assessment and priority setting for marine and coastal ... · assessment and priority setting for...
TRANSCRIPT
Assessment and priority setting for marine
and coastal resource conservation in the
Pemba Channel Region for FFI
PEMBA AND TANGA, TANZANIA - March 2014
Mwambao Coastal Community Network
i
Report commissioned by:
Fauna and Flora International Jupiter House Station Road Cambridge UK CB1 2JD
Website: www.fauna-flora.org
Study carried out by:
Mwambao Coastal Community Network
Authors: Lorna M. Slade; Ali K. Thani
Registered Address:
PO Box 3810, Shangani, Zanzibar United Republic of Tanzania
Mwambao Coastal Community Network is a Tanzanian network formed to promote sustainable
community-based management of coastal resources, thereby building community resilience to
environmental change. MCCN works on the principle that the ability of communities to build
livelihoods and reduce their vulnerability is critical in enabling them to protect local
ecosystems.
Website: www.mwambao.or.tz
i
CONTENTS
List of Tables ............................................................................................................ 4
List of Figures .......................................................................................................... 4
1 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 7
2 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. 8
2.1 Background to the Study ................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 9
3 THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT AND HISTORY OF
CO-MANAGEMENT ......................................................................... 10
3.1 A Description of the Marine and Coastal Environment of Tanzania
(URT) ...................................................................................................................................... 11
3.2 Status of marine conservation in Tanzania (URT) ................................................. 12
3.3 Marine Protected Areas in Mainland Tanzania ...................................................... 15
3.3.1 Tanga Coelacanth Marine Park ..................................................................................................... 17
3.3.2 Tanga Marine Reserves System .................................................................................................... 18
3.4 Community-Based Conservation in Mainland Tanzania ..................................... 18
3.4.1 Tanga Coastal Zone Conservation and Development Program ....................................... 18
3.4.2 Rufiji Environmental Management Project .............................................................................. 19
3.4.3 Rufiji-Mafia-Kilwa Seascape Programme ................................................................................. 20
3.4.4 Kinondoni Coastal Area Management Programme .............................................................. 20
3.4.5 Bagamoyo ICM Action Planning .................................................................................................... 21
3.4.6 Challenges of Managing MMAs ...................................................................................................... 22
3.5 Best practices and lessons in co-management ........................................................ 22
3.5.1 Legislative based arrangements ................................................................................................... 23
3.5.2 Programme-based arrangements ................................................................................................ 25
3.6 Overview of Zanzibar’s MCAs ........................................................................................ 25
3.6.1 Pemba Channel Conservation Area (PECCA) .......................................................................... 26
ii
3.7 Community Involvement and Collaborative Management in MCAs
(Znz) ....................................................................................................................................... 29
3.7.1 Community-driven conservation ................................................................................................. 29
3.7.2 Indigenous knowledge, traditional customs and marine conservation ....................... 29
3.7.3 Community involvement in the management of the MCAs ............................................... 30
3.7.4 Community control of marine areas ........................................................................................... 30
4 CURRENT STATUS CO-MANAGEMENT TANGA
(this study) ......................................................................................... 31
4.1 Reflections on TCZCDP ..................................................................................................... 31
4.2 Current challenges and recommendations .............................................................. 32
5 CURRENT STATUS CO-MANAGEMENT PEMBA
(this study) ......................................................................................... 36
6 OPPORTUNITIES FOR FFI INVOLVEMENT IN
TANGA AND/OR PEMBA CHANNEL ....................................... 39
6.10 Tanga District ...................................................................................................................... 42
6.10.1 Stakeholders.................................................................................................................................... 42
6.10.2 Institutional Framework. ........................................................................................................... 43
6.11 PECCA ..................................................................................................................................... 45
6.11.1 Stakeholders.................................................................................................................................... 45
6.11.2 Policy framework for CBNRM .................................................................................................. 47
6.11.3 Selection of potential pilot areas ............................................................................................ 48
7 Recommended Course of Action ....................................................... 51
8 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................... 51
9 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................... 53
10 APPENDICES............................................................................................... 55
APPENDIX 1. List of persons consulted during this study ............................................................. 55
APPENDIX 2. Marine Conservation Unit Zanzibar (from McLean et al. 2012) ...................... 56
APPENDIX 3. MPRU Vision, Mission and Values (from Mangora et al. 2012) ....................... 60
APPENDIX 4. PECCA ORDER (as provided by Fisheries Office Pemba) ................................... 65
iii
APPENDIX 5.1 Institutional framework for Marine Managed Areas in mainland
Tanzania (from Mangora et al. 2012) ......................................................................................... 72
APPENDIX 5.2 Organizational chart indicating dual lines of reporting for MPRU
(Mangora et al 2012) ......................................................................................................................... 72
APPENDIX 6.Organogram of the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Znz ............................ 73
(from McLean et al. 2012) ........................................................................................................................... 73
APPENDIX 7. Organogram of the Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources
Zanzibar (from McLean et al. 2012) ............................................................................................ 74
4
List of Tables
Marine Protected Areas in Tanzania(from McLean et al. 2012) ...................................... 14 Table 1:
MPAs and Collaborative MMAs in mainland Tanzania (from Table 2:
Mangora et al 2012). .......................................................................................................................... 15
Recommendations from the 2014 Smartfish Assessment on BMUs Table 3:
in Tanzania (from Onyango 2014) ............................................................................................... 24
A Summary of Village Recommendations from this studyTanga .................................... 34 Table 4:
A summary of Village Recommendations from this studyPECCA ................................... 38 Table 5:
Strengths of a Co-management intervention in Tanga and Pemba Table 6:
Channel .................................................................................................................................................... 40
Challenges of a Co-management intervention in Tanga and Pemba Table 7:
Channel .................................................................................................................................................... 41
Potential Activities as part of a Co-management intervention in Table 8:
Tanga and Pemba Channel .............................................................................................................. 41
Stakeholder matrix for marine co-management Tanga North ......................................... 42 Table 9:
Stakeholder matrix for marine co-management Tanga South .......................................... 43 Table 10:
Stakeholder matrix for PECCA ....................................................................................................... 45 Table 11:
PECCA villages and population estimates (from DFMR 2005) ......................................... 49 Table 12:
List of Figures
Figure 1: WIO Currents (From Ruitenbeek, 2005) ................................................................................... 11
Figure 2: Extent of Tanga Coelacanth Marine Park (From Mangora et al
2012) ........................................................................................................................................................ 17
Figure 3: Map illustrating the location of some of the MMAs mentioned in the
text (from Mangora et al. 2012) .................................................................................................... 21
Figure 4: Map showing extent of PECCA (from DFMR 2010) ............................................................... 27
5
Abbreviations and Acronyms
BMU Beach Management Unit
CBO Community Based Organisation
CCA Community Conservation Area
CCC Central Coordination Committee (TCMP and Rumaki)
CFMA Collaborative Fisheries Management Area (TCMP and Rumaki)
CMAP Collaborative Management Area Plan (TCZCDP)
CORDIO Coastal Oceans Research and Development in the Indian Ocean
CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort
DFMR Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources (Znz)
EACC East African Coastal Current
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
FAD Fish Aggregating Device
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation
FFI Fauna and Flora International
GMP General Management Plan
KICAMP Kinondoni Coastal Area Management Programme
ICM Integrated Coastal Management
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
MCU Marine Conservation Unit (Zanzibar)
MCA Marine Conserved Area
MI Maliasili Initiatives
MICA Misali Island Conservation Area
MIMP Mafia Island Marine Park
MLF Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Zanzibar
MNRT Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism
MPRU Marine Parks and Reserves Unit (mainland)
6
MPA Marine Protected Area
MR Marine Reserve
NEMC National Environment Management Council
PECCA Pemba Channel Conservation Area
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
RBFM Rights-Based Fisheries Management
RECOMAP Regional Management for the Sustainable Management of the Coastal Zones of
the Indian Ocean
REMP Rufiji Environmental Management Project
RUMAKI Rufiji Mafia Kilwa Seascape Project
TACMP Tanga Coelacanth Marine Park
TCMP Tanzania Coastal Management Partnership (Bagamoyo)
TCRC Tanga Coastal Resource Centre
TCZCDP Tanga Coastal Zone Conservation and Development Project
VEC Village Environmental Committee (in all mainland villages)
VICOBA Village Community Banks
VLC Village Liaison Committee (villages within Marine Parks)
WIO Western Indian Ocean
WIOMSA Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association
WWF World Wide Fund for Nature
7
1 SUMMARY
This study was commissioned by Fauna and Flora International with the aim of exploring
opportunities for expanding the success of the FFI community-led approach to marine
conservation in Kenya to the Pemba Channel and Tanga region of mainland Tanzania.
Mwambao Coastal Community Network (MCCN), a Tanzanian NGO based in Zanzibar was asked
to review marine and coastal resource co-management initiatives in Tanzania and to visit the
target areas to determine the current situation on the ground. MCCN was also asked for
recommendations for proposed interventions in the target areas. Fieldwork took place over 6
days in February 2014.
A review of past and current projects both on mainland Tanzania and in Zanzibar identified key
successful co-management initiatives as the former Tanga Coastal Zone Conservation and
Development Project (TCZCDP complete 2009), the former Bagamoyo ICZ TCMP project and the
ongoing WWF Rumaki Project in Rufiji, Mafia and Kilwa. The former Misali Island Conservation
Project in Pemba also demonstrated success. Recent changes in marine governance in the
target areas included the demarcation of Pemba Channel Conservation Area (PECCA) in 2006
covering the entire west coast of Pemba. The area previously covered by TCZCDP is now under
two different management regimes. Tanga Coelacanth Marine Park (TACMP) south of Tanga
was formed in 2011. The coast north of Tanga is now governed by village-based Beach
Management Units (registered primarily in 2011).
