paintings to support MSME development; and language and math training to support local employment. Of 80,000 tours and excursions taking place each year, generating around $5.2 million in revenue, around a third are for nature-based activities, such as snorkeling, diving, and dolphin tours).66 62 Matinyi, R., Shutzer, M., Jones, S and Dougherty, J. (2015) A strategy for tourism development in southern Tanzania, July 2025, Dalberg Global Development Advisors & Solimar International, USAID. 63 World Travel and Tourism Council (2018) Annual performance dashboard. Cited in World Bank (2019) Zanzibar: Tourism as a platform for inclusive growth: Integrated strategic action plan for tourism, July 2019. 64 World Bank (2019) Zanzibar: Tourism as a platform for inclusive growth: Integrated strategic action plan for tourism, July 2019. 65 World Bank Group (2021) Transforming tourism: Toward a sustainable, resilient and inclusive sector. Tanzania Economic Update, July 2021. Issue 16. 66 Steck, B., Wood, K. and Bishop, J. (2010) Tourism: More value for Zanzibar. Value chain analysis. Summary report. SNV. Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania  |  21 Figure 12: VCA of tourism in Zanzibar: revenue from each sector and benefit of each to ‘the poor’ Accom. & Tours & Restaurants Retails Services/other Hotel Meals Excursions Revenue (US$) 152 million 7.5 million 6.6 million 5.2 million 0.8 million % Total revenue 88.4 4.4 3.7 3.0 0.5 % pro-poor benefit 7.3 47 27 18.8 Not known Net pro-poor benefit 11.2 million 3.6 million 1.7 million 1.0 million Minimal Source: Steck, B., Wood, K. and Bishop, J. (2010).; SNV (2015) Value chain development as a destination management tool – the Zanzibar example. In 2021, 47.4 percent of the Zanzibar’s population was active in services (including hospitality), 35.5 percent in agriculture, forestry and fishing and 17.1 percent in manufacturing. In Zanzibar, the economy is projected to grow by 6.8 percent in 2022 and 7.2 percent in 2023, driven by the recovery of the tourism sector and agriculture exports.67 Investments in efficiency could bolster the resilience of the tourism sector, enhance its competitiveness, and contribute to the development of the blue economy. Zanzibar has many opportunities to invest in the efficient use of energy and water, increase productivity, reduce post-harvest losses through better storage and transportation, enhance agro-processing, reduce consumer waste, and improve waste management. Solutions for waste management, particularly waste-to-compost systems, are especially urgent, as 60 percent of Zanzibar’s solid waste is not properly processed. Addressing this and other issues will present viable opportunities for private-sector investment and job creation outside the tourism sector. The availability of potable water in Zanzibar is of concern. Continual abstraction of groundwater and unregulated drilling have been influencing the balance of sea and freshwater in aquifers, leading to seawater intrusion.68 Climate change is also well-thought-out to speeding up saltwater intrusions and there is a likely increase in sea level and intrusion in low-lying coastal areas of Tanzania (as observed in the Jozani groundwater forest). The public Zanzibar Water Authority, which is responsible for the extraction and distribution of water on the island, meets only about 62 percent (45,000 cubic meters per day) of water demand and the rest is sourced/extracted from private boreholes and shallow wells.69 Irregularities in seasonal rainfall and warming will influence annual precipitation and daily temperature over time, and this can influence the variability of groundwater.70 Tourists at beach resorts consume an average of 20 times more water than residents.71 The natural environment in Zanzibar is under threat, including from heavy solid and liquid waste pollution that damages coral reefs, beaches, forest and urban areas, while simultaneously creating human health hazards. Coral harvesting for construction affects the reef systems and contributes to coastal erosion, while 67 Bank of Tanzania (2023): Monetary Policy Statement 2023/24, cited in Embassy of Switzerland in Tanzania (2023) Economic report 2023 Tanzania, August 2023. 68 Rubhera, R.A.M.M. (2015) Groundwater Quality Degradation Due to Saltwater Intrusion in Zanzibar Municipality. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 9, 734-740. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJEST2015.1931, cited in Mohammed, L. R., Kai, K. H., Kijazi, A. L, SBakar, S. S and Khamis, S. A (2022) The influence of weather and climate variability on groundwater quality in Zanzibar, Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 12 (4). October 2022, 10.4236/acs.2022.124035. 69 Rubhera, R.A.M.M. (2015) Groundwater Quality Degradation Due to Saltwater Intrusion in Zanzibar Municipality. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 9, 734-740. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJEST2015.1931, cited in Mohammed, L. R., Kai, K. H., Kijazi, A. L, SBakar, S. S and Khamis, S. A (2022) The influence of weather and climate variability on groundwater quality in Zanzibar, Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 12 (4). October 2022, 10.4236/acs.2022.124035. 70 Mohammed, L. R., Kai, K. H., Kijazi, A. L, SBakar, S. S and Khamis, S. A (2022) The influence of weather and climate variability on groundwater quality in Zanzibar, Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 12 (4). October 2022, 10.4236/acs.2022.124035. 71 World Bank Group (2021) Transforming tourism: Toward a sustainable, resilient and inclusive sector. Tanzania Economic Update, July 2021. Issue 16. 22  |  Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania destructive fishing further damages the coral systems. Sustained deforestation is caused by cutting of mangrove forests, and increases in salt farms in Pemba. Despite numerous tourism and natural resource conservation committees, there is little coordination and a lack of regard for climate change adaptation measures. Zoning for tourism under Zanzibar’s Tourism Master Plan has been undermined by hotel encroachment on remaining forests and mangrove areas, and siting to close to the high-water mark.72 Chumbe Island Coral Park, Marine Protected area From 1991 to 1994, the founder of Chumbe Island Coral Park Limited (CHICOP) successfully negotiated with the semi-autonomous government of Zanzibar/Tanzania for the western coral reef and forest of Chumbe Island to be gazetted as an MPA, with management entrusted to CHICOP. The company was specifically established for the purpose of developing and managing the MPA in a financially self-sustainable way, using ecotourism to generate revenue for all MPA operational costs and associated conservation, research and education activities. Through this, Chumbe became the first managed marine park in Tanzania, the first privately managed MPA in the world, and remains one of the very few financially self-sustainable MPAs globally. Though a private limited company, CHICOP is in many respects managed like a nongovernmental organization (NGO), especially concerning participation of a wide variety of stakeholders, as well as detailed planning, monitoring, reporting and documentation of actions and outcomes. Chumbe Island is privately owned, with the land being owned by government.73 Approximately $1.2 million was invested from 1991–98 to develop CHICOP. Half came from the project initiator, one quarter from donor grants, while another quarter was contributed by the professional work of over 50 volunteers.74 In 2019 the land lease on the island was $4,873 annually and the lease on Chukwani is $700 per annum. CHICOP’s annual contributions in taxes average over $100,000 per annum.75 Commercial operations started in 1998 with occupancy reaching around 70 percent in 2016. The annual minimum operational budget is $400,000. No dividends are paid out to shareholders as CHICOP operates in a not-for-profit manner. By 2018, CHICOP received no financial support from government or donors and relies solely on revenue from ecotourism, which has fully funded operations since 2000. However, as no incentives are given to private PAs and other social businesses, CHICOP pays taxes like any other tourism business; these amount to around 25 percent of turnover.76 With 45 full-time employees and only seven rooms, CHICOP has the highest employee/room ratio of any tourism business in Tanzania and employs 200 percent more staff than the international average for ecolodges, prioritizing women and local people, including a marine biologist, educators and park rangers for park management and environmental education programs. Only one staff member is not Tanzanian and 30 percent of the workforce are women. In 2016, CHICOP’s total annual salary expenditure was over $200,000; the total spent on conservation and education activities was over $122,000. CHICOP also provides economic opportunities by outsourcing guest transport and providing a market for local produce. Over two-thirds of the employees come from local communities, each supporting an average of five individuals. In particular, former fishers were recruited and trained as park rangers. Provision of wider income opportunities such as agricultural products for the restaurant, building materials and handicrafts, outsourcing road and boat transport and craft services during maintenance, affect an even higher number of local people. Approximately $34,000 is spent monthly on local suppliers.77 72 World Bank (2019) Zanzibar: Tourism as a platform for inclusive growth: Integrated strategic action plan for tourism, July 2019. 73 Snyman, S. and Spenceley, A. (2019) Private sector tourism in conservation areas in Africa, CABI. 74 Donors included GTZ, CIM, the German Tropical Forest Stamp Programme, the SADC-Environmental Education Programme, US-NOAA and SeaSense. 75 Snyman, S. and Spenceley, A. (2019) Private sector tourism in conservation areas in Africa, CABI. 76 Snyman, S. and Spenceley, A. (2019) Private sector tourism in conservation areas in Africa, CABI. 77 Snyman, S. and Spenceley, A. (2019) Private sector tourism in conservation areas in Africa, CABI. Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania  |  23 Box 2: Chumbe finances and economics in a nutshell • Initial investment: $1.2 million • Overall direct input to Zanzibar economy: > $8,618,000 • 100% of receivables are taken in Zanzibar, and 100% of revenues generated remain within Zanzibar • 0% economic leakage: no overseas payments • Sub-tax and license fee contributions (to date): ~ $1,780,000 • Direct investment in local capacity building: ~ $3,463,000 • Average annual turnover (last 10 years) ~ $527,000 • Protected area management supports the delivery of vital ecosystem goods and services to the people of Zanzibar, entirely financed by CHICOP, with output contributions to local economic well-being of > $12 million • Chumbe Island is the most editorialized single location in Zanzibar. Through press and print publications, CHICOP has generated destination marketing for Zanzibar worth $22.6 million • In televised media, through dedicated documentaries about Chumbe Island, this marketing value has reached $63 million. Source: Chumbe Island Coral Park (2021) Chumbe Island investment overview, September 2021. The reef sanctuary has become one of the most pristine coral reefs in the region, with over 470 fish species and 200 species of hard coral – 90 percent of all recorded in East Africa. The forest reserve is one of the last undisturbed semi-arid ‘coral rag’ forests in Zanzibar, particularly after successful rat eradication in 1997. Chumbe gives sanctuary to highly endangered endemic Aders’ duikers (Cephalophus adersi), threatened by poaching and habitat destruction in Zanzibar. In 2000, three breeding pairs were translocated to Chumbe, supported by Zoo Munich-Hellabrunn, the Chicago Zoological Society, Fauna and Flora International and the WWF. Chumbe also has the world’s largest known population of rare coconut crabs (Birgus latro) listed on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red list and, attracted by abundant fish in the sanctuary, rare roseate terns (Sterna dougalli) bred on Chumbe in 1994, 2006, and 2017.78 CHICOP’s ‘Education for Sustainable Development’ program for fishers, students, teachers, government officials, tourism operators and visitors offers reef one-day field excursions to Chumbe Island, with guided forest walks and snorkeling with help for non-swimmers, especially local girls. Since 2015 the program has hosted over 7,000 schoolchildren, 1,130 teachers and 700 community members.79 Through lessons accumulated over nearly three decades, it can be concluded from this case study that privately protected marine areas supported by ecotourism can be effective and economically viable, even in a challenging political environment. Private management has strong incentives to achieve tangible on-the- ground conservation goals and cooperation with local resource users, as well as generation of income, to be cost-effective and to keep overheads down. Close cooperation with government agencies in establishing and protecting this reserve has enhanced the understanding of environmental issues among local and national authorities. The establishment of the education programs, even prior to developing the tourism infrastructure, has proven critical for success. This has enabled a wide cross-section of society—from schoolchildren and teachers to fishers’ groups—to visit and learn on Chumbe, gaining awareness on both the importance and role of the marine environment in their everyday lives, and the importance of MPAs and the ecosystem services being supported by Chumbe’s protected habitats.80 78 Snyman, S. and Spenceley, A. (2019) Private sector tourism in conservation areas in Africa, CABI. 79 Snyman, S. and Spenceley, A. (2019) Private sector tourism in conservation areas in Africa, CABI. 80 Snyman, S. and Spenceley, A. (2019) Private sector tourism in conservation areas in Africa, CABI. 24  |  Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania Figure 13: Ecosystem goods and services provisioned through financing from CHICOP • Nutrient cycling (including detritus for aquatic food web) • Production engines for nearshore demersal fisheries (adapted from UN Environment, 2018) • Carbon store • Nursery for 25% of pelagic deepwater fishery species Coastal Forest Habitat (adapted from Pearce, 1991) Coastal Reef Habitat • Air and water pollution reduction • Breeding area for commercial shellfish and bi-valves • Watershed protection • Carbon sequestration • Education and research • Aquatic nutrient cycling • Non-timber mangrove products (including fish and shellfish) • Shoreline protection • Microclimate function • Combating storm surges • Genetic resources • Flood barrier protection • Premium to preserve (genes for plant breeding) • Pharmaceutical proper ties Source: Chumbe Island Coral Park (2021) Chumbe Island investment overview, September 2021. Should the island’s ecosystems and natural attractions be undermined through storm surges, SLR, coral degradation, and other impacts of climate change, its capacity to support ecosystems goods and services, and its inhabitants, will undoubtedly deteriorate. As a consequence, marine conservation needs more political support from governments and the international conservation community, as well as recognition of the contributions that the private sector can make to both effective conservation area management and the livelihoods of local people on the ground.81 3.6. Policy context This section provides an overview of key policies affecting NBT in Tanzania, and their implications from the perspective of a changing climate. 3.6.1. Protected area visitation targets Reports suggest that the Ministry for Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT) has set TANAPA a target for 3 million tourists to national parks in 2024, and 5 million by 2025, while strengthening the protection of natural resources in national parks, by dealing with wildlife crime. This would be partly done by spreading visitation and tourist expenditure to all 16 national parks, rather than concentrating on five main parks: Serengeti, Kilimanjaro, Tarangire, Manyara, and Nyere. The conservation commissioner would be responsible for ensuring the parks had adequate facilities and human resources to achieve this, including by collaborating with stakeholders including the Tanzania Tourism Board.82 This strategy of diversifying natural destinations visited is compatible with a changing climate, and if planned in relation to predicted precipitation, temperature, and sea level changes (section 4), could provide greater resilience to the NBT sector, and livelihoods that it supports. However, rather than focusing on visitor numbers, per se, a more effective approach is to focus on yield per visitor, and extend their length of stay, in order to increase the overall tourism revenue. Ensuring that more of the expenditure of those visitors is retained in the local economies of PAs will further strengthen the livelihood resilience of local communities. 81 Snyman, S. and Spenceley, A. (2019) Private sector tourism in conservation areas in Africa, CABI. 82 Kayere, M. (2024) New TANAPA boss given tourists arrival target for 2024, Daily news, https://dailynews.co.tz/new-tanapa-boss-given-tourists- arrival-target-for-2024/. Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania  |  25 3.6.2. Visitor fees and protected area budgets Since 2013, TANAPA has had a policy to review its conservation fees every two years, and new fees are communicated to stakeholders one year before they are put into effect, to allow appropriate time for any business adjustments.83 Due to a policy change under President Magafuli, park revenues that were previously retained by PA authorities were instead sent to the national consolidated fund through the Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA), and agencies submit budgets for funding. An overview of the PA budget for the 2022/23 to 2023/24 are outlined in tables 7 and 8 below Table 7: Ministry’s non-tax revenue for 2022/23 and collections for 2023/24 (to April 2024) deposited to the Consolidated Fund through the TRA Institution Collections for 2022/23 (TZS) Estimates for 2023/24 (TZS) Collections up to April 2024 TANAPA 282,825,596,835 339,115,231,823 353,438,677,730 NCAA 171,322,125,734 155,400,000,000 188,519,361,412 TAWA 55,570,877,935 78,390,387,648 57,647,139,960 Source: World Bank translation by I. Mkiramweni from Swahili source - Jamhuri Ya Muungano wa Tanzania Wizara ya Maliasili na Utalii, Hotuba ya Wazir awa Maliasili na Ttalii, Muheshimiwa Angellah J. Kairuki (MB), Kuhusu Makadirio ya Mapato na Matumizi kwa mmwaka wa fedha 2024/2025, Dodomoa, Mei, 2024. Table 8: Estimated revenue for the 2024/25 Institution Funds approved for the year 2023/24 (TZS) Estimates for the year 2024/25 (TZS) I: Consolidated fund TAWA 78,390,387,648 94,558,757,000 II: Institutions that collect and spend TANAPA 339,115,231,823 430,864,198,480 NCAA 155,400,000,000 230,000,000,000 Source: World Bank translation by I. Mkiramweni from Swahili source - Jamhuri Ya Muungano wa Tanzania Wizara ya Maliasili na Utalii, Hotuba ya Wazir awa Maliasili na Ttalii, Muheshimiwa Angellah J. Kairuki (MB), Kuhusu Makadirio ya Mapato na Matumizi kwa mmwaka wa fedha 2024/2025, Dodomoa, Mei, 2024. 3.6.3. Tourism concession regulations Tanzania has regulations for Special Wildlife Investment Concession Areas (CAP. 283, Govt. notice 28, 2020) in TAWA’s PAs, and forest ecotourism facility concessions (CAP 323, Govt. notice no. 85, 2020) regulating tourism concessions in TFS forests.84 It is unclear whether there are comparable regulations for concessions in national parks and in the NCCA. The investment prospectus for TANAPA suggests that the legal framework exists, but regulations are not specified. 83 A. Bruner, B. Kessy, J. Mnaya, J. Wakibara, and J. Maldonado (2015) Tourists’ Willingness to Pay to Visit Tanzania’s National Parks: A Contingent Valuation Study, Conservation Strategy Fund, 2015, https://www.conservation-strategy.org/publication/tourists-willingness-pay-visit-tanzanias- national-parks-contingent-valuation-study. 84 TANAPA’s investment manual 2023 (see https://www.tanzaniaparks.go.tz/publications/22). 