Ngorongoro Conservation Area

• Geothermal energy development project (issue resolved)
• Buildings and Development (potential impact of a lodge development project on the crater rim, proposed museum building at Laetoli)
• Transportation infrastructure (impact of the project for upgrading Lodoare Gate to Golini Main Road, construction of the southern bypass road and access road to Olduvai museum)
• Biological resource use/modification (poaching, grazing pressure)
• Social/cultural uses of heritage (relevance of Maasai traditional knowledge to the management of the area, increased human population, tourism pressure, challenges facing community livelihoods)
• Invasive/alien species (spread of invasive species)
• Management System/Management Plan (including governance of the property and community involvement/collaboration, condition and conservation of the Laetoli hominid footprints)

Total amount provided to the property: USD 50,000 from Switzerland, USD 35,000 from the Netherlands, USD 20,000 from the United Nations Development Assistance Plan (UNDAP) and USD 8,000 self-benefitting funds from the United Republic of Tanzania for community consultative process in 2013-2014; USD 50,000 from the Flanders Funds-in-Trust for sustainable tourism strategy in 2014-2015

In 2021 and 2022, the World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies received numerous letters, reports and petitions from civil society organizations calling upon the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania (URT) and UNESCO to stop the forced eviction of the Maasai from the property and the Loliondo Division of Ngorongoro District, which lies outside the World Heritage property. On 9 February 2022, the Government of Tanzania, UNESCO, ICOMOS and IUCN received letters from the UN Special Procedures Branch of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR), raising concerns including:

• The Tanzanian Government’s plans for resettlement, forced evictions, home demolitions and additional restrictions which by 2027 are due to affect some 82,000 people, the vast majority being indigenous Maasai pastoralists whose traditional lands lie in the property;
• Such plans have allegedly not been consulted with the Maasai people in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent (FPIC);
• The plans failed to address tourism, which is the root cause of the current threats to the healthy environment of the area;
• The plans were allegedly put in place following a joint report of the World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies to the World Heritage Committee.

On 3 March and 8 April 2022, the World Heritage Centre transmitted these documents to the State Party for comment. The responses from the State Party, the World Heritage Centre, IUCN and ICOMOS to the UN Special Procedures Branch are available online at https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/.

On 13 April 2022, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies held an online meeting with the UN Special Rapporteurs to discuss the matters in their letter of 9 February 2022.

On 18 May 2022, the World Heritage Centre requested the State Party to submit a state of conservation report for the property for examination by the Committee at its 45th session.

Following several attempts to convene a meeting (letters dated 7 and 24 June, which were postponed at the request of the State Party, a meeting between the State Party, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies was held on 13 July 2022, through which the State Party provided the following information:

• The challenges of reconciling conservation and management of the property with the increase in human settlements and economic activities, human-wildlife conflicts, and increasing livestock numbers;
• The challenges facing the General Management Plan (GMP) and the unsuitability of the Multiple Land Use Model (MLUM) as a measure to address these issues;
• The Government Voluntary Relocation Plan, its process and mechanism, including a categorical statement on no forced relocation;
• The Government plan to safeguard the Greater Serengeti-Mara ecosystem and the inherent link between the property, Serengeti National Park World Heritage property and the Loliondo Game Controlled Area (LGCA);
• The constitutional and national legal framework governing land tenure (traditional, tribal, ancestral) in Tanzania.

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies noted that although specific responses to the matters raised by the UN Special Rapporteurs were tabled at the meeting, no official written response had been submitted by the State Party to the World Heritage Centre on this nor regarding the alleged human rights violations and specifics on the voluntary relocation to Msomera village.

In a letter dated 28 December 2022, the State Party submitted to the World Heritage Centre a written response to the issues raised by the UN Special Rapporteurs, as recommended in the 13 July 2022 meeting, through a report titled Local community issues in the Ngorongoro Administrative District, which reports the following:

• Chapters cover protected and conserved areas in Tanzania, the Ngorongoro District, arrival and settlement of people in Ngorongoro, LGCA issues, Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) issues, the land legislation system in Tanzania, Indigenous and minority groups in the Tanzanian legal system, and the State Party response to issues raised by the Special Rapporteurs.
• The MLUM is unsustainable, noting challenges of increased human-wildlife conflict, disease, and the need to balance conservation and socio-economic needs of communities. The State Party, therefore, advocates the relocation of Maasai from the property to Msomera village. The Voluntary Relocation Plan includes compensation packages (e.g., housing, services, and opportunity for land ownership).