The study found that marine resource co-management was not active in any of the locations
visited despite nominal systems being in place. While much of the legacy of TCZCDP remains in
the awareness of the communities involved, active marine management north of Tanga has
completely broken down with no concept of community ownership or control and rampant
dynamite fishing taking place. The previous Central Coordinating Committee is no longer active
and villagers no longer conduct patrols. South of Tanga the situation is similar. Village liaison
committees designed to liaise with the Marine Park are non-functional, there is no coordination
between villages, and Park-community relations are poor. TACMP are understaffed, marine
patrols are thwarted by ‘tip-offs’ and dynamite fishing is common within the Park.
At the village level in PECCA there is provision for Fisher Committees, however the study found
that these are in ‘name only’. Fishers do not understand roles and responsibilities and are
unaware of committee election procedures; visits from PECCA staff are rare. Revenue sourced
from tourism activities is not disseminated according to the designated process and lacks
transparency. Any management taking place can be described ‘top-down’.
MCCN recognise the urgent need for capacity building for co-management at the village level in
all locations. As a first step MCCN advises an FFI intervention in PECCA, Pemba with the
selection of a number of villages as pilot co-management areas. To be successful, any
engagement by FFI must be for the longer term and should plan to address the wider legal and
administrative constraints existing. Further, MCCN recommends engaging with other regional
stakeholders to progress a coordinated seascape approach for the region; this is vital in a bid to
control illegal and destructive fishing techniques, in particular the use of explosives.
8
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 Background to the Study
In 2004, FFI’s local partner, the East African Wild Life Society (EAWLS) supported an initiative
that piloted a community-led approach to marine conservation in the north coast of Kenya. This
involved the establishment of a 4km² “no take zone” or ‘no fishing zone’ - managed by a local
management structure which is membership-based. It was established as a Locally Managed
Marine Area, referred to in Kenya as a Community Conserved Area (CCA). Despite being a
relatively new initiative, surveys and reports from fishermen indicate an increase in fish
numbers, and the return to a more sustainable fish harvest in areas adjoining the agreed
exclusion zone.
Following the success of this initiative, FFI in partnership with EAWLS, local communities and
other stakeholders supported the replication of the model along the south coast of Kenya. The
3-year project which began in April 2009 was supported by the Darwin Initiative. Adopting an
ecosystem-based and participatory approach, the Darwin project assisted seven communities
from Msambweni to Vanga to establish CCAs that are managed by Beach Management Units
(BMUs). Established under the Fisheries Act, the BMU approach empowers local fishing
communities to become custodians of their marine resources, and resource areas under co-
management agreements with the Kenya Government’s Fisheries Department. This they can
achieve through their own regulation of harvesting, the promotion of marketing opportunities,
and the establishment of no-take zones.
FFI is therefore exploring opportunities for expanding the model into Tanzania with the overall
objective of ‘scaling up’ conservation in the region and building resilience through a network of
Marine Protected Areas (MPAS) along the East African coast. It is proposed that this is initiated
in the Pemba Channel area and at a later date in the Tanga region.
Authors note: While this study had an intended focus on the Pemba Channel, this information
was only received after field plans were in hand and thus both regions were visited. There is an
emphasis on the Pemba Channel area in the report however.
Scope of work
The overall objective of the study was to provide recommendations to Fauna & Flora
International (FFI) that will guide the operations for a coordinated community-based
conservation initiative on the Tanzanian coast in the Tanga – Pemba Channel Region.
The specific objectives were:
i. To highlight the challenges and opportunities in marine and coastal resource co -
management in Tanzania (including the Zanzibar Archipelago) based on previous and
current efforts.
ii. To provide recommendations on proposed action in the target area based on the
contextual situation.
iii. To highlight key stakeholders that will be impacted by or impact the proposed action,
their influence, power and interactions in the target sites.
9
2.2 Methodology
The study included a desk-top based study of existing literature, both published and grey, on
coastal and marine resource conservation initiatives (previous and current), challenges and
opportunities in the Tanga and Pemba channel region.
Fieldwork was carried out for a period of 6 days between 6 – 12th February 2014; visits were
also made to visit WWF in Dar-es-Salaam and FFI offices in Nairobi.
Interviews and focus group meetings were held with communities and key individuals in the
following locations on the mainland: Tanga town, Chongoleani, Moa, Tongoni, Kigombe; and in
the following locations in Pemba: Wete town, Makongwe, Kisiwa Panza, Tondooni (Makangale)
and Stone Town in Zanzibar. Interviews were also held at Peponi Beach Resort (Tanga) and
Manta Reef Hotel (Pemba). A full list of interviewees can be found in Appendix 1.
10
3 THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT AND HISTORY OF CO-
MANAGEMENT
The literature review for this study has highlighted four key reports/papers that are of
immediate relevance (especially to the Pemba Channel area of the study) and these are listed
below. Other relevant documents are listed in the bibliography. The reports below have
contributed detail to many of the following accounts in particular the recent legal and
institutional review of Marine Managed Areas undertaken by EcoAfrica Consultants as
commissioned by the MACEMP project1 both on mainland Tanzania and on the Zanzibar
archipelago. These two reports give a comprehensive review of the legal framework of MMAs
and this has not been duplicated here.
Levine, A. (2004) Local Responses to Marine Conservation in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Journal of
International Wildlife Law & Policy, Volume 7, Numbers 3-4, pp. 183-202.
Mangora, M., Shalli, M., and B. McLean (2012) An assessment of Legal and Institutional
Framework for Effective Management of Marine Managed Areas in Tanzania. Marine Parks and
Reserves Unit, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
McLean, B., Hikmany, A.N., Mangora, M. and M. Shalli (2012) An assessment of Legal and
Institutional Framework for Effective Management of Marine Managed Areas in Tanzania.
Zanzibar Report, Marine Conservation Unit, Zanzibar, Tanzania
Onyango, P. (2014) BMU Assessment Study: Tanzania Marine Districts. Smartfish Technical
Report March 2014.
1 MACEMP refers to the World Bank funded project Marine and Coastal Environment Management Project
which ran from 2005-2011
11
3.1 A Description of the Marine and Coastal Environment of Tanzania
(URT)
The Tanzanian coastline consists of the mainland coast, three large islands (Pemba, Unguja, and
Mafia), numerous small nearshore islands, and the oceanic island Latham Island (Fungu
Kizimkazi). The continental shelf ranges from 2 km - 80 km at its widest and covers an area of
17,900 km2 and drops sharply after 60-200 m depth. Pemba and Latham Islands are separated
from the mainland by relatively deep water, 400-500m and 200-300m depths respectively.
Pemba is believed to be part of the mainland that broke away about 10 million years ago.
Unguja and Mafia are limestone islands on the continental shelf and were probably part of a
Pleistocene inshore coral reef system which is now separated from the mainland by relatively
shallow (30-50 m deep) channels
(Richmond, 2011).
Ocean currents along the WIO coastline
vary seasonally and provide an
important physical link among all of the
sites on the East African coast. The
Northeast monsoon (Kaskazi) is
characterised by gentle winds blowing
from November to March while the
Southeast monsoon (Kusi) blows
strongly from June to September. The
East African Coastal Current (EACC)
flows north along the Tanzanian coast
(Figure 1). It flows fastest during Kusi
and meets the East African coast at the
latitude of Mtwara. During Kaskazi, the
current system shifts North and meets
the mainland closer to the latitude of
Mafia. While the EACC primarily affects
offshore waters, it also causes down-
welling of nutrient-poor, warm, clear
water, which stimulates coral growth
and benthic productivity (Ruitenbeek et al, 2005).
Both fringing and patch reefs occur along much of the mainland Tanzanian coast and the
offshore islands. The country’s combined reef area is the largest among all the countries of
eastern Africa, covering an estimated 3 580 km2. Chumbe, Mnemba and Misali islands off
Zanzibar have rich reef biodiversity, as does Mafia Island, particularly in the south, and the
Songo Songo Archipelago. Reef ecosystems are in a variable condition. Reefs that are furthest
from the mainland are less threatened by direct human impacts and are in better condition than
those in close proximity to urban areas. Coastal ecosystems support highly diverse and
productive systems such as sea grass and mangrove habitats, which provide essential resources
for poor people living on the coast. A wealth of mangrove forests occur in estuarine areas such
as the Rufiji delta that supports the largest single mangrove forest in eastern Africa, covering
Figure 1: WIO Currents (From Ruitenbeek, 2005)
12
53,000 ha (Ruitenbeek et al, 2005). Latham Island lies 66km south-east of Dar es Salaam and is
considered one of the significant seabird breeding islands off the coast of East Africa.
Pemba Island has been classified as a regionally important site in the EAME (Eastern African
Marine Ecoregion Visioning Workshop 2001 quoted in PECCA rapid assessment MACEMP
2005). The island contains the only oceanic reefs in the EAME with high diversity and coral
growth in excess of 64 metres, possibly the deepest seagrass beds in the EAME, and unique
concentrations of sailfish, black marlin and tuna. Moreover, Pemba Island is thought to be a
unique example of a diverse and deep-water coral community on a granitic island with
spectacular underwater scenery and has on these grounds been considered as a potential area
for World Heritage listing.Pemba Island is the oldest geologically in the Zanzibar archipelago,
which partly explains its heavily indented coastline with a large number of bays and a braided
network of deep channels separated by sandbanks, peninsulas and archipelagos of islets of
different shapes, sizes and geology.
3.2 Status of marine conservation in Tanzania (URT)
(Author’s note: The history of the different initiatives for marine conservation in Tanzania has
led to a bewildering number of acronyms; in particular the committee arrangement at village
and joint-village level has varied between coastal location, project and officially gazetted area
i.e. several parallel governance systems have evolved. The list of acronyms at the beginning of
this report aims to give an indication of the origin of the various terms).