26  |  Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania 3.6.4. Environmental impact assessment The government’s National Environment Management Council publishes procedures for carrying out environmental impact assessments (EIA) and environmental audits,85 and an EIA training manual.86 EIAs in PAs are conducted in accordance with the Environmental Management Act (2004) and are required in natural conservation areas. However, the situation in the Serengeti described above suggests that the growth of permanent and mobile tourism facilities and infrastructure has not taken place in line with the park’s management plan, and by 2019 was already triple the 2025 target at nearly 6,000 beds. Therefore, it appears that the process of conducting EIAs, and their peer review, needs to be re-visited to ensure future development is in line with conservation principles. The regulatory requirement committing the government and leading agencies to conduct strategic environmental assessments (SEAs) is underpinned by the Environmental Management Act (EMA No. 20, 2004) and SEA Regulations (2008). The EMA requires SEAs to be undertaken when promulgating bills, regulations, policies, strategies, programs, and plans. The Environment Division, through the Director of Environment, is responsible for promoting the integration of environmental considerations into development of policies, plans and programs (PPP) through the use of SEA.87 To facilitate SEA processes, the director adopted specific guidelines in 2017 to provide procedures of undertaking SEA in the country.88 A review of eight Tanzanian SEAs found that they are not consistently implemented, and enter the planning process late, so limiting their ability to influence the development of PPPs. Recommendations for improvement included the establishment of enforcement mechanisms for conducting SEA through performance audits; introduction of registered SEA experts with practicing SEA certificates; responsible authorities to allocate funds for undertaking SEA; as well as conducting awareness and education programs to the responsible authorities and experts to review, monitor, and conduct SEA effectively.89 Given the implications of climate change, it would be advisable for future EIAs and SEAs to address implications for the siting and design of infrastructure in terrestrial PAs and along the coast, in terms of the availability of potable water, fire hazards, SLR, increased storm surges, and so on. For example, destination SEAs could provide useful insights to inform future tourism planning and permissions for major landscapes, such as the northern and southern circuits, in light of a changing climate. 3.6.5. Tax and subsidies for protected area expansion The World Bank’s Economic Update for Tanzania indicated that there had been a robust recovery of the tourism sector following the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with elevated demand for private credit which supported growth (figure 14). The Economic Update suggests that tourism is the primary driver for growth and jobs in the country.90 85 https://www.nemc.or.tz/uploads/publications/en-1576238362-EIA%20PROCEDURE.pdf. 86 https://www.nemc.or.tz/uploads/publications/en-1576238321-EIA%20Training%20Manual%20Version%204.pdf. 87 URT (2004). National Environmental Management Act. No. 20 of 2004. Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania (URT): Government printer, cited in Alfred, E. and Qamara, J. (2021) Effectiveness of strategic enviornemntal assessment in promoting sustianble development in Tanzania, Rsearch report 21/16, August 2021, Uongozi Institute https://uongozi.or.tz/newsite/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Effectiveness-of-strategic- environmental-assessment.pdf. 88 URT (2017). National Guidelines for Strategic Environmental Assessment. Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania (URT): Government printer, cited in Alfred, E. and Qamara, J. (2021) Effectiveness of strategic enviornemntal assessment in promoting sustianble development in Tanzania, Rsearch report 21/16, August 2021, Uongozi Institute https://uongozi.or.tz/newsite/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Effectiveness-of-strategic- environmental-assessment.pdf. 89 Alfred, E. and Qamara, J. (2021) Effectiveness of strategic enviornemntal assessment in promoting sustianble development in Tanzania, Rsearch report 21/16, August 2021, Uongozi Institute https://uongozi.or.tz/newsite/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Effectiveness-of-strategic-environmental- assessment.pdf. 90 World Bank Group (2023) Tanzania Economic Update: The efficiency and effectiveness of fiscal policy in Tanzania, Issue 19. Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania  |  27 Figure 14: Tourism arrivals and private credit 180 30 150 25 120 20 Arrivals in ı000 y/y % growth 90 15 60 10 30 5 0 0 Feb-20 Feb-22 Feb-23 Feb-19 Jun-19 Oct-19 Jun-20 Oct-20 Feb-21 Jun-21 Oct-21 Jun-22 Oct-22 Jun-23 Tourist arrivals (left axis) Private credit (right axis) Source: World Bank Group (2023) Tanzania Economic Update: The efficiency and effectiveness of fiscal policy in Tanzania, Issue 19. Fiscal policies and subsidies play a significant role in promoting the expansion of PAs, even under less- than-ideal circumstances. In the case of Tanzania, there are policies and laws that offer incentives for the conservation of PAs. These include: • The income tax law, which may provide tax benefits to companies and individuals engaged in conservation activities. • Subsidies granted to communities actively involved in the management of PAs. These can contribute to the sustainable development of local communities and strengthen their commitment to conservation. • Subsidies aimed at sustainable management practices that are compatible with conservation, such as promoting sustainable agriculture and fostering ecotourism. These measures seek to incentivize economic activities that are environmentally friendly and contribute to biodiversity protection. 28  |  Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania 4. NBT Potential in Tanzania Under a Changing Climate Climate scenarios suggest considerable change for Tanzanian protected and conserved areas by 2050, which will have substantial implications for wildlife and the NBT industry. 4.1. Changes in precipitation, temperature and drought risk Figure 15 shows the predicted change in precipitation, under the mean value of three projected climate scenarios that the IEc refers to as dry/hot for temperature change, and therefore is relevant to droughts. Figure 15: Precipitation change in Tanzanian protected and conserved areas Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania  |  29 Of note is the extreme drop in rainfall predicted in Mikumi National Park, Selous Game Reserve and Ruaha National Park in the south (which are target areas for the southern safari circuit), and in Mukomazi and Umba in the north, and on Pemba Island of the north coast. Coupled with the reduction in available water—that is, reduced precipitation—is a projected increase in the demand for water across Tanzania, by 2040 (figure 16). Figure 16: Projected change in water supply and demand Water supply in 2040 (business Water supply in 2040 (pessimistic Water demand in 2040 (business Water demand in 2040 as usual scenario, change from scenario, change from baseline) as usual scenario, change from (pessimistic scenario, change baseline) baseline) from baseline) Water Supply Water Supply 1.7x or 1.4x 1.2x Near 1.2x 1.4x 1.7x or 1.7x or 1.4x 1.2x Near 1.2x 1.4x 1.7x or greater decrease decrease normal increase increase greater greater decrease decrease normal increase increase greater decrease increase decrease increase No data No data Available blue water–the total amount of renewable freshwater available Gross demand is the maximum potential water required to meet to a sub-basin with upstream consumption removed–includes surface sectoral demands. Sectoral water demand includes: domestic, flow, interflow, and groundwater recharge. industrial, irrigation, and livestock. Demand is displayed as a flux Available blue water is displayed as a flux (cm/year) (cm/year). Source: World Bank Group (2024) CCDR Water diagnostic for Tanzania v4 Slide 7. Furthermore, the majority of inland Tanzania is predicted to experience a mean temperature increase of 1.24– 1.38°C by 2050 under the dry/hot 2050 mean future. Figure 17a illustrates how the highest temperature rises (1.30–1.38°C) are predicted in the Serengeti, Ngorongoro and Tarangire National Parks and adjacent game reserves and WMAs in the north, in addition to Ruaha National Park and Rungwa, Kizigo and Muhesi Game Reserves in the central region, and also Selous Game Reserve, Mikumi and the Udzungwa Mountains in the south. Areas predicted for very high probability of drought by 2050 (figure 17b), again include the southern circuit parks, include the Selous Game Reserve, Mikumi and the Udzungwa Mountains in the south. Extreme weather events lead to the loss of plants and animals, unable to cope with the drastic conditions and lack of water due to longer dry spells and hotter temperatures. As a consequence, seriously threatens charismatic species like rhinos, elephants, and lions which are key draws for NBT, as it reduces the amount of food available.91 The elephant has significant water needs, and one elephant can use up to 15–300 liters per day for drinking, bathing and spraying water on their bodies to cool down. For the black rhino, males only establish breeding territories where there is permanent surface water while the water-dependent white rhino require frequent mud baths for thermoregulation and keeping off parasites. Hippos spend over 12 hours per day in water bodies ranging from rivers to manmade ponds during dry seasons. The depletion of natural water habitats due to rising temperatures presents the species with a variety of challenges. Overcrowding also allows for the faster transmission of diseases while infighting over shrinking territories has resulted in the loss of males.92 91 Philip Wandera, a former warden with the Kenya Wildlife Service, quoted in Kabukuru, W. (2022) Climate change and infrastructure threaten wildlife in Africa, The Christian Science Monitor, 11 August 2022, https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2022/0811/Climate-change-and- infrastructure-threaten-wildlife-in-Africa. 92 Wasige, S. (2017) Supporting wildlife species in the face of climate change, 15 November 2017, African Wildlife Foundation. https://www.awf. org/blog/supporting-wildlife-species-face-climate-change. 