State of Conservation (SOC)
Ngorongoro Conservation Area (2001)
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds
$79,000 to date plus $275,000 IUCN support in 1994 (funded by Germany)
International Assistance granted to the property
Total Amount Ap proved:235,845USD
|2001|| Scientific Study in Ngorongoro crater (NOT IMPLEMENTED)
Reapproval: 12 Feb, 2002 (n°1490 - 10,000 USD)
|1999||Purchase of radio calls and solar panels for World Heritage sites||9,713 USD|
|1999|| Project Planning Workshop for Strengthening Institutional ...
Reapproval: 24 Jan, 2001 (n°1368 - 8,883 USD)
|1994||International Conference on Ngorongoro, in Bellagio, Italy|
|1990||Purchase of a Land Rover and radio equipment for the ...||49,782 USD|
|1988||Purchase of 2 vehicles (one tipper truck and one 4x4 pick-up) for ...||50,000 USD|
|1988||Contribution to the purchase of associated spare parts for ...||10,000 USD|
|1987||Purchase of a Land Rover for anti-poaching activities in ...||17,500 USD|
|1987||Participation of a specialist from Ngorongoro Conservation Area ...||4,000 USD|
|1987||Additional costs of equipment for Ngorongoro Conservation Area||2,000 USD|
|1986||Equipment to strengthen the protection of Ngorongoro Conservation ...||20,000 USD|
|1980||Additional financial assistance for the preparation of a ...||7,000 USD|
|1979||Financial grant for establishment of a management plan for ...||24,950 USD|
|1979||12-month fellowship in law/administration for Ngorongoro ...||18,000 USD|
|1979||Drawing up by an architect-museologist of a project for the ...||5,400 USD|
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
- Shortcomings in the management and lack of resources (issues resolved)
- Residents allowed to grow crops inside the World Heritage site (issue resolved)
- Construction of an access road
Current conservation issues
The Centre and IUCN received a report of extensive and increasing domestic crop cultivation in the Ngorongoro Crater and wider Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA), 97% of which constitutes the World Heritage site. A letter from the Centre dated 18 July 2001 was addressed to the Permanent Delegation of the United Republic of Tanzania to UNESCO with a request to verify the situation with the Ngorongoro Conservation Area authorities and to inform the Centre. The same letter was copied to the Frankfurt Zoological Society that has undertaken projects in NCA. Concerns have been raised over the expansion and the negative impacts on wildlife and the Masaai traditional pastoralism. Specifically the concerns raised relate to:
· Cultivation on very steep slopes of 7.5 to 12.5 degrees. Cultivation was most intense behind Embakai Crater, around Endulen and on the slopes of the Ngorongoro Highland between the Crater and the Serengeti National Park
· Growing pressure for alternative land use which has reduced most of the Maasai's grazing lands, making Ngorongoro the last sanctuary with intact grazing land for the resident Maasai and the pastoral communities normally situated outside the boundaries of the NCAA.
· Steady increase in residents in Ngorongoro, mainly through immigration from other areas
· Changes in the agricultural practices of the Masaai pastoralists, including increased sedentarisation, intensification of livestock production, changing food traditions and introduction of modern housing and development inputs.
In response to the above report, the Conservator of Ngorongoro in his letter to the Centre dated 7 August 2001, notes that in 1995 the Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority commissioned a team of experts to consider the issue of domestic cultivation. The study concluded that the cultivation practised by the Masaai pastoralists was not a threat to conservation and pastoralism interests. It recommended cultivation carried out by non-Masaai pastoralists should be halted as it posed a threat to the integrity of the Conservation Area. It also noted that increasing numbers of in-migrants who might not abide by Masaai relations and customs, could threaten the functioning of the Masaai’s social institutions which regulate land use.
Further, the Conservator of Ngorongoro notes that the following actions have been enforced:
· Identification of in-migrants and human and livestock census
· Acquiring alternative land for cultivation outside the Conservation Area for resettling of in-migrants and where domestic cultivation could be carried out
· Follow up study to the 1995 study
· Implementation of a DANIDAfunded project aimed at revitalising the livestock- based economy in order to ensure that cultivation remains secondary to livestock
· Continuing the grain importation scheme to help the resident population gain access to grain at cost price, and therefore discourage crop cultivation
In its statement addressed to the Centre dated 27 August 2001, the Frankfurt Zoological Society express concern that “without a decision from the government, cultivation will continue and threaten not only one of the world’s most famous wildlife areas but also one of the last grazing lands for the Maasai cattle”.
An article published in September 2001 by The Guardian newspaper entitled “PM warns Maasai against environmental damage”, reports that:
“The Prime Minister of the United Republic of Tanzania, Mr. Frederick Sumaye, has warned Maasai communities living inside the Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority (NCAA) against tampering with the natural ecosystem and the unique geological set of the NCA which have put Tanzania on top among the World tourist attraction sites”. The Prime Minister is also recorded as saying to villagers that
“You should not carry out farming activities inside the conservation area because such an activity would interfere with nature and destroy this world heritage site which Tanzania is proud to own”.
IUCN notes that the serious encroachment and destruction of the highland forests at the northern edge of the site continues. IUCN notes further that cultivation, even at a very low level, excludes use of the area by larger wildlife species in the long term, and that only a very small percentage of the NCAA is suitable for cultivation because of rainfall, soil and slope conditions.
IUCN notes that:
· the Ngorongoro Conservation Area was separated from the Serengeti and gazetted as a multi -use conservation area, hence sustainable use such as grazing is allowed
· Limited subsistence cultivation was allowed in the early nineties due to food shortages, declining livestock and population growth. This alone was not a serious threat. What has become a serious threat is the commercial farming introduced by immigrant farmers, and this is what needs to be addressed urgently
· There is some disagreement about the impact of the Masaai practising agriculture within the NCA. There is the possibility that Masaai agriculture (distinct from traditional pastoralism or livestock rearing), is also negatively impacting on the site
· The management of the NCA requires more effective scientific guidance
Link to the decision
VIII.97 The Committee requested the State Party to provide a report on the encroachment situation in the northern section of the World Heritage site and on the impacts of commercial farming introduced by immigrant farmers on the integrity and values of this World Heritage site by 1 February 2002 for consideration by the twentysixth session of the Committee.
The Bureau may wish to adopt the following for transmission to the Committee for action:
“The Committee requests the State Party to provide a report on the encroachment situation in the northern section of the World Heritage site and on the impacts of commercial farming introduced by immigrant farmers on the integrity and values of this World Heritage site by 1 February 2002 for consideration by the twenty-sixth session of the Committee.”
Tanzania, United Republic of
View inscribed site documents, nomination file, reports, decisions, ...
SOC Reports2012 2011 2010 2009 2007 2006 2005 2004 2002 2001 2000 1999 1994 1993 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983
Detailed List of SOC reports
Inscription on the Danger ListYear: 1984 -1989
Threats to the Site:
Shortcomings in the management and protection of the property
The threats indicated are listed in alphabetical order; their order does not constitute a classification according to the importance of their impact on the property.
Furthermore, they are presented irrespective of the type of threat faced by the property, i.e. with specific and proven imminent danger (“ascertained danger”) or with threats which could have deleterious effects on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (“potential danger”).