Marine conservation in Tanzania was formally initiated in 1975 when the first marine reserves
were declared under the mainland Tanzania Fisheries Act of 1970. Zanzibar adopted its own
Fisheries Act in 1988, which enabled the establishment of marine protected areas around
Unguja and Pemba. While the two sides of the Union share the same EEZ as prescribed under
international law, wildlife and fisheries are not Union matters. Zanzibar and mainland Tanzania
are therefore, autonomous in management of marine conservation and management within the
territorial sea area. Any marine managed area within the broader EEZ is however, considered a
Union issue and needs to be managed collaboratively.
Tanzania has six categories of MMAs, each of which are managed under a specific approach. In
Zanzibar, Marine Conservation Areas (MCAs) and Marine Sanctuaries are common approaches
for protection of biodiversity. In theory, both approaches encourage the involvement and
empowerment of coastal communities in managing marine and coastal resources in designated
conservation areas. MCAs include Menai Bay Conservation Area (MBCA) located on the south
coast of Zanzibar, Pemba Channel Marine Conservation Area (PECCA) in Pemba and Mnemba-
Chwaka Bay Conservation Area (MIMCA). Two additional MCAs, Tumbatu Marine Conservation
Area (TUMCA) and Changuu-Bawe Marine Conservation Area (CHABAMCA), are in the process
of being gazetted. Marine Sanctuaries are small protected areas managed by private companies
under agreement with the government. These include Chumbe Island Coral Park (CHICOP) and
Mnemba Island Marine Reserve. The Marine Conservation Unit (MCU), under the Department of
Fisheries and Marine Resources is the responsible entity for coordinating management of all
Marine Conservation Areas in Zanzibar and for promoting the coordination of other forms of
MMAs such as the sanctuaries.
13
The Marine Parks and Reserves Unit established by the Act No, 29 of 1994, is entrusted with
legal power to manage all Marine Parks and Reserves in the mainland Tanzania. The principal
role and function of MPRU is to facilitate establishment and management of MPAs. There are
currently three Marine Parks in mainland Tanzania namely, Mafia Island Marine Park (MIMP)
and Mnazi Bay Ruvuma Estuary Marine Park (MB-REMP) and Tanga Coelacanth Marine Park
(TACMP) located in Mafia, Mtwara and Tanga respectively. A total of fifteen Marine Reserves are
in place including the Dar-es-salaam Marine Reserves System (Bongoyo, Pangavini, Mbudya
Funguyasini, Inner and Outer Makatube, Inner and Outer Sinda and Kendwa), Maziwe Island in
Pangani and the small islands of Nyororo, Mbarakuni and Shungimbili in Mafia. A series of
newly proclaimed Tanga Marine Reserves System (TMRs), as well as Kirui, Mwewe, Kwale and
Ulenge are all located at Mkinga Tanga near the Kenya border.
Outside of MPAs and Reserves, an additional approach to managing marine resources at the
community level is known as Beach Management Units (BMUs). The Fisheries Act of 2003
promotes the formation of these marine resources management units at the village level. These
community-run organizations are successfully established and operating around Lake Victoria
and in some coastal districts such as Rufiji, Kilwa and Mafia. Other areas have registered BMUs
but they are not yet fully operational (Smartfish 2014). The Fisheries Act further promotes the
collaboration among different BMUs to form collaborative fisheries management areas
(CFMAs). Historically some MMAs in mainland Tanzania were managed through an integrated
coastal management (ICM) approach whereby communities are empowered to manage coastal
and marine resources within and adjacent to their respective areas. This was commonly
practiced in Tanga, Muheza, and Pangani Districts and was initiated under Tanga Coastal Zone
Conservation and Development Programme (TCZCDP) which ran from 1994-2004.
Despite its significant biodiversity, Latham Island lacks formal protection and governance of the
Island remains the subject of debate between the two sides of the Union
MMAs in the mainland are implemented predominantly as independent units. McLean et al
suggest that the establishment and implementation of a national MMA network system would
help to address both the physical connections between sites, (i.e. currents, migrating species,
spawning aggregations) as well as institutional and managerial linkages and the coordination
between the two sides of the Union.
McLean et al. also suggest that strengthening of the legal and institutional framework of the
MCU and the MPRU is needed to develop effective management for MMAs. The Department of
Fisheries Development in Zanzibar, has taken measures to create an enabling environment for
operationalization of the MCU, which is established through the amendment of the Fisheries Act
of 1988 but it is still not fully operational (this study) and there is a need to strengthen the MCU
to promote co-management of the coastal and marine resources and establish and manage a
network for MMAs in Zanzibar. On mainland Tanzania, it has been proposed that the structure
of MPRU be changed from a semi-autonomous unit under Division of Fisheries Development to
an autonomous body corporate or authority, much in the same model as the Tanzania National
Parks Authority that will promote co-management arrangements and a network system of
MMAs. McLean et al. report that the MPRU is in the process of undertaking major reforms aimed
at strengthening its institutional structure and management capability.
14
Marine Protected Areas in Tanzania(from McLean et al. 2012) Table 1:
Site
IUCN
Catego
ry
Size
(km2)
Date Governance
type
1.1 Mainland Mnazi Bay-Ruvuma Estuary
Marine Park (MBREMP) 1.2 -- 1.3 200 1.4 2000 1.5 Government
Mafia Island Marine Park
(MIMP)
1.6 V
I 1.7 615 1.8 1995 1.9 Government
Mafia Island Marine Reserve
System (Nyororo, Shungumbili
and Mbarakuli)
1.10 II 1.11 -- 1.12 2007 1.13 Government
Rufiji-Mafia-Kilwa (RUMAKI)
Seascape Programme 1.14 V 1.15 9000 1.16 2004 1.17 NGO
Rufiji Environmental
Management Project (REMP) 1.18 -- 1.19 --
1.20 1998 -
2008 1.21 Collaborative
Dar es Salaam Marine Reserve
system (DSMRs)
(North: Mbudya, Bongoyo,
Pangavini and Funguyasini)
(South: Kendwa, Makatumbe,
Sinda)
1.22 II
1.23 350
1.24 58
1.25 1975
1.26 2007
1.27 Governm
ent
Kinondoni Integrated Coastal
Area Management Programme
(KICAMP)
1.28 -- 1.29 -- 1.30 2000 -
2006 1.31 Collaborative
Maziwe Island 1.32 II 1.33 2.6 1.34 1975 1.35 Government
Tanga collaborative
Management Areas 1.36 -- 1.37 1914 1.38 1994-2004 1.39 Collaborative
Tanga Coelacanth Marine Park
(TACMP) 1.40 VI 1.41 552 1.42 2009 1.43 Government
Tanga Marine Reserve system
(TMRs)
1.44 2010 1.45 Government
15
Site
IUCN
Catego
ry
Size
(km2)
Date Governance
type
1.46 Zanzibar Chumbe Island Coral Park
(CHICOP) 1.47 II 1.48 0.3 1.49 1991 1.50 Private
Menai Bay Conservation Area
(MBCA) 1.51 VI 1.52 470 1.53 1997 1.54 Collaborative
Pemba Channel Conservation
Area (PECCA) 1.55 V 1.56 -- 1.57 2005 1.58 Government
Misali Island Marine
Conservation Area 1.59 V 1.60 21.6 1.61 1998-2010 1.62 NGO
Mnemba Island – Chwaka Bay
Marine Conservation Area
(MIMCA)
1.63 VI 1.64 0.15 1.65 2002 1.66 Private
Kiwengwa (Unguja) 1.67 -
- 1.68 17.5 1.69 2000 1.70 Un-managed
Tumbatu Marine Conservation
Area (TUMCA) 1.71 V
-- 1.72 Proposed 1.73 Government
Changu-Bawe Marine
Conservation Area
(CHABAMCA)
1.74 V --
1.75 Proposed Government
3.3 Marine Protected Areas in Mainland Tanzania
Mainland Tanzania currently has three Marine Parks and 15 Marine Reserves (Table 2)
established and gazetted under the MPR Act. The Marine Parks include Mafia Island Marine Park
(MIMP), which was the first to be gazetted in 1996, Mnazi Bay-Ruvuma Estuary Marine Park
(MBREMP) was gazetted in 2000 and Tanga Coelacanth Marine Park (TACMP) which is the
youngest marine park, gazetted in 2009.
MPAs and Collaborative MMAs in mainland Tanzania (from Mangora et al 2012). Table 2:
1.76 Marine Managed Area Year established Area
(km2)
Dar es Salaam Marine Reserves System (DMRs)
(North: Mbudya, Bongoyo, Pangavini & Funguyasini)
(South: Kendwa, Makatumbe, Sinda)
1975
2007
350
58
Maziwe Island Marine Reserve 1975 2.6
16
Mafia Island Marine Park (MIMP) 1996 822
Tanga Coastal Zone Conservation Development
Programme (TCZCDP) 1994 - 2004 1914
Rufiji Environmental Management Project (REMP) 1998 - 2008
Mnazi Bay-Ruvuma Estuary Marine Park (MBREMP) 2000 650
Kinondoni Integrated Coastal Area Management
Programme (KICAMP) 2000 - 2006
Rufiji-Mafia-Kilwa (RUMAKI) Seascape Programme 2004 9000
Mafia Island Marine Reserves System
(Nyororo, Shungimbili and Mbarakuni) 2007 21
Tanga Coelacanth Marine Park (TACMP) 2009 552
Tanga Marine Reserves System (TMRs) 2010
The fifteen marine reserves include Dar-es-Salaam Marine Reserve systems (DMRs), which
comprises six small island reserves of Bongoyo, Pangavini, Mbudya, Makatumbe, Sinda, Kendwa
and one sand bank of Funguyasini. The DMRs are the oldest legally gazetted MMAs in Tanzania,
dating back to 1975 under the then Fisheries Act of 1970. Other marine reserves are Maziwe
island located in Pangani district in Tanga which was declared in 1975, Nyororo, Mbarakuni and
Shungimbili marine reserves located North of Mafia Island were declared in 2007. The most
recently established marine reserves are the Tanga Marine Reserves that include a system of
four small islands of Kirui, Mwewe, Kwale and Ulenge, North of Tanga declared in 2010.