30  |  Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania These impacts suggest that wildlife will either die, or move to cooler areas with more food, and therefore potentially out of PAs and into lands where people live and agriculture is practiced. “We have to have a future where wildlife is not separated from people,” said Sam Shaba, the program manager at the Honeyguide Foundation in Tanzania, organization.93 More intensive management of parks and removing fences that prevent species from migrating to less drought-prone areas could be important steps to protecting wildlife.94 However, removal of fences could also exacerbate human-wildlife conflict (HWC). Figure 17: Temperature change and drought risk in Tanzanian protected and conserved areas a) Temperature increase (dry/hot) by 2050 b) Drought risk (dry/hot) by 2050 4.1.1. Implications for terrestrial NBT Displacement of wildlife from the southern and northern PAs caused by reduced and more unpredictable rainfall, coupled with higher temperatures and more fires, have implications for the viability, location and design of NBT infrastructure. Predictions for the NBT sector under a BAU and ASP economy scenarios are explored here. Implications under a BAU economy scenario • Wildlife populations decrease, and shift in distribution to cooler wetter areas, potentially outside national parks and game reserves. Potential collapse of ecological attractions that drive tourism, such as the wildebeest migration in the Serengeti. 93 Kabukuru, W. (2022) Climate change and infrastructure threaten wildlife in Africa, The Christian Science Monitor, 11 August 2022, https://www. csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2022/0811/Climate-change-and-infrastructure-threaten-wildlife-in-Africa. 94 Philip Wandera, as cited in Kabukuru, W. (2022) Climate change and infrastructure threaten wildlife in Africa, The Christian Science Monitor, 11 August 2022, https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2022/0811/Climate-change-and-infrastructure-threaten-wildlife-in-Africa. Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania  |  31 • Reduced NBT visitation in hotter, dryer parks (Serengeti, Ngorongoro and Tarangire National Parks and adjacent game reserves and WMAs in the north, in addition to Ruaha National Park and Rungwa, Kizigo and Muhesi Game Reserves in the central region, and also Selous Game Reserve, Mikumi and the Udzungwa Mountains in the south) due to reduced wildlife and inhospitable climatic conditions. • Fixed accommodation facilities are not adapted to a changed climate, and do not function in areas of lower water and higher temperatures, and are no longer in proximity to wildlife areas. With reduced turnover, some reduce staff and/or close down (particularly for those businesses that were highly stressed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and have not fully recovered their reserves). • Investment plans for national parks are not aligned with climate predictions, and lead to over- capitalization in areas that are less viable for future NBT. • Mobile camps move to where they can find wildlife and water, and persist or potentially increase. • Reduction in revenue to tourism enterprises in the hotter/dryer parks, and less money flowing through value chains to local employees and suppliers of goods and services to tourists. • Associated reduction in revenues from tourists to PA authorities of TANAPA, NCCA, TAWA and TFS— for example, from entrance and other gate fees—particularly from international travelers who select competing non-Tanzanian destinations instead. • Reduced contributions of NBT to national treasury. Implications under an ASP economy scenario • Strategic planning: Actions to address the changing distribution of wildlife for NBT may include destination-level planning and coordination, rather than independent tourism planning in each national park, game reserve, WMA and village for clusters of PAs. Core PAs, surrounded by buffer zones of protection with non-consumptive tourism operated, and with outlying conservation areas operating consumptive (hunting) tourism, could strengthen and expand the wildlife tourism landscape.95 • Environmental Impact Assessments: EIA processes are expanded in geographical scope, and the monitoring and enforcement of EIA requirements more complicated. The business and hospitality structure for NBT facilities will also need to adapt accordingly. Drone technology and remote sensing may be used increasingly by operators to find wildlife for their guests to view. • Locations of tourism facilities: To improve the NBT sector and associated revenues, locations of tourism accommodation, and mobile camps become cognizant of moving wildlife and water. Facilities operating in national parks and game reserves may, for example, move into WMAs run by community members adjacent to national parks and game reserves. This may lead to the deterioration and/ or abandonment of existing infrastructure in some established parks as operating NBT facilities in some locations may become unviable if there is no groundwater or surface water available for their operations. However, this may be coupled with new investment required for facilities in WMAs, if they have better conditions under a hotter, dryer climate. • Green architecture and retrofitting: Architectural design of accommodation and visitor facilities adapts to changing climate, ensuring that natural cooling is integrated into the design of new facilities, and retrofitted onto existing tourism facilities (to reduce reliance on energetically expensive air conditioning). The design of accommodations and support facilities can adopt lower water consumption infrastructure and approaches, including installing low-flow showerheads, composting toilets, rainwater harvesting, and gray-water recycling. Infrastructure design can also integrate 95 Spenceley, A. (2016) Assessment of the development of non-consumptive tourism activities under Tanzania Wildlife Management Authority (TAWA): Part 2: Results and analysis, Report to GiZ and the Wildlife Division. 32  |  Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania energy-efficient and natural-cooling technologies. These can be supported by application of LEED and BREEAM certifications96 for sustainable infrastructure design. These designs and modifications will decrease operational expenses in the long-term, while making them more climate-resilient. • Mobile vs static accommodation: There may become a greater emphasis on special (mobile) safari camps, that can move as wildlife moves. This will have implications for infrastructure (such as boreholes and access tracks), labor and procurement—and the viability of sourcing these from ‘local communities’ if transient, and the monitoring and controls of environmental impacts, with more dispersed and dynamic spatial distribution of NBT activity and infrastructure. • Visitor source markets: As wildlife distribution patterns and seasons change domestic and regional travelers may become more resilient source markets, with associated lower carbon footprints. Adapting tourism products and services, and also promotion and pricing to target these local markets, would be prudent. Given the lack of granular detail of tourism data that was available for this review, and difficulty in predicting the level to which wildlife will move/deteriorate, it has not been possible to estimate the actual potential change in the number of jobs, nor changes in NBT revenues from visitors. 4.2. Changes in sea level rise Figure 18 illustrates projected SLR along the Tanzanian coast. While 5 meters SLR is highly unlikely, some parts of Zanzibar have experienced coastal flooding of +6 meters due to tsunamis. Values above 2 meters do not represent a climate risk as much as a natural hazard risk. Figure 18: Sea level rise and Tanzania’s marine protected areas 96 https://www.usgbc.org/leed; https://breeam.com/. Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania  |  33 Taking Zanzibar as an example suggests that tourism infrastructure around Stone town on the West coast, and the central-East coast, will be most heavily affected by SLR.97 This implies that there will be a need for more climate-resilient infrastructure, adapted planning for the siting of new facilities, and also coastal protection through nature-based solutions. Figure 19: Zanzibar and Chumbe Island a) Sea level rise projection b) Zanzibar hotels Source (panel b): Google 4.2.1. Implications for marine NBT Implications SLR in coastal areas has implications for coastal tourism infrastructure located close to MPAs, where marine NBT activities take place. Predictions for the coastal NBT sector under a BAU and ASP economy scenarios are explored here. Implications under a BAU economy scenario • Displacement of people: The coasts of Tanzania and Zanzibar are highly vulnerable to climate change and SLR. It is estimated that by 2030 the coastal zones of the country could experience a cumulative land loss of almost 8,000 km2 to erosion and submergence, while approximately 1.6 million people per year will be impacted by flooding, and a significant number of people forced to migrate. This could lead to direct climate change costs as high as $55 million per year.98 97 Chumbe Island Coral Park (2021) Chumbe Island investment overview, September 2021. 98 Nordic Development Fund, (2011) Climate change adaptation in the coastal region of Tanzania, 6 June 2011, https://www.ndf.int/newsroom/ climate-change-adaptation-in-the-coastal-region-of-tanzania.html. 34  |  Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania • Reef die-off leads to reduction in marine wildlife tourism: Over the past few decades, coral reefs have been degraded on a massive scale in Tanzania. Several factors have contributed to this, including the reefs’ closeness to land, making them particularly prone to human impact, either from exploitation or the use of destructive practices, or from indirect terrestrial influence such as sedimentation and pollution. The most degraded coral reefs are those found in shallow waters, especially near the urban centers of Tanga, Dar es Salaam and Mtwara. Many reefs were severely affected by the global coral bleaching event of 1997–98, which drastically reduced the average live coral cover, followed by another bleaching event in 2016.99 The combination of pollution, physical damage, changes in sea temperature and currents, and certain NBT activities (such as diving, snorkeling, fishing) may exacerbate ecological impacts on marine habitats. For example, there may be further die-offs in coral, which in turn will affect habitats for fish that local livelihoods rely upon. Some forms of marine-based tourism, including snorkeling and diving may become unviable if the coral dies. • Coastal infrastructure damaged or destroyed: Sea level rise will increase the likelihood of natural flooding disasters and increased coastal erosion. These will affect coastal tourism infrastructure, including accommodation on islands such as Pemba and Zanzibar. Access infrastructure in coastal and island destinations – including airstrips, airports, and jetties – will likely be increasingly damaged by storm surges and SLR. Implications under an ASP economy scenario • Accommodation infrastructure: Accommodations are made more resilient to climate change, by being relocated further inland where possible, and re-designed or retrofitted to withstand harsher sea conditions—for example, amphibious accommodations. • Access infrastructure: Access infrastructure – including airstrips, airports, and jetties – is repaired, redesigned and/or re-developed at alternative locations, to reduce the impact of SLR and extreme weather events. • Coral reef restoration: Investment is made to encourage reef replenishment, including through coral nurseries and re-planting corals. • Coastal defenses strengthened: Nature-based solutions for coastal defenses and engineering, including planting mangroves, beach replenishment, and the use of blue barriers. These should be established within the context of broader Integrated Coastal Zone plans. 