On 13 March 2023, the State Party submitted a report on the state of conservation of the property, available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/39/documents, which reports the following:

• The State Party continues to facilitate the voluntary relocation of local residents from the NCA. By January 2023, 551 households, 3,010 people and 15,321 livestock had voluntarily relocated to Msomera village;
• In January 2023, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) conducted a mission to seek information on and assess the human rights situation of indigenous populations and communities in Tanzania, including LGCA and voluntary resettlement in NCA. The press statement at the conclusion of the mission was appended (Appendix 9 of the State Party report);
• Droughts killed wildlife and livestock in the property, resulting in increased human-wildlife conflict, disease transmission from wildlife to humans, and increased poverty of local residents;
• Implementation of the 2017 and 2019 mission recommendations continued. The remaining recommendations are rescheduled for when the financial situation improves pending tourism recovery from COVID-19 (matrix of implementation in Appendix 1);
• Stakeholder awareness meetings on the effects of agricultural activities on conservation and the spread of invasive species were held, the management authority (NCAA) cleared around 1,705 ha of targeted invasive plant species, drones were used for aerial surveillance, and no agricultural activities were observed;
• The State Party reiterates it was informed of the completion of feasibility studies for the southern bypass road conducted by TANROADS, that the road provides an alternative route for commercial vehicles that may otherwise cross the property, and that authorities do not have the power to request the studies since the road is outside the property;
• Regarding the suspension of the Lodoare Gate to Golini main road upgrade through the property, baseline ecological studies and environmental data were conducted (2019 report in Appendix 3), and archaeological investigations are scheduled before initiating work;
• Progress on providing a clearer conservation approach for the footprint site and overall archaeological landscape is outlined (Appendix 4). Due to the unnoticed deterioration of the footprints and lack of monitoring, the entire footprints trail at site G will be opened for periodic monitoring from June to September 2023;
• Various management related documents were appended or referenced: Management Zone Plan (2021-2025) (MZP) as an interim document to GMP (Appendix 5), draft cultural Heritage Conservation Strategy (Appendix 6), Interpretation Strategy for the property (Appendix 7), Report of the Multiple Land Use Review Model, voluntary resettlement scheme and its progress (Appendix 8, not appended), Cultural Heritage Conservation Strategies (Appendix 11);
• A department of cultural heritage has been included in the property’s organizational structure and service plans, which has facilitated the allocation of resources to cultural heritage, and the development of integrated strategies, policies and plans for the governance of natural and cultural heritage. Monitoring and enforcement is in place to ensure compliance with conclusions and mitigation measures of impact assessment studies, MZP and all other activities;
• A Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) will begin once finances are stable following COVID-19-related tourism recovery. All future development will be subject to ESIAs.

On 15 March 2023, the World Heritage Centre transmitted to the State Party a letter outlining third-party concerns regarding the possible introduction of white rhinos to the property and a letter requesting the invitation of the recommended joint Advisory mission to the property. On 1 June 2023, the State Party sent a letter to the World Heritage Centre inviting the Advisory mission. At the time of drafting, no response had been received regarding the white rhino.

The reported allegations of human rights abuses in and around the property by the UN Special Procedures Branch of the Office of the UNHCHR are deeply concerning. The World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies consider any violence against or forced eviction of indigenous peoples and local communities to be entirely unacceptable, and that these constitute gross violations of human rights. It is important to stress that neither the Committee, the World Heritage Centre, nor the Advisory Bodies have at any time endorsed or requested the forced displacement of Maasai and other communities living in the property.