A full description of these areas can be seen in the report from Mangora et al. and detail is given
on Tanga Coelacanth Marine Park and the Tanga Marine Reserves System below as it is part of
the focal area of this report.
17
3.3.1 Tanga Coelacanth Marine Park
Tanga Coelacanth Marine Park (TACMP) was gazetted through the Government Notice No. 307
of 28th August, 2009 as a third marine park in the country after Mafia Island (MIMP) and Mnazi
Bay (MBREMP). TACMP is located
on the northern coastline of
Tanzania, extending from North of
Pangani River estuary along a 100
km coastal strip towards Mafuriko
village just North of Tanga City. It
includes the bays of Tanga City
and Mwambani, Tongoni estuary,
and three small islands of Toten,
Yambe and Karange. In total, the
park covers an area of 552 km² of
which only 15% is terrestrial. It
encompasses 9 villages and 9
Tanga City localities (Streets
and/or suburbs) with an
estimated resident population of
about 45,000. Unlike the other two
marine parks, TACMP spans two
administrative districts of Muheza
and Tanga. One of the salient
drivers for the establishment of
the park and which holds its
uniqueness is the occurrence and
high rates of incidental catches of
the CITES-listed and iconic
Coelacanth, Latimeria chalumnae,
after which the park is named.
A description found in the
prepared GMP that awaits approval of the responsible minister indicates that TACMP area
supports a number of ecologically important and diverse habitats. Inshore waters are
characterized by fringing and patch coral reefs, sea grass beds, mangrove forests, and several
estuaries and bays. Major geographical features found within the northern part are Toten
Island, the islands of Yambe Karange, and Mwambani Bay. The islands are covered by stands of
coastal forest, with steep submerged slopes leading eastwards into the Pemba Channel. One
recommendation from stakeholders received during research carried out by McLean et al. was
that since the two MMAs fall within the TCZCDP area, and for the purpose of avoiding possible
duplication and reinventing the wheel on field methods for especially monitoring and
evaluation, they may take advantage of the huge information database created by TCZCDP now
managed by the Tanga Coastal Resource Center (TCRC) which was purposely established to
oversee the information accrued over the TCZCDP life time.
Figure 2: Extent of Tanga Coelacanth Marine Park (From Mangora et al 2012)
18
3.3.2 Tanga Marine Reserves System
Tanga Marine Reserve systems (TMRs) are the most recent additions in the list of MMAs in
mainland Tanzania. These were gazetted through a Government Notice No. 212 of 11 June 2010.
This marine reserves system encompasses the four island reserves of Kirui, Mwewe, Kwale, and
Ulenge which form a unique ecological system lying along and adjacent to a coastline and
surrounding waters that comprise of a diverse of coastal and marine habitats ranging from
luxuriant fringing corals, seagrass beds and an almost continuous strip of mangrove stands
(Mangora and Shalli 2011). As the islands were once inhabited, they have remained with
cultural values linked to the adjacent communities such as historical ruins, traditional and
spiritual connections as ancestral graveyards and sacred groves. These are potential amenities
for community-based ecotourism and other recreational promotions.
Preparation of a GMP for these new Marine Reserves is underway (Mangora and Shalli 2011).
Research suggests that the GMP development should be completed soon, before the
understanding of adjacent communities of the status and the collaborative role in enforcement
and coast and benefit sharing is destroyed. It was noted during the discussions with MPRU
Manager that there are plans underway to establish an MoU with Mkinga District Council to
manage the reserves system in a similar way to the arrangement reported for Maziwe Island
Marine Reserve. However, field lessons on Maziwe arrangements, indicate that there are still
unresolved challenges in terms of management effectiveness due to the frequent lack of
capacity (both personnel and finances) of the District Councils to fulfil MoU obligations (Hurd
2003). There was no mention during the fieldwork for this current study of the existence of this
reserve system (2014).
3.4 Community-Based Conservation in Mainland Tanzania
Community-based MMAs in mainland Tanzania were developed under the projects TCZCDP,
KICAMP, REMP and RUMAKI, which have been implemented in collaborative arrangements with
communities and local government authorities outside legally established marine parks and
marine reserves.
3.4.1 Tanga Coastal Zone Conservation and Development Program
The TCZCDP was effectively in operation from 1994 to 2004 and involved a strong community-
based approach to marine protection and management in Tanzania. The model was based on
the idea of enabling coastal communities in Tanga, Muheza, and Pangani Districts (note the new
district of Mkinga is within the original project area) to care for their own resources through an
adaptive management approach to sustainable coastal resource use. The decentralized nature of
the TCZCDP activities (developing institutional capacity at village, ward and district levels on
resource management), was consistent with the provisions of the Local Government Reform Act
of 1998 and the Land Act and Village Land Act of 1999. Fisheries management interventions
involved the establishment of collaborative management areas, which were formally gazetted
through village by-laws and approved at national level (Samoilys and Kanyange 2008). The
programme devised and relied on a reef closure system based on these community-based,
collaborative fisheries management plans. Six Collaborative Management Area Plans (CMAPs)
were developed and instituted covering the entire 150 km of the region coastline (and on
average 5 km into the sea). Other key aspects of the programme included the reduction of
19
destructive and illegal fishing through surveillance patrols and gear exchange for beach seines,
regular monitoring by communities of coral reef health and artisanal fisheries, and
implementation of alternative livelihood strategies such as seaweed farming.
The establishment of Tanga Coelacanth Marine Park built on the legacy of the TCZCDP. When
TCZCDP closed in 2004, the activities were transferred. A transitional period occurred from
2005 when lead technical agency, IUCN, handed over the TCZCDP to government. In 2007
funding from the donor, Irish Aid, ceased and the programme operations were transferred to
the office of the Regional Administrative Secretary and incorporated into respective district
plans. These are centrally coordinated at the regional level through the Tanga Coastal Resource
Centre (TCRC), which was formed as a caretaker. TCZCDP is widely acknowledged as a practical
model for effective community-based coastal and marine resources management due to:
A core strategy of action planning;
The use of issue-based plans;
Cause and effect solving of problems;
Participatory monitoring, evaluation and adaptive management (Samoilys and
Kanyange 2008; Harrison 2010); and
A long-term commitment of donor funds over a total of 12 years, which enabled TCZCDP
to operate and change through an adaptive management process.
According to Samoilys & Kanyange, the main achievement of TCZCDP was the development of a
collaborative approach to preparing the CMAPs that are satisfactory to both communities and
the government, and that share implementation among villages, District administrations and
regional/national authorities (2007). The model of the CMAPs are based on shared fishing
grounds among several villages in each CMA, which differs from the Beach Management Unit
(BMU) approach which advocate for collaboration among a group of people associated with a
specific landing site – a much smaller geographic area.
Experiences, lessons and adaptive best practices from TCZCDP are further documented in detail
by Wells et al. (2007a,b).
3.4.2 Rufiji Environmental Management Project
Financed through the Royal Netherlands Embassy in Tanzania, and implemented by the IUCN in
partnership with Rufiji District Council, (National Environment Management Council) NEMC,
Rufiji Basin Development Authority (RUBADA) and the (Ministry of Natural Resources and
Tourism) MNRT, the Rufiji Environmental Management Project (REMP) was a community-based
project that aimed at promoting the long-term conservation through ‘wise use’ of the lower
Rufiji forests, woodlands and wetlands, such that biodiversity is conserved, critical ecological
functions are maintained, renewable natural resources are used sustainably and the livelihoods
of the area’s inhabitants are secured and enhanced. To achieve this aim, the project objectives
were to: (i) promote the integration of environmental conservation and sustainable
development through environmental planning within the Rufiji Delta and Floodplain, (ii)
promote the sustainable use of natural resources and enhance the livelihoods of local
communities by implementing sustainable pilot development activities based on wise use
20
principles, (iii) promote awareness of the values of forests, woodlands and wetlands and the
importance of wise use at village, district, regional and central government levels, and to
influence national policies on natural resource management emphasising the non-sectoral,
multi-biome, integrated approach to the environment.
3.4.3 Rufiji-Mafia-Kilwa Seascape Programme
Rufiji-Mafia-Kilwa (RUMAKI) seascape programme is a WWF Tanzania Programme Office
initiative (with initial funding from WWF UK) in partnership with District authorities (and local
communities) of Rufiji, Mafia and Kilwa, and NEMC. Mafia Island Marine Park is also a partner.
These institutional stakeholders have committed to facilitate the development of coastal
livelihoods through the sustainable management of coastal and marine resources falling within
the programme area. The programme started in July 2004 as a response to the need for
community-based mechanisms to protect the coastal and marine resources that principally fell
outside the geographical boundaries of MIMP. This strategic concept for RUMAKI seascape
programme is very relevant to the use of MPAs in conjunction with other management tools,
such as Integrated Coastal Management, marine spatial planning and broad area fisheries
management.The primary purpose of RUMAKI Seascape programme is to deliver improved
socio-economic well-being of coastal RUMAKI communities through sustainable, participatory
and equitable utilization and protection of their marine and coastal resources. RUMAKI has
operated primarily through the promotion and capacity building of BMUs.