99 Chevallier, R. (2019) Tanzania’s coastal and marine habitats and ecosystems, South African Institute of International Affairs, https://www.jstor. org/stable/resrep29563.8. Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania  |  35 5. Key Policy and Investment Needs to Achieve Policy Potential Tanzania is a globally recognized destination for NBT, but this market segment has become increasingly competitive. To maximize its comparative advantage, the government and other stakeholders must work together to protect the integrity of the landscapes and seascapes on which the sector depends. This section of the report presents a series of recommended policies, regulations and investments (private and public) required to ensure NBT benefits, in a changing climate. They are structured into short- and medium-term actions, and those that will buffer against climate risks and strengthen resilience. With the threats of climate change, marine conservation needs more political support from governments and the international conservation community, as well as recognition of the contributions that the private sector can make to both effective conservation area management and the livelihoods of local people on the ground.100 A series of policy and investment recommendations are provided in table 9, based on this analysis, while table 10 provides an overview of the recommendations. Table 9: Description and timeframe for policy actions Actions (short- and Description of action Ecosystem type medium-term) Short- term actions (within 2 years, by 2026) 1. Establish a Include information on visitation and tourism values captured (including all gate fees, concession fees, Terrestrial, database of license fees, bed-nights, number of jobs, value of procured services and products from local economies coastal and tourism statistics etc). Environmental data to be captured would include water use, locations and footprint of tourism marine for protected and operations, and waste. The data collation will require collaboration between the PA authorities (i.e. TAWA, conserved areas TANAPA, NCCA, TFS), and National Bureau of Statistics and finance agencies. 2. Feasibility Establish the feasibility revenue generation from NBT in national parks, game reserves, WMAs and MPAs Terrestrial studies and that are less visited, and generate lower revenues currently. Note that using the game reserves and WMAs tourism plans and community forest management areas101 as buffers will be increasingly important for wildlife migrating for less-visited away from hotter, dryer areas for food. protected and Integrate WTP studies for less visited parks, and equivalent benchmarking analyses for visitor and conserved areas concession tariffs in the studies. Establish the feasibility of expanding and diversifying the tourism products and services in the less-visited destinations, for the benefit of conservation management funds and the sustainable livelihoods of local people. Plan collective marketing and promotion of WMAs adjacent to PAs with strong existing brands. Ensure the feasibility studies are informed by PA management plans and zonation, and predicted future changes in wildlife and water distribution, and seasonality of visitation due to high temperatures/ changing rainfall. 100 Snyman, S. and Spenceley, A. (2019) Private sector tourism in conservation areas in Africa, CABI. 101 https://www.rbge.org.uk/science-and-conservation/genetics-and-conservation/global-environmental-change/forest-conservation-in-tanzania/. 36  |  Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania Actions (short- and Description of action Ecosystem type medium-term) 3. Evaluate the Establish spatial and temporal plans for seasonal and special camping, potentially with real-time Terrestrial and environmental, Geographic Information System mapping of locations to match distribution with variations in wildlife and coastal economic and water availabilities due to climate change. Pilot assessment in the Serengeti first, and then expand to social impact of other PAs with similar issues. NBT, including: Ensure the prevalence and distribution of seasonal and mobile safari camps in PAs are monitored and in (a) seasonal and line with strategic plans. special camping (mobile, temporary Ensure EIAs are cognizant of the availability of potable water, fire hazards, SLR, and storm surges camps,) (b) water predicted under a changing climate. consumption Assess water consumption from groundwater, surface water and rainfall in parks due to be hotter and dryer under climate change. Establish volumes required to support wildlife populations and allowable extraction levels for tourism, and for sustainable livelihoods (e.g. crops, livestock). Focus on parks with high levels of visitation (e.g. Serengeti, Ngorongoro Crater, Arusha). 4. Revisit policy The MNRT has set TANAPA a target for 3 million tourists to national parks in 2024, and 5 million by 2025. Terrestrial targets for PAs set Rather than focusing on numbers, per se, a more resilient approach is to focus on yield per visitor and trip for TANAPA (in relation to the fees paid and length of stay) rather than numbers of visitors, in order to maximize net- positive benefits to the environment and economy. 5. Calculate Investment and infrastructure costs described include those outlined in the feasibility studies (see Terrestrial, the investment 2, above), including those for domestic visitors). Incorporate costs for: (a) access infrastructure coastal and costs for NBT (airstrips, roads, jetties) with options for public-private partnerships; and (b) direct tourism products marine infrastructure (accommodation, restaurants, information centers, etc). required under the Ensure that all types of PA are included: including national parks, game reserves, forests and WMAs, different climate including those that are already well established destinations, and also those that are less visited. and business scenarios Establish infrastructure needs and associated for different cohorts of visitors (e.g. expanding domestic offerings, in addition to facilities for expatriates and international visitors). Include green-design investments, such as renewable energy, environmentally sensitive design and low-carbon construction materials. Describe relevant financing mechanisms to support each type of investment, and pipelines of investment. 6. Capacity Provide training and improve capacity and understanding among planners and architects on Terrestrial, building and environmentally sensitive infrastructure development that is mitigates climate change (e.g. low-carbon coastal and training for green inputs during construction; low carbon operations through integration of renewable energy and natural marine planning and cooling systems). Integrate understanding of BREEAM and LEED certification for green building design. design 7. Establish Marketing and promotion strategies for less-frequented (and lower revenue generating) PAs including Terrestrial, and implement WMAs102 and Forest Reserves, coupled with adequate visitor infrastructure and transport linkages. By coastal and strategic doing so, the ecological pressure on specific PAs will be relieved, and resilience of the NBT sector to marine marketing climate shocks in specific destinations (e.g. fire or drought) will be strengthened. and branding Incorporate marketing to reduce seasonality, and shift seasonal peaks in relation to natural attractions campaigns to (e.g. if migratory events in the Serengeti change temporally as well as spatially; if climbing Kilimanjaro is diversify traveler too hot for certain times of the year). itineraries Factor in marketing for domestic markets (citizens and expatriates) to PAs in addition to international visitors. 8. Update the When updating the masterplan, ensure that predicted changes to NBT and coastal tourism infrastructure Terrestrial, 2002 Integrated and activity distribution are accounted for, within the context of changing land-use patterns for wildlife and coastal and Tourism livelihoods resulting from climate change. marine Masterplan Ensure that the plan accounts for PA management plans, including the zonation and bed limits defined under ecological parameters. Include suggested itineraries to less-visited parks with tourism potential, and plans for sustainable infrastructure improvements for visitors (e.g. access roads, airstrips and jetties; ablutions; accommodation; interpretation etc). Integrate requirements for capacity building, training and financing for local entrepreneurs and MSMES to engage in the tourism value chain. Integrate value chains strengthening plans, particularly for MSMEs and community-based enterprises, such as those within WMAs. Consider options to smooth the seasonality of visitation of visitation (to the country, and its PAs), by considering domestic and regional travelers, in addition to international source markets. This will reduce financial shocks to the PA tourism economies with a changing climate, and improve resilience of the sector. 102 Similar to “Tanzania’s Southern Circuit Marketing and Promotion strategy”, for example. Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania  |  37 Actions (short- and Description of action Ecosystem type medium-term) 9. Combat HWC Ensure that PA expansion does not lead to involuntary displacement or resettlement of traditional Terrestrial inhabitants, and environmental and social safeguards are fully addressed. Adopt an approach of compatible approaches for wildlife and people to inhabit the same areas (for example, as in the conservancies of Namibia), but consider the implications of increased HWC as a result.103 Fully compensate HWC losses to livelihoods (e.g. crop and livestock damage) and harm to people. Reduce levels of HWC including through investment in electric fencing and soft-defenses that generate income (e.g. chilli pepper crops; beehive defenses). 