The State Party’s assurances in the 13 July 2022 meeting and December 2022 report that no forced relocations will be undertaken, that communities are voluntarily encouraged to relocate, as well as the opportunity for open dialogue between the State Party, the World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies on human rights matters under the Convention, are therefore welcome. It is noted that the State Party considers the MLUM to be unsustainable in achieving a balance between conservation and socio-economic development of local communities and that the voluntary relocation of communities is considered as a solution to address this issue and improve livelihoods. However, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies stress that the strategy to address the different challenges facing the property should be subject to the full consultation and participation of all stakeholders and rightsholders, including indigenous peoples. In this regard, it is regrettable that the Report of the MLUM Review that was mentioned in the State Party report was not appended. Furthermore, while noting that the Voluntary Relocation Plan (as outlined in the December 2022 report and listed as Appendix 8 but not submitted) provides compensation measures (e.g., housing and social services in Msomera village), it should be emphasized that compensation is only one of the essential conditions for the relocation of communities and that international good practices and applicable norms and standards must be fully applied.

Nevertheless, many concerns highlighted by the January 2023 ACHPR mission remain to be clarified, including the reported inadequate consultation regarding the relocation programme; the potential conflict between relocated and existing communities in Msomera and alleged practices of forced relocation. For communities wishing to remain in the NCA, there are concerns that budgetary allocations to health and education services have been stopped.

Currently, there is a lack of response by the State Party to these points and a lack of clarity as to how relocation is being implemented only on a voluntary basis. It is therefore recommended that the Committee, while welcoming the State Party’s assurances that relocation is only voluntary, requests the State Party to provide details on the allegations of human rights violations within the property, and demonstrate how a fair, just and equitably governed consultative process to progress long-term solutions consistent with international norms and policies of the Convention, including the principles of seeking the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples has been set up and implemented and how the recommendations of the ACHPR mission report that are specific to the property will be considered, once the final report is available.

If the MLUM model is considered to no longer meet the needs of the property, then clarity is also needed on what alternatives are being considered. It is noted that the 2021-2025 MZP was developed as an interim plan to guide NCA management since the development of the new GMP (required under national legislation) remains hindered by the ongoing review of the MLUM. Given that it is a temporary measure, the State Party is encouraged to finalize the review of the MLUM and share details of its outcomes before completing the development of the GMP.

The continued implementation of the 2017 and 2019 mission recommendations is noted with appreciation and it is recommended to complete the remaining outstanding actions as soon as possible.

The reported clearing of 1,705 ha of invasive species, related stakeholder awareness activities, and confirmation that no agricultural activities were observed in the property are positive. Actions to manage and control invasive species should be continued.

Noting the statement that the southern bypass route will limit commercial vehicles passing through the property and the feasibility study cannot be submitted to the World Heritage Centre for review by the Advisory Bodies (as urged in Decisions 43 COM 7B.39 and 44 COM 7B.141) for reasons that the road is outside the jurisdiction of the property authorities, recalling the requirement to ensure that projects in the wider setting of the property do not negatively impact its OUV, this request should be reiterated. Regarding the Lodoare-Golini road through the property, it is important to reiterate the need to implement all 2017 Advisory mission recommendations, including the development of an action plan to manage road use, and the submission of the results of archaeological investigations and baseline ecological and environmental data before starting any construction.

The State Party’s confirmation that an SEA will be undertaken once funding is stable is noted and recalling the importance of this process to informing management decisions, it should be completed as soon as possible.

Whilst it is positive that the IUCN SSC African Rhino Specialist Group (AfrRSG) was consulted on the proposed introduction of southern white rhinos into the property, the proposal raises several significant concerns. Since Tanzania is not part of the species’ contemporary range and there are no white rhinos in Tanzania (with no ecological equivalent for at least 3,000 years), the consequences of a non-native species for this ecosystem are not clear. Further consideration of long-term approaches to managing the species and the risks that may associate with a non-native species, such as disease and veterinary considerations, ecological, social and tourism impacts as well as provision of rhino security, is required. Recalling also the existing pressures of tourism on the property, it is unclear how the introduction of white rhinos may enhance tourism experiences and revenue. It is also noted that CITES recently defined suitable and appropriate destinations for exports of rhinos, and the introduction of species from their natural range in one country to another beyond their contemporary natural range is not permissible. It is therefore recommended that the Committee urge the State Party not to proceed with the introduction without addressing the aforementioned concerns.

It is noted that the State Party invited the Advisory mission, as recommended by the Committee (Decision 44 COM 7B.171) on 6 June 2023.