An evaluation of the Rumaki project (Benno et al. 2012) concluded,
‘The project has generally been effective in implementing the planned activities and had
achieved its objectives during the three-year period. It has established the institutions for
participatory management and protection of marine and coastal resources and provided a
good foundation for improving socio-economic well-being of coastal communities through
the introduction and capacity building VICOBA. Specifically, the project supported 25
VICOBA groups, 2 CFMA(Collaborative Fishery Management Areas) and 7 BMUs. The BMUs
and CCC (Central Coordinating Committee) are monitoring and surveying their areas of
jurisdiction and have helped to reduce illegal fishing practices. However, in-spite of the
training some BMUs and CCCs still face financial challenges with regards to their financial
sustainability. Remarkable achievements have been made with respect to the establishment
of VICOBA. About 519 members of the target villages acquired the necessary skills to run
savings and credit schemes and over 3,630 individuals are benefiting VICOBAs.’
3.4.4 Kinondoni Coastal Area Management Programme
Started in the year 2000, the Kinondoni Coastal Area Management Programme (KICAMP) had its
overall objective, to improve the understanding and management of marine and coastal
resources in the Kinondoni District. The programme focuses on four components namely: i)
coastal land and water use planning; ii) coastal community development; iii) coastal surveys,
assessment and monitoring; and iv) education, information and communication. In particular,
KICAMP formulated a comprehensive conservation plan focused on the use of land and water
resources in coastal areas of the District. For example, the programme resulted in the ban of
excavation of sand in Kunduchi‐Mtongani as a way to prevent further beach erosion.
21
Households in the programme area were also made aware of the value of mangroves and their
protection.
3.4.5 Bagamoyo ICM Action Planning
The Bagamoyo District has embarked on a process of ICM action planning with support from the
Tanzania Coastal
Management Partnership
(TCMP) funded by USAID.
The District has developed
a collaborative fisheries
management (CFM) plan
for seven of the nine
coastal villages with the
goal to: rebuild fish stocks
and associated habitats to
levels that allow for
increased and sustainable
fish catches by artisanal
fishers, and that results in
improved income for
artisanal fishers in the
Bagamoyo District (Torell
et al, 2006). Following a
rapid ecological
assessment by a team of
scientists and village
fishermen, a selection was
made of four CFM no-take
areas or reef closures. A
Central Coordinating
Committee (CCC)
comprised of twenty-eight
members from seven
coastal villages (four
members per village) is
responsible for
coordinating issues
associated with the CFMA.
The reef closure was
extended to the end of
2011 after which time the
closure was reassessed to
determine a way forward.
TCZC
KICAM
RUMAKREMP
Figure 3: Map illustrating the location of some of the MMAs
mentioned in the text (from Mangora et al. 2012)
22
3.4.6 Challenges of Managing MMAs
The research undertaken by Mangora et al. (2012) revealed generally positive feedback on the
overall management of MMAs in mainland Tanzania. Field experience indicated that
practitioners recognise that effective implementation of MMAs can boost revenues from coastal
tourism, provide a good system of record keeping (where even District Councils relies on data
from MMAs), and generally improve coastal and marine resources. Nonetheless, a few
exceptional challenges were found to be faced by MMA managers that are largely unique to their
context, unlike PAs in terrestrial environments. Dudley (2008) lists some of the particular
characteristics common to MMAs across the world. They are:
MMAs are designated in a fluid three-dimensional environment; in some instances,
different management approaches may be considered at different depths;
There are usually multidirectional flows (e.g., tides, currents);
Tenure is rarely applicable in the marine environment as marine areas are considered to
be “commons” to which all users have a right to both use and access;
Full protection may only be necessary at certain times of the year, for example to protect
breeding sites for fish or marine mammals;
Controlling entry to, and activities in, MMAs is frequently particularly difficult to
regulate or enforce, and boundaries over external influences can rarely be applied;
MMAs are subject to surrounding influences from outside the area of management
control and managing marine areas as separate units is problematic; and
The scales over which marine connectivity occurs can be very large.
During stakeholder consultations by McLean et al. (especially with MMA managers) for the 2012
study, all of these issues were mentioned as critical challenges to the effectiveness of enforcing
both legal and community-based (collaborative) agreements in protecting the designated
MMAs. For instance, there is a lack of a common vision and mission for the systems of MMAs in
the country. The MMAs are currently managed on an individual basis rather than as a cohesive
network, understandable given that the network approach is a relatively recent phenomenon
and that the country is still grappling with effective management of existing areas. No
overarching guidance exists for selecting MPAs or Reserve areas at this stage. Principal trade-
offs are on the bases of resource management, resource use pattern, and poverty alleviation and
misunderstandings often emerge between different stakeholders. Local authorities in particular,
often perceive that areas of their jurisdiction are appropriated for MMAs.
3.5 Best practices and lessons in co-management
The following section provides an insight into some of the positive developments in co-
management arrangements for MMA management in mainland Tanzania.
23
3.5.1 Legislative based arrangements
Village Liaison Committees in MPA areas
VLCs are the grassroots formations provided for in the MPA Act to serve as participatory and
representative local community organs in the management of marine parks. However some
stakeholders are still concerned the there is a big gap between communities and MPAs in the
MPR Act. Village Liaison Committees are seen as essentially part of the marine park structure
and not representative of the respective villages. VLCs are not really active and not accountable
to the community in a meaningful manner (e.g. Kigombe and Tongoni, this study 2014).
Harrison (2010) suggested that links should be developed between MPAs and VLCs to support
MPA management with the MPRU under the coordination of VECs at the village level. He further
recommended that each liaison committee could utilise the lessons learned from the CCC
experience under the TCZCDP CMAP process and refer the linked VLCs as Community-Park
Liaison Committees. This is being considered in the current revision of the MPR Act to give
these committees legal rights to manage, monitor, patrol and police the marine resources within
their area. Such powers would not only grant communities with the rights to enforce laws and
enhance compliance, but would also give the communities involved a sense of ownership.
BMUs outside MPAs
Provisions have been made in Tanzanian fisheries legislation to facilitate the involvement of the
resource users in fisheries management through the creation of local co-management units, the
Beach Management Units (BMUs). The three countries of Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda have
subsequently developed harmonised BMU guidelines for the establishment and operations of
these. To facilitate coordination of development of management plans and address conflicts,
networks of BMUs were formed to bring together village units to a ward level. The networks are
designated representative of networked units at higher levels of governance. BMUs bring
together a range of local stakeholders in fisheries including fishers, boat owners, managers, fish
processors, fishmongers, local gear makers, and dealers in fishing equipment. BMUs are only
eligible in non-MPA areas (in MPAs, VLCs are provided for by governing legislation). As part of
the WWF Rumaki project in collaboration with MLFD detailed guidelines have been produced
for ‘Establishing Community based Collaborative Fisheries Management in Marine Waters of
Tanzania’ including detailed instructions on formation of BMUs (MLFD, 2009 – weblink in
bibliography).
While the formation and operation of BMUs have legal status, their financial sustainability
remains an overarching challenge. Formation processes of BMUs along the coastal have largely
been enabled through donor assistance projects like MACEMP and WWF-RUMAKI but capacity
building following registration (particularly during the MACEMP period) has not always taken
place. Reliance on these kinds of sources of financial support is not sustainable. Development of
operational by-laws has been weak and Mangora et al report that there is a kind of jealousy in
Village Councils who feel that BMUs are seizing the powers of Village Environmental
Committees (VECs) provided for under the LGA Act. Only a few specific BMUs e.g. Kilindoni in
Mafia and Somanga in Kilwa are operating well in the RUMAKI area because they have had more
attention from WWF. From the communities’ side, there is still deep hostility, misconception
and political sentiments in some areas especially those close to MPAs.
24
Recommendations from the 2014 Smartfish Assessment on BMUs in Tanzania (from Table 3:Onyango 2014)
Smartfish (Onyango, 2014) has carried out a recent BMU assessment in Tanzania. A total of 37
BMUs were randomly selected from a list 193 to represent each region and district. All the
BMUs were formed between the years 2007-2012 and all those interviewed had an elected
Executive Committee but only 3% indicated that they were registered. Many of the registered
BMUs are found in Rufiji, Mafia, Temeke, Kinondoni, Mtwara Mikindani, Mtwara rural and Kilwa
1. Fast track registration of BMUs.
2. Secure motor boats and offices for BMUs and when a BMU is established they
should be provided with a registration book. Also set time limits for BMUs to
formulate a management plan and by-laws so that the process of their approval is
commenced.
3. Establish a continuous training and education on BMU operations and functions.
4. Assist District tenders to finance activities
5. Involve BMUs in issuing of fishing licenses
6. Boundary/Jurisdiction: Capacity building should be designed for all to understand
boundaries and jurisdiction
7. Representation in BMU membership improved to include certain fisher groups
such as fish processors, service providers.
8. Record keeping improved by establishing a permanent mentoring system at the
MLDF and the District
9. Establish a system and or culture where new leaders learn about their roles and
responsibilities as they take office.
10. Among the BMU roles and responsibilities, conflict resolution should be listed and
build the capacity of BMUs to handle even bigger conflicts such as those that deal
with technical fishing issues and are currently handled by the courts.
11. Improve communication, transparency and freedom of expression especially
between BMUs and fisheries division.
12. Any new project on co-management in the Tanzania coast should build CFMA
networks.
13. Establish the minimum level of resources required for a BMU to operate at least
optimally and special efforts directed at enabling them to get those resources.
14. A mentoring system should be established. at the MLFD to provide a link for all
those interested in BMU improvement, law enforcement agencies such as the
Police including Marine Police, Magistrates and Fisheries Division.
15. Politics has had an effect on the performance of the BMUs. Political parties need to
make co-management an agenda in their manifestos and or operations.
16. Harmonization of BMU regulations in the MLFD and the Prime Minister’s Office
Local government.
17. Wherever possible BMUs in Mtwara region should be given priority (in terms of
assistance to acquire resources) because of the current political situation.
25
districts. About 88% of the BMUs do not have a dedicated office. When interviewed about
guidelines, management plans and by-laws, the responses indicate that only 42% of the BMUs
have management plans but out of these only 21% had their plans approved by the district
authorities. Recommendations from this study are listed in Table 3 above.