10. Strengthen Build community support for the protection of natural assets through benefit-sharing, jobs, consultation Terrestrial, protection of on management practices, as well as community-based monitoring and enforcement. coastal and natural assets Strengthen linkages and understanding between communities and different parts of the judicial system, marine including through support for legal advisory services. Enhanced protection of natural assets (including mangroves, forests, coral reefs, and water resources) to strengthen resilience to climate change impacts. Medium- term actions (within 6 years, by 2030) 11. Undertake The SEAs would address changing climate and associated changes in wildlife and water availability, Terrestrial, Strategic fire and drought risk, and other land uses (e.g. agriculture etc). The SEAs will address cumulative coastal and Environmental and synergistic impacts of tourism growth (for example, as observed in the Serengeti). Adopt holistic marine Assessments approaches to destination planning, with national parks at the core, followed by game reserves and (SEA) and WMAs with consumptive and non-consumptive tourism as buffers between wildlife and people. Ensure economic that SEAs include performance audits; and are associated with awareness and education programs to the assessments of responsible authorities and experts to review, monitor, and conduct the SEAs effectively. tourism in the southern circuit and northern circuit, and in Zanzibar. 12. Expand Marine PAs are being established by governments worldwide to conserve fish stocks and support Coastal and conservation area habitat restoration. Just 1% of Tanzania’s marine and coastal ecosystems have any degree of protection, marine estate compared with nearly 40 percent of its terrestrial area. Creating a PA in Zanzibar’s territorial waters would represent a major opportunity to strengthen the conservation and management of coastal and marine resources. Countries as diverse as Indonesia, Malaysia, Peru, Ecuador, the United States, Ghana, Nigeria, Liberia, Madagascar, and Seychelles have issued “blue bonds” on capital markets to finance the expansion of MPAs.104 Conservation easements have been established in Tarangire, where a consortium of tourism companies pays local villagers an annual lease fee to maintain plains as livestock pasture rather than converting it to settlement or farming, thereby integrating wildlife conservation concerns with local land-use planning.105 The World Land Trust has been collaborating with the Tanzania Forest Conservation Group (an NGO to Terrestrial safeguard 20,000 ha of coastal forests in a wildlife corridor between Rondo Nature Reserve and Selous Game Reserves.8 Expanding terrestrial and MPAs, fostering partnerships, strengthening them in areas that are predicted to be less impacted by climate change will provide buffers of resilience for wildlife and the wildlife economies of Tanzania, including NBT. WMAs have high establishment and operational costs. E.g. WMAs need to establish land use plans, resource management zone plans and village by-laws, which are costly to produce. It is estimated that the set-up costs are $250,000–300,000. 103 See IUCN (2023) IUCN SSC guidelines on human-wildlife conflict and coexistence, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, https://www.hwctf.org/guidelines, example: In Tanzania, a ‘community camera-trapping’ initiative has been developed in which villagers monitor their wildlife using camera-traps, and generate points for each wild animal photographed. The points are translated into community benefits, focused on local priorities such as healthcare and education, while amplifying cultural value to species that previously would have only caused impacts. 104 World Bank Group (2021) Transforming tourism: Toward a sustainable, resilient and inclusive sector. Tanzania Economic Update, July 2021. Issue 16. 105 See IUCN (2023) IUCN SSC guidelines on human-wildlife conflict and coexistence, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, https://www.hwctf.org/guidelines. 38  |  Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania Actions (short- and Description of action Ecosystem type medium-term) 13. Establish Tanzania has regulations for Special Wildlife Investment Concession Areas (CAP. 283, Govt. notice 28, Terrestrial public-private 2020) in TAWA’s PAs, and Forest ecotourism facility concessions (CAP 323, Govt. notice no. 85, 2020) partnerships regulating tourism concessions in TFS forests.9 to co-manage Developing co-investment and partnership arrangements could support nature-based landscape conservation and seascape management. Since 2000 several African countries, including Morocco, South Africa, areas. Mozambique, Namibia, Uganda, Botswana, Zambia, Rwanda, and most recently Kenya, have adopted policies designed to foster public-private partnerships (PPPs) for the co-management or delegated management of PAs to NGOs. These arrangements are designed to alleviate the cost burden of park management and improve development outcomes for local communities.10 Include co-management options for national parks, game reserves, forests and WMAs. Tanzania’s Chumbe Island Coral Park is a world-renowned example of best practices in the sector – Coastal and combining high-quality tourism, biodiversity conservation, environmental education and livelihood marine opportunities for local people combined with potential for ecosystem goods and service financing. These types of partnerships may be able to more rapidly adapt to climate change impacts, than PAs managed by the government alone. 14. Capture values Natural assets have the capacity to generate value beyond the tourism sector, and their carbon Terrestrial, from nature, aside sequestration and biodiversity co-benefits are not efficiently priced. Creating mechanisms to internalize coastal and from NBT the value of these assets and ensure that they generate adequate financial returns would help align marine incentives around conservation. The global climate crisis has created significant demand for investments in natural capital, and Tanzania could leverage this opportunity to safeguard its natural resources while using the additional revenue to ease fiscal constraints and support social and economic development among local communities.109 Tanzania could work with development partners and other stakeholders, and develop one marine conservation bond and one terrestrial conservation bond or similar instrument; identify and address challenges in the legal and regulatory environment to make these bonds a viable means for conservation financing. Bond examples: ƒƒ A Wildlife Conservation Bond (WCB): In 2022, the World Bank issued a first-of-its-kind, outcome- based $150 million WCB, mobilizing private sector financing to support wildlife conservation in South Africa. ƒƒ Biodiversity and Climate Fund: In 2022, Papua New Guinea launched its national Biodiversity and Climate Fund (https://pngbcf.org/). Supported by UNDP, the fund was designed using the Practice Standards for Conservation Trust Funds. The Global Environment Fund has provided $4.2 million towards its establishment and management of the country's Protected Area network. Further investment has been generated from the Global Fund for Coral Reefs to support a Blue Economy Incubation Facility totaling $4.5 million, $5 million from the Rainforest Trust to establish new Protected Areas, as well as an annual investment of $8.5 million annually from the Government of Papua New Guinea. In 2023, the fund is investigating the potential of debt for nature swap and biodiversity offsets with the extractive industry. ƒƒ Results based payments: In 2021, Mozambique became the first country to receive results-based payments for reduced emissions from avoided deforestation and forest degradation. The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility paid $6.4 million for reducing 1.28 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent under the Zambézia Integrated Landscape Management Program and is expected to pay up to $50 million for 10 million tons of carbon emissions reductions that the program should generate through 2024. ƒƒ Forest Bond: The International Finance Corporation‘s Forest Bond raised $152 million from institutional investors for a REDD+ reforestation project in Kenya. Investors had the option to receive their coupon payments in either carbon credits generated by this project, or in cash. 15. Integrate Include coastal adaptation measures of mangrove plantation, planting climate-resilient coastal flora, blue Terrestrial and nature-based barriers and coral restoration programs. In terrestrial areas establish Indigenous tree planting programs coastal solutions for a where forests have become depleted, to sequester carbon and provide non-timber forest product resilient NBT livelihood opportunities. sector 106 Tanzania Forest Conservation Group - https://www.worldlandtrust.org/who-we-are-2/partners/tanzania-forest-conservation-group-tfcg/. 107 To be clarified – whether there are regulations for TANAPA and NCCA. TANAPA’s investment manual 2023 (see https://www.tanzaniaparks.go.tz/ publications/22) implies the legal framework exist but does not specify the regulation. At time of writing unclear for NCAA. 108 World Bank Group (2021) Transforming tourism: Toward a sustainable, resilient and inclusive sector. Tanzania Economic Update, July 2021. Issue 16. 109 World Bank Group (2021) Transforming tourism: Toward a sustainable, resilient and inclusive sector. Tanzania Economic Update, July 2021. Issue 16. Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania  |  39 Table 10: Policy recommendation overview Policy Instrument Lead ministry, Implementation Implementation readiness Prioritization Climate Ranking recommendation type department target (e.g., % and urgency impact of top 3 or agency share, by year, by sector Aff. Fin PE IC area, etc.) specialist Y/ Y/ C/N/E L/M/H S/T U/LU M/AR/B No No 1. Establish a Planning Lead: MNRT Database Y n/a N M S U AR database of and Input: Tourism created and tourism statistics information Division & populated for for protected and TANAPA, 100% TANAPA, conserved areas TAWA, NCCA TAWA, NCCA and and TFS TFS PAs by 2030 2. Feasibility studies Planning Lead: MNRT Feasibility plans N Y E M S LU AR 3 and tourism plans and Input: Tourism for Tanzania by for less-visited information Division, 2027. protected and TANAPA, Tourism plans for conserved areas TAWA, NCCA 10 under-visited and TFS PAs by 2030 3. Evaluate the Planning Lead: MNRT Assessment N Y C M S U B environmental, and Input: Tourism completed in 5 economic and information Division, PAs by 2027 social impact of National NBT, including: Environmental (a) seasonal and Management special camping Council (mobile, temporary (NEMC) camps,) (b) water TANAPA, consumption TAWA, NCCA and TFS 4. Revisit policy  Strategy Lead: MNRT By 2026 Y n/a C M T U B of visitor number Input: Tourism targets for PAs for Division, TANAPA TANAPA 5. Calculate the Planning Lead: MNRT Analysis N Y N M S U B investment costs for and Input: Tourism completed by NBT infrastructure information Division, 2026 required under the Ministry CCDR climate and of Works, business scenarios Ministry of and establish Finance appropriate financing mechanisms to address them 6. Capacity building Strategy Lead: MNRT Training N Y N M S U B and training for Input: established and green planning and Architectural implemented for design Association 80% planners of Tanzania and architects by (AAT) 2028 7. Establish and Strategy Lead: MNRT Strategy Y n/a E M S LU B implement strategic Input: Tourism developed and marketing and Division operational by branding campaigns 2027 to diversify traveler itineraries 40  |  Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania Policy Instrument Lead ministry, Implementation Implementation readiness Prioritization Climate Ranking recommendation type department target (e.g., % and urgency impact of top 3 or agency share, by year, by sector Aff. Fin PE IC area, etc.) specialist Y/ Y/ C/N/E L/M/H S/T U/LU M/AR/B No No 8. Update the 2002 Planning Lead: MNRT National N Y E M S U B Integrated Tourism and Input: Tourism Masterplan Masterplan information Division revised by 2027 9a. Combat HWC Regulatory Lead: MNRT Fully compensate N Y N M S U AR Input: Wildlife HWC losses to Division livelihoods and life 9b. Combat HWC Investment Lead: MNRT Reduce cost N Y C L S U AR Input: Wildlife of crop and Division, livestock losses Ministry of by 50% by 2030 Works 10. Strengthen Regulatory Lead: MNRT Reduce illegal N Y C L S U AR protection of natural Input: Wildlife wildlife crime assets Division incidents by 50% by 2028 11. Undertake Planning Lead: MNRT SEA for N Y N M S LU B Strategic and Input: Tourism conservation Environmental information Division, estate completed and Assessments NEMC, by 2027 & economic Ministry of assessments Finance 12. Expand  Strategy Lead: MNRT 30% of MPA N Y C M T LU AR 1 conservation area Input: Wildlife coverage by 2030 estate Division, (30 by 30)110 National Land Use Planning Commission, Marine Parks and Reserves Unit, Fisheries Division 13. Establish public- Strategy Lead: MNRT Establish co- Y n/a E M S LU AR 2 private partnerships Input: Tourism management for to co-manage Division, agreements for conservation areas Ministry of 10 PAs by 2030 Finance 14. Capture values  Fiscal Lead: MNRT 1 marine N Y N L S LU AR from nature, aside instrument Input: Ministry conservation from NBT of Finance bond & 1 terrestrial conservation bond established by 2030 110 CBD Global Biodiversity Target of 30 by 30: Tanzania currently has 39.94% land, and 3.05% MPA coverage. See https://www.protectedplanet. net/country/TZA. Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania  |  41 Policy Instrument Lead ministry, Implementation Implementation readiness Prioritization Climate Ranking recommendation type department target (e.g., % and urgency impact of top 3 or agency share, by year, by sector Aff. Fin PE IC area, etc.) specialist Y/ Y/ C/N/E L/M/H S/T U/LU M/AR/B No No 15. Integrate nature- Investment Lead: MNRT Area in km2 of N Y C M T U AR based solutions (NBS) Input: Tourism coastal defence for a resilient NBT Division, TFS, established for sector Marine Parks target coastal and Reserves cities/tourism Unit, Ministry resorts by 2030 of Works Area in km2 indigenous forests rehabilitated and restored by 2030 [area in km2 is to be determined jointly with government and other stakeholders] Notes: MDA = Ministry, Department, Agency; Aff: Affordability; Fin: Access to financing; PE: Political economy; IC: Institutional capacity; Y: Yes; C: Challenging - requires legal measure, would create regional disparity, power interest group opposes reform, limited public support; N: Neutral - Political economy considerations will not have/is not expected to have any impact; E: Enabling - legal measure in place, distributional impact is positive, general support for reform among powerful groups and public; L: low; M: medium; H: high; S: Synergies - if action facilitates the achievement of development objectives (e.g., SDG goals, clear government development objectives); T: Tradeoffs - if cost of action makes achievement of development objectives more difficult (e.g., improved building standards may make the cost of building higher making the achievement of affordable housing more difficult); U: Urgent - delay in action could increase the cost of achieving the same end objective (e.g., delaying protecting against forest conversion could increase cost of achieving objective of reducing soil erosion); LU: Less Urgent - Implementation can be delayed (i.e., cost does not increase or cost of action could decrease if delayed and delaying will not result in irreversible situation; M: Mitigation - main contribution is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; AR: Adaptation and resilience - main contribution is to lower exposure to climate risks or modify practice to adjust to future impacts of climate change; B: Both (mitigation and adaptation) - Contributes equally to both in a direct manner (please note there are few sectors that contribute to both and would be helpful if you can focus on the main contribution of the action). 42  |  Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania Appendix A: Consultee Database Government Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism Department of Tourism, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism Ministry of Finance Wildlife Division Department of Wildlife TANAPA Protected areas marine parks TANAPA: Serengeti National Park Selous Game Reserve Grumeti Game Reserve Ngorongoro Crater Donor agencies and projects USAID - Tanzania GIZ EU KfW NGOs Frankfurt Zoological Society Honeyguide Chumbe Island Coral Park Private sector associations Tourism Confederation of Tanzania Hotels Association of Tanzania (HAT) Tanzania Association of Tour Operators (TATO) Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania  |  43 Appendix B: Supplementary Information on Wildlife Management Authorities in Tanzania A USAID study estimates that the high authorized administration (AA) overheads brings annual WMA operational costs in general to $150,000–250,000. However, most WMAs earn $2,000–90,000 annually, with the exception of Burunge and Ikona WMAs, which earn $290,000 and $450,000, respectively. Burunge and Ikona generate higher income due to their location near national parks.111 Figure 20: Brand and profitability of national parks and associated WMAs Source: Bell, D. (2015) Increasing effectiveness and Reducing costs of anti-poaching activities on community lands, powerpoint presentation, Big Life Foundation & Honeyguide Foundation. Note: Black text = profitable; Large font = strong brand. This ‘success by association’ pattern has been explored further by the Honeyguide Foundation. The Honeyguide Foundation suggests that the WMAs that are adjacent to profitable PAs with strong brands are more likely to be commercially viable. This is because investors may choose to develop accommodation within a WMA (with lower fees and remaining space for development), and take day trips into the national park or Ngorongoro crater. Technical reports on WMAs list extensive challenges faced by WMAs in achieving economic viability:112 111 USAID (2013) Tanzania Wildlife Management Areas Evaluation: Final Evaluation report, USAID Tanzania. 112 Adapted from Strategic Business Advisors & Serengeti Advisers (2009) Tanzania Tourism Value Chain Study, Final Report, Tourism Confederation of Tanzania; Spenceley, A. (2016) Assessment of the development of non-consumptive tourism activities under Tanzania Wildlife Management Authority (TAWA): Part 2: Results and analysis, Report to GiZ and the Wildlife Division; Matinyi, R., Shutzer, M., Jones, S and Dougherty, J. (2015) A strategy for tourism development in southern Tanzania, July 2025, Dalberg Global Development Advisors & Solimar International, USAID (2013) Tanzania Wildlife Management Areas Evaluation: Final Evaluation report, USAID Tanzania; Institute of Resource Assessment (IRA) (2007) Assessment and evaluation of the Wildlife Management Areas in Tanzania, Report of the United Republic of Tanzania Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Wildlife Division. Dar es Salaam. 