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

On 23 February 2024, 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 government continues to facilitate the voluntary relocation of local residents from the property. As of 30 January 2024, 764 households consisting of 4,444 individuals and 20,022 livestock have voluntarily moved from the property to Msomera Village in Handeni District. The government continues to construct houses in the villages of Msomera, Kitwai, and Saunyi to support additional voluntary relocations;
• It is stated that the relocation plan is voluntary and involves prior and informed consultations including a voluntary registration process. All international good practices, norms and standards, such as compensations, and other rights have been carefully observed and implemented. The State Party assures that there are no forced evictions in the implementation of the plan, and welcomes the Advisory mission to visit the property;
• The voluntary relocation plan includes compensation for those who voluntarily register for relocation, such as free transportation of belongings including livestock, free housing and land for cultivation, ten million Tanzanian shillings [approximately USD 3,800] disturbance allowance, free maize for 18 months. Free communal livestock grazing land with infrastructure is provided to ensure the relocated communities continue to maintain their pastoral life. It is emphasised this is beyond the normal compensation provided to people who are relocated in line with international good practices and Tanzanian laws. It is stated that the relocation process is the result of a fair, equitable and consultative approach aimed at finding an interdisciplinary solution that takes into account the needs of people, particularly their wellbeing, the improvement of alternative livelihoods, and the protection of conservation efforts;
• The report of the Multiple Land Use Model (MLUM) review (dated 2020) is appended.
• The State Party assures that there is no violation of human rights in the property and refers to its rebuttal letter from 28 December 2022 (UNESCO/NC/CLT/WHC/F/22/08);
• The State Party has not received the final report of the 2023 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) mission to the property;
• The State Party continues to manage and control invasive species within the property;
• Regarding the upgrading of the Lodoare Gate to Golini main road through the property and related 2017 mission recommendations, baseline environmental studies have been conducted and archaeological investigations scheduled, in line with the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) addressed in previously shared reports. This will allow the identification of archaeological materials, road re-alignment, and a sensitisation/training activity for the road upgrade team. This will save time and money by not repeating the activity before the construction contract, which is funded by the property;
• Resources are being mobilised to carry out the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) to evaluate development impacts. The findings will be submitted when available;
• It is stated that a matrix of progress in implementing the recommendations of the 2017 and 2019 missions and earlier Committee decisions (Appendix II), and the feasibility study for the southern bypass route (Appendix III Serengeti Southern Bypass: Transport Options and Trunk Road Concepts to Reduce Traffic Crossing the Serengeti National Park) are appended (however neither were submitted with the report);
• The State Party will initiate the formulation of comprehensive policies on tourist carrying capacity once resources become available. The monitoring framework for these policies will be integrated into the operations of the existing monitoring unit of the property;
• Investigations into the Laetoli footprints conservation and its sustainable use continues. Experiments on the conservation of tuff are ongoing. The 2024 Laetoli Conservation and Sustainable Use Roadmap is appended.

On 4 to 9 February 2024, on the invitation of the State Party, a joint UNESCO/ICOMOS/IUCN Advisory mission was undertaken to advise the State Party on the review of the MLUM and the resettlement process which is being implemented as a result, including how the resettlement is respecting the matters related to human rights and relevant international norms matters related to human rights concerns raised regarding the relocation of local communities including indigenous residents from the property (see 44 COM 7B.171; 45 COM 7B.30).

In February and March 2024, the World Heritage Centre received several letters from Maasai leaders (comprising Councillors, Village Chairpersons, Traditional Leaders of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA), and representatives of the Ngorongoro Pastoral Council (NPC)) (dated 6 February and 7 March respectively); from the Pastoralists Indigenous Non-Governmental Organizations (PINGOs) Forum (7 February); as well as from the Maasai International Solidarity Alliance (MISA) (6 February) and Members of the European Parliament (MEP) (7 February). On 23 February 2024, the World Heritage Centre responded to MEP and MISA letters confirming that a follow-up meeting is being explored to ensure the views of local communities and NGOs are fully taken into consideration.

Whilst noting the State Party’s reiterated position that the relocation of local communities from the property is voluntary, in line with international best practices, and provides compensation measures including financial compensation, free housing and land for cultivation and livestock grazing for residents, it remains of significant concern that the World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies continue to receive concerns from local communities on this matter. 