3.5.2 Programme-based arrangements
Collaborative Management Area Plans of TCZCDP
TCZCDP worked directly with local governments and communities to develop and manage their
natural resources. The mechanism to achieve this was through a designated model of
collaborative fisheries management, which resulted in the formation six CMAs, each with a
formal Management Plan (CMAP). The Program made it a priority to work through existing local
government structures and processes.
Hurd (2003) states that the Collaborative Fisheries Management Areas in Tanga provide an
excellent example of how resources users can work together to manage their own resources. A
key feature of the Tanga approach is seasonal or temporary reef closures to allow degraded
coral reefs time to regenerate or to protect important spawning grounds for certain marine
species. The management committee determined which reefs are to be closed and for how long
(experience has shown that fishermen agree to close reefs for one year at the beginning, but
extend the term of closure once the benefits can easily be seen). Hurd suggested this approach
could be adapted and replicated all along the mainland coast, ensuring that all near-shore
coastal waters are under some sort of management
Collaborative Fishery Management Areas of RUMAKI
RUMAKI has networked BMUs to form CFMAs (collaborative fisheries management areas). Six
CFMAs have been formed and spatially demarcated with assistance from WWF. Unlike BMUs
which form a particular fisheries management area, CFMAs do not have any legal support but
co-management is being developed. Similar to BMUs, guidelines for the formation of CFMAs are
already in place. The CFMA concept was drawn from TCZCDP CMA (CMAP) experience. Already
there are success indications and the government has fully embraced the concept and uses the
terminology in many of the official documentations. The concept is being embedded within the
undergoing revision of the fisheries policy. Stakeholder discussions to ultimately have it
included in the Fisheries Act are underway.
3.6 Overview of Zanzibar’s MCAs
The primary legal tool for managing MMAs in Zanzibar is currently the Fisheries Act of 2010,
which provides for the establishment of the Marine Conservation Unit (MCU see Appendix 2)
under the Department of Fisheries Development in the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries. The
Fisheries Act will be operationalized through the finalization and adoption of the draft MCU
Regulations. The MCU is a relatively young institution and the Regulations have not yet been
finalised or adopted (this study).
Zanzibar currently has 3 formally established Marine Conservation Areas, Menai Bay
Conservation Area, Mnemba Island-Chwaka Bay Marine Conservation Area and Pemba Channel
Conservation Area. Two other MCAs, Tumbatu Marine Conservation Area and Changuu-Bawe
26
Marine Conservation Area, are awaiting formal Gazettement. Privately managed protected areas
include Chumbe Island Coral Park and Mnemba Island. The formal extent and coverage of the
MCAs in Zanzibar has increased significantly over the last 8 years with the support of the
MACEMP project with the focus on promoting sustainable resource utilisation in large areas,
using a variety of techniques and methodologies (including core zones that can function as ‘fish
refugia’). McLean et al. give a brief overview of each of the MCA areas and the account of PECCA
is given below.
3.6.1 Pemba Channel Conservation Area (PECCA)
Pemba Channel Conservation Area (PECCA) is located on the western seaboard of the Pemba
Island straddling the entire coastline from the southern tip to the northern point (See figure 4).
The coastline is heavily indented with many bays and a braided network of deep channels
separated by shallow sandbanks, peninsulas and archipelagos of islets of different shapes, sizes
and geology. Strong tidal currents occur around Pemba Island, especially at the northern end.
The permanent north flowing East African Coastal Current (EACC) influences the western side
of the conservation area. The currents in the Misali Channel are very strong due to the deep
waters on the western side of the island and reverse with each tidal cycle resulting in strong
eddies close to shore.
Misali Island is one of the very significant islets covered by PECCA. Misali was designated a
marine conservation area in 1993. The west coast of Pemba plays the major role in generating
and maintaining the region’s high marine biodiversity which justified the designation of PECCA
to ensure sustainable resource utilization. PECCA was declared a Conservation Area on
September 23rd 2005, through the declaration order under the Fisheries Act of 1988. PECCA
stretches from the south of Pemba Island at the southern tip of Ngazi Islet with a two-mile width
band stretching along the rest of the western coast of Pemba Island to its northern tip at Ras
Kigomasha covering an area of 42 nautical miles. On the western side of PECCA is a deep Pemba
channel which drops sharply to a depth below 1000m separating Pemba Island from the
mainland Tanzania and characterizing it as a true oceanic Island. The PECCA Order was
published in the Government Gazette as a legal supplement (Part II, Vol. CXIV No. 6111). The
order prohibits the use of certain destructive fishing gear and methods such as beach seine,
spear fishing, explosives, poison and dragging nets (kigumi). It provides for a system of permits
and fees for the use of the area by non-residents.
27
Community
involvement in the
management of Misali
Island was relatively
strong prior to 2005
and the declaration of
PECCA. Between 2001
and 2006, the Misali
Island Conservation and
Development Project,
was overseen by CARE
and implemented by the
Misali Island
Conservation
Association (MICA) NGO
in collaboration with
the Department of Cash
Crops, Fruits and
Forests. MICODEP
involved successful
implementation of
conservation,
environmental
education and
sustainable resource
use livelihood
initiatives. The Misali
Island Conservation
Area Order was
repealed by the Order
establishing PECCA.
Following this, the
MICODEP project
diminished, reportedly
due in large part to lack of clarity over a modification of responsibilities and mandates of the
Department of Fisheries and rising conflicts between the government and MICA. All terrestrial
areas are currently excluded within the overall boundaries of PECCA but the terrestrial area of
Misali Island remains protected under the Misali Forest Order. The area around Makongwe has
been identified by the community as an area of restricted fishing activities. While the fishers
have reportedly restricted fishing activities in the area already, they are awaiting formalization
of the zoning by the Department of Fisheries Development.
PECCA is currently largely managed by the Department of Fisheries Development through the
PECCA management committee. The MCA is significantly understaffed, under skilled and under-
resourced with a total of approximately 9 permanent employees seconded from the DFMR who
are responsible for daily management of the area. Approximately 4 rangers/patrol officers are
Figure 4: Map showing extent of PECCA (from DFMR 2010)
28
based in the area for patrolling, recording and training activities. The Manager of PECCA was
also responsible for the post of Officer in Charge (Head of Fisheries Development) – Pemba.
The details of the PECCA order can be found in Appendix 4 and salient points are detailed
below:
The PECCA Management Committee is the executing organ for all management issues of the Area and consists of members from all Shehias of the Community and the Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources.
Members of the Management Committee shall, among themselves, elect chairperson, secretary and treasurer and elections shall be carried out every 3 years.
Any condition or order or guidelines issued by the Management Committee to be observed, after being signed by its Chairperson and Secretary, shall automatically be part of the Order.
A Manager of PECCA, appointed by the Director of Fisheries and Marine Resources, is responsible for implementing day to day activities of the PECCA Management Committee. In addition, the Manager shall be a permanent invited member to the Management Committee meetings.
The Manager of PECCA and any person employed or hired by the Management Committee shall have legal power to execute the duty assigned to him in accordance to the Order including to stop or restrict any operator from entering the Area if he has a reasonable ground to believe that any or all provisions of the Order is contravened or have been contravened.
Roles of the Management Committee, in collaboration with the Department responsible for fisheries, shall include:-
(i) Making decisions on all management issues for the Area, (ii) Establishing closed fishing seasons or fishing zones, camping areas and periods, or limitations of
fish to be caught and fishing gears to be used within the Area. (iii) Ensuring that no destruction of marine ecosystems within the Area. (iv) From time to time, reviewing the fees imposed and source of revenue and may make changes on
the same or impose new fee to be paid for any activity undertaken within the Area. (v) Consult with Advisory Committee of the Area, as established under Rule 5 of this Order, on all
aspects of management issues within the Area. (vi) Consult with any institution on technical, scientific and operational matters concerning the Area.
(vii) Prepare a PECCA General Management Plan. (viii) Prepare quarterly, semi-annual and annual operational work plans,
(ix) Prepare quarterly, semi-annual and annual management reports to the Director of Fisheries and to the Advisory Committee. The reports shall include:-
(a) Fisheries management activities undertaken within the Area, (b) Services provided to the Community, (c) Implementation of respective operational work plan, (d) Revenue collected and financial expenditures, (e) Operational statement (work plan) for the coming period, and includes budgets. (f) Any other business.
The PECCA Advisory Committee, is an advisory organ for all management issues of the Area in accordance with the Order.
Members of the Advisory Committee include the Directors responsible for Fisheries, Environment, Forestry and Institute of Marine Sciences; Executive Secretary for Tourism Commission; Honourable District Commissioners of Micheweni, Wete, Chake Chake and Mkoani Districts; Honourable Members of the House of Representatives for Konde, Gando, Utaani, Mtambwe, Ziwani, Chake Chake, Mkoani and Chokocho Constituencies; and Shehas from the Community
Fees chargeable under the order are detailed in a schedule of the order All moneys collected under the Order shall be used in the following manner:-
- seventy percent for operational costs of the Area including costs for Advisory and Management Committees meetings, patrols and administration activities, and
- thirty percent for supporting community activities including supplying of fishing implements to local fishermen and seaweed farmers.
- Management Committee shall be responsible for all revenue collection from the Area. - Management Committee shall keep proper records of the revenue collected and the
expenditure in a professional manner. - Monthly financial reports shall be made available to any member of the Management
Committee on request.
29
3.7 Community Involvement and Collaborative Management in MCAs
(Znz)
3.7.1 Community-driven conservation
According to McLean’s research, it appears that most of the marine conservation initiatives in
Zanzibar were either initiated by communities due to a concern over the depletion and
degradation of resources or to conflicts of resource utilisation. In some areas, community
involvement has been significant, to the point of driving conservation activities. Misali Island
provides a good example of the in-depth and successful involvement of CBOs and NGOs in
marine conservation. Prior to the establishment of PECCA, management of Misali Island was
characterised by an intense involvement of community through MICA. Another example of
strong impetus provided by local coastal villages includes Mnemba Island conservation
initiatives.