44  |  Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania • High establishment and operational costs of WMAs. WMAs need to establish land use plans, resource management zone plans and village by-laws, which are costly to produce. It is estimated that the set-up costs are $250,000–300,000. In all WMAs these costs have been covered by donor organizations, including USAID, Danida, and GIZ, as they are too high for the community to meet. Business planning and marketing of WMAs is weak. Revenues are very low for the majority of WMAs, aside from those neighboring high-profile national parks. While government does not contribute to their operational costs (although WMAs are supporting wildlife conservation as a national asset), a 35% tax is imposed on their revenues from non-consumptive tourism. • Weak value chain linkages. In general, WMAs are poorly connected to the larger tourism value chain in the destination, and thus have limited access to markets. It is very difficult for a single community enterprise to effectively reach their target markets without sufficient linkages to the broader economy. There is a lack of diversified (and sustainable) revenue streams, which mostly rely on photographic or hunting tourism costs. Options such as sustainable grazing, craft, honey production, timber harvesting, and charcoal production need to be further investigated and integrated into WMA business plans. • Unpredictable payments: Payments from government too unpredictable, and the process of investors’ first paying government, and then government processing payments, and making payments to WMAs is cumbersome. Furthermore, payments received from the Wildlife Division arrive at the AA bank account without any explanation. Therefore, AAs cannot track revenues: they do not know what time period the payment refers to, how many visitors or activities it refers to, or if it directly corresponds to the amount they are supposed to receive in terms of the 2008 Wildlife Conservation Regulations. • Lack of transparency and accountability among WMA stakeholders, including a lack of efficient recordkeeping and budgeting, and benefits to communities are low and are not perceived to be adequate at the household level. • Permits cannot be issued at the gates of WMAs. This means that a guest or their operator has to physically return to Arusha to make payment at a bank, and then have the payment authorized and permit issued at the Tourism Hunting, CITES and Photographic Tourism Office before proceeding to the WMA. This means that it is impossible for tourists to make an unplanned stop at a WMA, or to have a flexible trip where a traveler can stay an extra night or add an activity. One operator reported, “Some tour operators now refuse to use lodges in the WMAs due to the difficulty in obtaining entry permits.” • HWC: There need to be improved approaches to address HWC to create incentives for conservation. A consultation by the Honeyguide Foundation with around 27,000 people around the Enduimet WMA revealed that around 47 percent of questions raised related to HWC, but only 17 percent related to revenues. People asked “Why are you more concerned about wildlife than us?” Similarly, nearly half of respondents interviewed in another study perceived that crop destruction by wild animals has been an outcome of the creation of WMAs. People are unsurprisingly more concerned with the costs of living wildlife, than the financial benefit that wildlife tourism can generate. In principle, once you have protected people and their crops, then non-consumptive tourism will gain more support. • Remoteness and limited accessibility of many WMAs. This increases the time to transporting tourists to the destinations by road, or higher costs if they travel by air. Flying from some cities and between some of the attractions is possible, but flights are expensive and infrequent. Furthermore, airstrips are not all in good condition, if they exist at all. • The general business climate in Tanzania is neither conducive toward tourism operations nor investment. In particular, the levies and taxes within the tourism sector are unpredictable, uncertain, Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania  |  45 and often duplicative. There are various ongoing initiatives to simplify and harmonize the licensing systems to improve the framework conditions for tourism investment. Linked with the challenges WMAs faced, recommendations made within the literature for improving the economic impacts of WMAs are extensive and broad in scope:113 • Planning and research: (1) Undertake comprehensive evaluations of each WMA’s tourism potential, and the current status of tourism planning, investment and tourism concessions. (2) Prioritize the most commercial viable WMAs, undertake evaluations of each WMA to establish the viability of different tourism products and activities, tourists’ willingness-to-pay for them, and their demand for particular facilities. (3) Undertake spatial planning for WMAs to design tourism concession areas that include (i) multiple tourism concession sites within PAs, and (ii) concessions for entire WMAs, to be managed as stand-alone business units. • Governance: (1) Transparently report revenues and costs for WMAs relating to tourism and concessions. (2) Make the system to transfer of the correct proportion of revenue to the AA and District Councils more efficient (preferably automated), accompanied by a report describing in detail what the payment is for (number of visitors, activities, and so on). (3) Generate data on WMA entrances by automatically linking the electronic permit and verification system with a database that records and collates entrances and payments made. (4) Transparently disseminate information on the revenue and costs of WMAs, including by government, through a public website, or other channels. • Investment facilitation: (1) Make information available on investment opportunities and processes for tourism concessions in WMAs publicly available through a central website. (2) Provide 1-stop- shop business facilitation support services for investors. (3) Consider using independent third- parties to act as brokers to negotiate win-win concession contracts between WMAs and the private sector. (4) Provide technical support to WMAs through the medium of independent negotiators, potentially from local or international NGOs, to ensure that both the WMA and the investor achieve a good deal. (5) Engage with private companies in Tanzania through an open and transparent tender process for concessions, and to develop branded merchandise. (6) Pre-qualify investors that are likely to make good WMA partners. (7) Develop contracting mechanisms to improve investor compliance in WMAs. • Revenue and expenditure: (1) Make provision for WMAs to issue electronic permits at gates to tourists and operators. This will require appropriate equipment and training. (2) Establish a back-up system for permit issuing, for use when the online system is not functioning. (3) Reformulate the fees so that there is flat entrance and activity fee for guests at WMAs, which can be easily monitored by WMA scouts. (4) Issue re-entry permits for visitors who wish to re-enter PAs—such as national parks or Ngorongoro Crater—more than once during a 24-hour period, verified with identification, such as passport or driving license. (5) Ensure scouts in WMAs check permits when tourists enter and depart the WMA, to check that they stayed for the number of allocated days on the permit (6) Use the electronic permitting system to automatically populate a database that generates collated figures on visitation, activities undertaken, and expenditure. (7) Revoke the 35 percent tax on WMAs for 113 Adapted from Strategic Business Advisors & Serengeti Advisers (2009) Tanzania Tourism Value Chain Study, Final Report, Tourism Confederation of Tanzania; Spenceley, A. (2016) Assessment of the development of non-consumptive tourism activities under Tanzania Wildlife Management Authority (TAWA): Part 2: Results and analysis, Report to GiZ and the Wildlife Division.; Matinyi, R., Shutzer, M., Jones, S. and Dougherty, J. (2015) A strategy for tourism development in Southern Tanzania, USAID Tanzania, July 2015; Mitchel, J., Keane, J. and Laidlaw, J. (2009) Making success work for the poor: Package tourism in Northern Tanzania, London, UK: ODI; Institute of Resource Assessment (IRA) (2007) Assessment and evaluation of the Wildlife Management Areas in Tanzania, Report of the United Republic of Tanzania Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Wildlife Division. Dar es Salaam; Benson, W. (2014) The benefits of tourism handicraft sales at Mwenge handicrafts center in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, Bachelors Thesis, Tampere University of Applied Sciences; Match Maker Associates Ltd (2012) Scoping study on value chain initiatives and studies in Tanzania for Irish Aid and Danida, Final report. 46  |  Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania non-consumptive tourism, to incentivize tourism development. (8) Re-visit WMA business plans to ensure they are realistic and market-related, with diverse income sources and reduce operational costs—that is, re-think sitting fees at meetings. • Conservation: (1) Strengthen the anti-poaching efforts in the WMAs, particularly where endangered species are threatened. (2) Strengthen the conservation and anti-poaching efforts in areas outside WMAs, to increase the extent of buffer zones around core PAs. (3) Incorporate strong linkages with local communities for intelligence gathering and countering poaching. • Strengthening value chain linkages: (1) Find ways to increase tourist discretionary spend—on craft, excursions, shopping, food and beverages, and so on—and sustainably increasing the number of locally owned hotels and local transport providers. (2) Ensure value-chain product and service development initiatives are market-related—for example, research in Dar es Salaam indicates that handicraft traders do not earn enough to ensure sustainable growth. (3) Remove restrictions and red tape on enterprise creation, particularly for MSMEs. Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania  |  47 Appendix C: Investment Plans for Protected Areas in Tanzania Table 11: Summary of investment prospectus for TANAPA (2023) Park Site size Type of investment Number of sites Rumanyika-Karagwe 2 km2 Permanent tented camp 3 Mahale Mountains 2 km2 Permanent tented camp 4 Brigi-Chato 3 km2 Lodge 2 2 km2 Permanent tented camp 13 Mkomazi 2 km2 Permanent tented camp 9 3 km2 Lodge 2 Kitulo 2 km2 Permanent tented camp 1 Katavi 2 km2 Permanent tented camp 14 3 km2 Lodge 5 Tarangire 2 km2 Permanent tented camp 1 3 km2 Lodge 1 Nyerere Unspecified Lodge 15 Unspecified Permanent tented camp 45 Saadani Unspecified Permanent tented camp 5 2 km2 Permanent tented camp 2 3 km2 Lodge 2 Kilimanjaro 2 km2 Permanent tented camp 3 Rubondo 2 km2 Permanent tented camp 6 3 km2 Lodge 1 Mikumi 2 km2 Permanent tented camp 4 Manyara 2 km2 Permanent tented camp 3 Ruaha 2 km2 Permanent tented camp 3 Unspecified Permanent tented camp 20 3 km2 Lodge 7 Ibanda-Kyerwa Unspecified Permanent tented camp 3 Source: https://www.tanzaniaparks.go.tz/uploads/publications/en-1703074713-Tanapa%20Investment%20Dec%202023.pdf. 48  |  Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania Table 12: Summary of investment prospectus for TAWA Park Site size Type of investment Number of sites Mpanga/Kipengere Game 50 beds Tented camp/lodge 3 Reserve Selous Game Reserve Undefined – 30 year concession investment through Special wildlife concession areas 4 solicited/unsolicited proposals Kijereshi Game Reserve 50 beds Tented camp/lodge 2 Source: https://www.tawa.go.tz/investment. Background Paper for Country Climate and Development Report: United Republic of Tanzania  |  49 World Bank Tanzania 50 Mirambo Street P. O. Box 2054 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Read more on linkages Tel : +255-22-216-3200 between climate and tanzaniaalert@worldbank.org development in Tanzania