The MLUM Review, undertaken by the State Party in 2020, and appended to the most recent State Party report, had been requested by the World Heritage Committee since its extended 44th session. The Review focuses on two potential management options for the property, to either (a) maintain an MLUM with some adjustments, or (b) to change the protected area category of NCA, which would consequently prohibit human settlement and development in the property and imply the abolition of multiple land use and the complete relocation of people from the property. The Review recommends that the first option of maintaining an MLUM with some adjustments has “more advantages economically, socially, culturally, politically and internally than the one that advocates for changing NCA to other protected area category”.

The World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies concur that the continued implementation of a multiple land use model, that is developed in consultation with stakeholders and rightsholders, and ensures a clear human rights-based approach, is appropriate, and note that the details of the adaptations proposed require more detailed consideration.

Any option which would include abolishing the MLUM approach that has been in place since before inscription and would require the relocation of all residents from the property, would mark a dramatic and highly concerning change in the management of the property. Furthermore, such an option would be in contradiction with the State Party’s position that relocation is entirely voluntary, as it is apparent that there are residents who opposed to relocation.

The Advisory mission which took place from 4 to 9 February 2024 was mandated to meet with local community representatives in order to review and assess the progress on the implementation of MLUM and that such meetings were facilitated by the State Party. However, during and after the mission, the World Heritage Centre, the Advisory Bodies and the mission representatives have continued receiving extensive and continuous concerns from local, national and international organisations that many representatives of the communities in the property were neither clearly informed of the mission nor were arrangements made for them to be adequately consulted during its visit, as per the aforementioned letters. A report with preliminary observations of the Advisory mission is currently being prepared based on the February visit. However, it is clear to the World Heritage Centre, ICOMOS and IUCN that further in-person engagement on site is required to ensure that the views and concerns of communities are adequately heard in order to inform an accurate view of the situation at the property, including in relation to the State Party’s proposed approach to the voluntary relocation.

Further dialogue is required to better assess the changes being contemplated regarding the MLUM. To that effect, it is recommended that a Reactive Monitoring mission be requested by the Committee. This will enable the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies, in dialogue with the State Party and with inclusion and consultation necessary with local communities, to make recommendations to the Committee on the steps to be taken to address the significant concerns noted above, and to formulate appropriate recommendations. The outcomes of this further anticipated mission will be reported to the 47th session of the World Heritage Committee. 

In relation to other conservation issues, which were not part of the matters considered by the Advisory mission, the analyses are presented in the following paragraphs.

Regarding the Lodoare Gate-Golini road through the property, whilst noting that baseline environmental studies are reported to have been conducted and archaeological investigations scheduled, no information is provided regarding the action plan to manage road use, nor have the results of the studies been submitted, as requested. While the feasibility study for the southern bypass route was not appended to the State Party report as stated, it was provided to the Reactive Monitoring mission visiting the adjacent Serengeti National Park World Heritage property in January 2024, which made recommendations regarding the road crossing both NCA and Serengeti National Park (see Decision 45 COM 7B.59).

It is also noted with concern that the State Party did not provide any further information on the proposed translocation of southern white rhino into the property, which was raised in the previous state of conservation report. It is recommended that the State Party provide an update on any plans for translocation of southern white rhino into the property and not to proceed with the introduction without addressing the concerns raised by the IUCN SSC African Rhino Specialist Group (AfrRSG).

The timely completion of an SEA to evaluate current and future impacts of developments across all sectors in the region including the property and the wider Serengeti ecosystem remains important to inform management decisions for the property. The confirmation that resources for the SEA are being mobilised are appreciated and its completion should remain a priority.

The 2024 Laetoli Conservation and Sustainable Use Roadmap, appended to the State Party report, has four stated aims, including to legitimize the State Party’s ambition to reopen the footprints to visitors, while monitoring them as part of a long-term conservation strategy. This brief document provides an overview of the potential benefits and drawbacks of five scenarios for the conservation at site G. An important factor in the State Party’s analysis is the assertion that the experts are of the opinion that the footprints at site G have lost their significant scientific value due to changes of the shape and other anthropogenic imperfections on their surface – a conclusion for which no further information is provided. The roadmap proposes the total re-excavation of the footprint tuff at site G and building of a permanent enclosure, but many questions remain on the details and consequences of this proposal. It is advisable to continue research and engagements to come to an agreed-to solution that will safeguard the footprints.

It is regrettable that the information regarding implementation of the recommendations of the 2017 and 2019 missions was not appended to the State Party report as stated.