The research also revealed a growing perception by local stakeholders of a decrease of
meaningful involvement of community stakeholders in management of these MCAs. A perceived
change in modalities of management of the MCAs by the Department of Fisheries Development
over the last 5 years appear to have reduced the involvement of the broader coastal community
group, a perception that is creating some disquiet among stakeholders. A greater effort is
needed by the MCU to clarify roles and responsibilities, mechanisms for stakeholder
involvement, and revenue sharing modalities if the extended conservation areas are to have any
positive impact for coastal communities, fishers and other users of the marine environment.
3.7.2 Indigenous knowledge, traditional customs and marine conservation
Masalu et al (2010 quoted in Mangora et al 2013) refers to indigenous knowledge as the large
body of knowledge and skills that have developed outside of the formal education system,
where local culture and knowledge and institutions provide useful frameworks, ideas, guiding
principles, procedures, and practices for effective development options, and for restoring social,
economic and environmental resilience. Traditional management strategies that have served to
protect the marine environment include:
Taboos and beliefs restricting access to certain areas (i.e. reefs) in certain periods;
Closed seasons, usually enforced by elders who determine and enforce the restrictions;
and
Restrictions on fishing gear (Masalu et al, 2010).
The modernization of fishing gear, vessels and methods, has led to a reduction of the application
of old belief systems. In addition, current fishery and marine management approaches are
failing to recognize or incorporate the important role of indigenous knowledge and traditional
custom of coastal communities, or to incorporate provisions for traditional custom in marine
conservation and management legislation (Masalu et al, 2010). Communities also utilise
customary laws and practices that bestow ownership rights that exclude outsiders. These
practices were established over many years and ideally these should be reflected in the law to
encourage better management, and voluntary enforcement of the laws.
30
3.7.3 Community involvement in the management of the MCAs
The main mechanism for stakeholder involvement in marine conservation is currently within
the individual MCAs. Communities at their village level elect representatives to form
committees known variably in the literature as Village fishermen committees (VFC), Village
Conservation Committee (VCC) or Fisheries Coordination Committee, (FCC). These bodies are
involved at different levels of marine resource management that also includes enforcement of
environmental laws and regulations. In some areas, consultation between MCA management
and community members, a system of community sea and land patrols was created through a
Village Patrol Group (VPG). Some MCAs have also established Advisory Committees which
provide for greater involvement of different stakeholders in decision-making for the MCA
management. The operational success of these bodies relies on regular communication and
established processes of cooperation and McLean et al suggest that experience of late appears to
suggest a breakdown of these mechanisms.
Other examples of community involvement in marine conservation in Zanzibar have been
largely through the support of donor initiatives. Lessons from such initiatives suggest that there
is a need to try to disperse programme benefits across villages in a consistent and equitable
way. There is also a need to recognise differences in local contexts, histories and social
structures and to work with existing structures (Levine, 2004). Structural relationships
between the government and the external institutions or private sector stakeholders in
Zanzibar has some useful lessons to draw from (i.e. through the Misali Island and Mnemba
Island initiatives. These arrangements need to be built on and strengthened to ensure ongoing
meaningful involvement of local stakeholders and other NGO, research and private sector
representatives to both reduce conflicts around the resource utilisation in the MCAs and to take
advantage of cost-sharing opportunities.
3.7.4 Community control of marine areas
Ruitenbeek et al (2005), propose the establishment of a community territorial sea which would
clarify and entrench the rights and responsibilities of coastal communities by establishing a,
with explicit management rights conferred to coastal Shehias. McLean et al. suggest this is a key
point to consider, particularly given the nature of fisheries in Zanzibar in the broader Tanzania
area where freedom of movement is a predominant feature in the fisheries landscape. This
includes traditional seasonal movement (i.e. during fish camping season as is experienced in
Menai Bay with the influx of fishers during specific periods), as well as movement based on fish
abundance, social relations, commercial trading etc. The frequent incidences of conflict
occurring between local coastal fishers and “outside fishermen” over utilization of resources
could be reduced through establishment of a stronger management and ownership rights.
31
4 CURRENT STATUS CO-MANAGEMENT TANGA (this study)
The area previously covered by the Tanga Coastal Zone Conservation and Development Project
is now governed by two management regimes. The coast to the north of Tanga town (and
adjoining the Kenya border) is managed under Beach Management Units (registered 2009) and
the area south of Tanga (extending from North of Pangani River estuary along a 100 km coastal
strip towards Mafuriko village just North of Tanga City) is managed as part of Tanga Coelacanth
Marine Park (as described above). The area covered by the Marine Park had a brief period of
BMU establishment which was then superceded by the MP.
Consultations took place as part of this consultancy with villagers in Moa, Chongoleani, Tongoni
and Kigombe (the latter 2 villages lie within the MP). Meetings were also held with government
officers who were active as part of TCZCDP and stationed in Tanga; with the warden in charge of
TCMP and with a tourism operator in the area. Observations have been summarised below
under 3 different headings – reflections on the period of TCZCDP; the current situation, and
recommendations for the future.
4.1 Reflections on TCZCDP
All those consulted had favourable recollections of the time when the project was running.
There was a conviction that the project had been developed with a ‘bottom up’ approach,
community members were active and involved at every stage as were district government
officers. There was a perception of ownership by all and there was good attendance at village
project meetings. Relationships were good between stakeholders and the project carried out
regular follow-up. Through talking to respondents there was a tangible sense of understanding
of the project and activities and a high level of awareness over illegal methods of fishing etc.
Individual comments included the following:
32
4.2 Current challenges and recommendations
Following the closing of the project, all activities were handed over to the government.
Activities slowly declined and in 2009, BMUs were declared and each village asked to register.
BMU committees were formed and some training given on by-laws. It would appear that little if
anything has happened since this time and the role of the BMU, composition of the executive
committee, and mode of operation are not at all clear, in fact one respondent said ‘there is much
confusion over the current ownership of our marine resources’. In the new Mkinga district
there is no collaborative fisheries management.
In Moa the situation has become quite desperate with dynamite fishing taking place unabated to
the point where the village has become discouraged and given up and some villagers have even
joined in out of desperation. In addition there is a growing ‘ring-net fishery’ believed to
originate in Vanga across the border in Kenya. In the words of one villager marine resources
All stakeholders were involved. Project staff listened, piloted (demarcation and implementation) and adapted. Lessons learned were applied.
Fisheries and Agriculture government staff worked as project extension workers. They were trained how to train and how to plan.
Village Environment Committees were formed. The village government and village assembly planned activities. They were trained how to choose and how to prioritize the issues brought up by the socio-economic survey.
Committee work in Chongoleani went very smoothly, successes included improved mangrove conservation such that the village was protected by the 2004 waves created by the tsunami. Other successes included increased fish catch, better conserved coral reefs and sea beds, preparation of a management plan that was approved by law
The collaboration of stakeholders and the involvement of the districts in the planning process is important Tanga north – people were trained well, many have become elected politicians. The VEC and BMU committee structure is similar. A mistake from original project was that there was no training on self-finance, markets were not identified
although they did business planning at the beginning. We carried out mapping and reef monitoring Villagers carried out monitoring under government supervision and this was verified by the Institute of
Marine Science(2009 last survey) Collaborative fisheries management plan ( 6 - some inter-district) as shared resources TCZCDP – good follow up on reporting and had good relationships and support Villages used to get 100 l/month fuel from district for patrol The old fisheries officer was good Each person needs to take their responsibility During the project people were consulted and they helped to motivate us One issue we identified was that there are too many fishers – 41 people actually left fishing as a result of the
project District technical team – visited village once a month – they gave advice and listened to our problems. There
was a regional group and they reported to each other Successes of TCZCDP – villagers cooperated well, planted mangroves, high awareness and good attendance at
meetings, erosion was abated because of mangrove increase, people were very aware – it is still there but it needs constant nurturing
People really understood the damage of dynamite fishing TCZCDP used to find a market for seaweed and helped to follow it TCZCDP used to have a successful network of patrols to stop illegal fishing – the organisation was carried out
secretly – initially collaboration was with the police but this changed to involving the army later on. ‘When we reported dynamite fishing the army came straight away’.
In Tongoni, the Socio-economic survey defined 7 issues including the following: - Declining fish population (priority issue) - Declining harvest (priority issue) - Erosion from the sea - Women’s issues
33
have become ‘free for all’. There was an attitude of despondency especially as Moa is now part
of a newly created district Mkinga where the new district staff have no prior knowledge of
TCZCDP and have very low levels of awareness.
In Chongoleani the BMU is inactive, by-laws are not enforced, there is no conservation or
monitoring taking place and mangroves are being cut. Some of the comments from Moa and
Chongoleani include the following:
Tongoni and Kigombe villages are now part of the Tanga Coelacanth Marine Park. They had
registered BMUs for a maximum of one year before the Park was announced. There was some
village consultation (3 meetings were held in Tongoni). Now there are 4 committees at village
level, one of which is the marine park liaison committee – this committee has not met in the last
4 years in Kigombe. The park extends to a distance of 5 km from the shore on to dry land.
There is confusion about roles and responsibilities, the committee does not know what to do
and the villagers no longer have a role in patrolling. In the time of the project, TCZCDP they
received 200l/month for patrol and supplied police to go out on patrol with them. Patrols
carried out by the MP staff are monthly and dynamite fishers are ‘tipped off’ beforehand.
Villagers still feel that they have the capacity to work together but they need nurturing and good
communication with the authorities. Comments and recommendations from Tongoni and
Kigombe include the following:
Now there are 50 dynamite blasts a day. These fishers come from Tanga There is currently no cooperation or collaboration Since 2009 Moa is in a new district Mkinga – it is a problem, there are new staff and the district is not
progressing In 2011 the Moa BMU was registered, we were given by-law training but nothing more There is a big network of dynamite fishers (based in Tanga) We need all stakeholders to be ready to work together We villagers are very disappointed but we still have capacity – we are ready to act (Moa) The ring-net fishers come from Vanga (can get 42 ring-net fishers in one day) – some of the fishers are
Tanzanian but the boat owners are in Kenya Kenyan vessels are paying the local licence fees as per the regulations Kenya does not allow dynamite fishing because of the importance of tourism – they are very strict on this We distrust the current technical officers ‘Whatever you can do please do it as what are we going to leave for our children – there will be nothing’ Chongoleani villagers said ‘we need to resume joint patrolling activities’. We need to review the management plan and by-laws (Chongoleani)
34
A tourism operator interviewed reported that 3 local reefs (to Kigombe) are now completely
destroyed as a result of dynamite fishing and only 2 are left. Apparently those responsible are
not scared and are quite open in their activities, travelling as far as Pemba. He thought that
villagers were still willing to cooperate in fighting this issue but they have been let down by the
courts who readily release those who have been apprehended, with little if any punishment.
From the perspective of the MP authorities, the warden freely admits that they are not
functioning well. He attributes this to inability to cover the 520 sq.km of the Marine Park with
insufficient staff and inadequate resources (only 57% of funds requested to do the job).
A summary of recommendations from the villagers is shown in the table below
A Summary of Village Recommendations from this studyTanga Table 4:
VILLAGE RECOMMENDATIONS
KIGOMBE
Resume joint patrol as it was during TCZCDP
Involve communities in preparing management plans
Carry out awareness raising on the importance of conservation
Capacity building for committees on roles and responsibilities
Any community support should prioritise fishers
CHONGOLEANI
More awareness raising is needed in communities
BMU capacity building
Improve cooperation with law enforcers and government staff
Review management plan and by laws
Resume joint patrol
TONGONI
Improve cooperation between stakeholders
Awareness raising carried out at different levels
Capacity strengthening for community institution-committees
Introduce benefit sharing mechanism
Regular follow up in the community
The Marine Park has brought no benefit at all to the community (Kigombe) Under TCZCDP people really understood the damage inflicted by dynamite fishing; there is currently no
dynamite fishing in Tongoni but it does take place within the marine park The MP allows us to continue deploying our FADs for lobster but these are also being targeted by dynamite
fishers The committee does not know what to do, they need capacity building Good communication is needed from the marine park authorities There is no coordination There should be a BMU system under the Marine Park (bringing ownership and responsibility back down to
the villagers) Governance needs to be improved There need to be more patrols Help needs to be given to the villagers to assist in income generating activities There needs to be a coordinating committee for the villages By-laws need updating Villagers need to be familiar with the laws of the MP We need to introduce a benefit-sharing mechanism The MP management plan should be harmonised with the previous village plan
35
VILLAGE RECOMMENDATIONS
Management plan should harmonised with village plan
By-law establishment
MOA-KIJIRU
There should be regular follow up by extension officers and gov staff at higher level
The government should follow Mwanza experience on the formation and development of BMUs
Community should be sent to learn what others do (exchange visits)
Rich people, Boat owners and other investors should be included in BMU
There should be strong effort to ensure BMUs carry more weight and are sustainable
Regular awareness raising for stakeholders
Strengthen coordination and cooperation between stakeholders
Improve reporting system at all levels and create mechanism for feedback
36
5 CURRENT STATUS CO-MANAGEMENT PEMBA (this study)
As shown in Fig x above the entire western coast of Pemba is currently part of PECCA (Pemba
Channel Conservation Area) declared in 2006. It includes the shehias of Makangale, Gando,
Ukunjwi, Fundo, Kipangani, Selemu, Bopwe, North Mtambwe, South Mtambwe, Kisiwani, Ziwani,
Kwale, Ndagoni, Wesha, Tibirinzi, Kilindi, Wambaa kwa Azani, Mkoani, Makoongwe, Kisiwa
Panza, Michenzani, Ngomeni and Chokocho.
Within the fieldwork time allowed for this consultation, fishers from the villages of Tondooni-
Makangale, Wesha, Kisiwa Panza and Makongwe were visited. Visits were also made to Manta
Reef Resort, Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources Wete, Department of Forestry Wete,
and to the NGOs MICA(now largely inactive) and CFI (Community Forestry International) and
Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources Unguja.
The majority view is that PECCA is not functioning as envisaged. Fishers committees in the
shehias are in ‘name only’ and their roles and responsibilities not known. Fishers are unaware
of rules for committee elections and visits from PECCA staff are rare. The PECCA Management
Committee does meet when they are called by the DFMR and their travel costs are refunded,
however benefit sharing is sporadic and comprises small sums.
Comments from fishers in Tondooni to the north of Ngezi Forest include the following:
Wesha is the main dock for ChakeChake and for visitors to Misali Island. Fishers from Wesha
had the following comments:
PECCA was introduced by the government as an area to be conserved and to help the livelihoods of fishermen
Harmful fishing techniques were to be prohibited such as poison, spearfishing but destructive fishing is continuing – ringnets, kokota
Politics has become involved There is a fishers committee from before but the existing one is ‘just a name’ 2 people were taken on a visit to Unguja to see Mnemba and Menai Bay during Macemp time Macemp brought 3 boats worth 40 mill TSh but they were given to farmers. They are now sold or lost We have been given 3 payments of 30,000Tsh and told it was from snorkelling fees We cannot remember the last time we received a visit from PECCA staff There was money/ benefits given out by Macemp but most were influenced by politics 2 people were sent to study tourism in Unguja and that was the best benefit we received from Macemp There is a reef area at Manta Reef Hotel that is closed, the fishers agreed and that is where they have built the
underwater room. The village was recently given $4000 from the hotel (in compensation) and we built a school classroom
The big challenge is to get bigger boats so that we can fish in the deeper water - if you close an area you need to know where else you can go to fish
37
Kisiwa Panza is an island to the south of the main island of Pemba. There is a population of
about 7000 people, 75% of whom are fishers. There are 4 main villages on the island. Fish,
octopus and cowries are bought by outside vendors (TSh 3,000/kilo fish or octopus). There is a
lot of seaweed farming and it is bought by the seaweed corporation and taken to Mkoani (main
port). Fishers travel widely including Misali Island, Tanga area and Unguja. They also receive
visiting fishers including dynamite fishers from Tanga (there was a boat at the time of visiting -
it is easy for them to have hidden camps on the island). Comments from the fishers include:
Makongwe is an island to the south-west of Pemba. Fishers were met in the nearby port of
Mkoani. The population is 1,300 and almost all are fishers and travel widely including Misali.
Fishers do sell octopus and large fish to buyers – there used to be freezers in Mkoani. Some
comments from the fishers include:
There are current closed areas – Fundo lagoon, wete, manta Kojani has also asked for closed area 30 people sit on Mgt committee of PECCA – they are called from fisheries and get their travel paid The village cannot do patrol as we have no boats Education is very important The village has not been given anything to enable them to do any work – boats were given to neighbours Fundo and Kangani are only villages with boats remaining We have received funds totalling about TSh 200,000 (US$119) There are no clear rules for benefit sharing
Governance of revenue is a problem
The situation has been deteriorating since the 90’s The fisheries committee is name only In 2012 the chairman of the committee had his hands chopped when he apprehended kokota fishers We did benefit from MICA There is some conservation education although the environmental club is not really working There are no by-laws currently Fishers do cooperate on price but there is no formal cooperation We did have trial octopus closure for a few months and it worked well Fishers need to organise themselves – we could contribute to the cost of patrols There is local politics – the Sheha was asked to form fisheries committee HIMA (CARE) gave sub-grant to Juma – crab fattening project – 2 sales so far at TSh 5000/kilo We have applied to Tanzania Civil Society Fund for education about current laws
MICA – we did benefit, VCC informed MICA what village priorities were for funding Under PECCA there are no more benefits – it has become a ‘big sea’ Fisheries committee was elected but it is just a name Under Macemp boats were given and nets - mashua was given for jarife and was
used for one year – the boat now more or less belongs to one person only Closed area at Misali island – we are not sure if they working or not PECCA started to build capacity but there was no follow up Poor communications/coordination No idea how re-elections should take place and how often No constitution We did have a trial closed area for octopus for a period of 4 months Fishery licence fees (including boat licences) go directly to the DFMR.
38
We were unable to meet with the present manager of PECCA but a visit to the Fisheries
Department revealed that they are quite challenged in managing PECCA, an area of over 1000 sq
km. In terms of patrolling there are only 6 rangers who are based on Misali Island and costs are
prohibitive. Since 2006 the advisory committee has not been called. There is a GMP for PECCA
which is modelled largely on that for Menai Bay, but there is no current implementation. The
management committee meets twice a year and the District Fisheries Committees meet 3 times
a year. There are 4 current closed areas, one of which is the closed reef directly adjacent to
Manta Reef Hotel. A visit to Manta Reef revealed that the hotel pays a monthly fee of TSh.
300,000 to a PECCA representative for regular patrol of the reef to make sure there is no fishing.
There is no regular payment to local communities in recognition of them having ceased fishing
in the area. Manta Reef hotel charges $1500/night for the underwater room located in the reef
area.
A summary of Village Recommendations from this studyPECCA Table 5:
VILLAGE RECOMMENDATIONS
TONDOONI
Regular awareness raising to communities on marine resources conservation
There should be legal status for the established committees
Each village should have its own by-laws
Capacity building on leadership & good governance to Fisheries committee
Snorkelling & diving fees from tourism should benefit related villages
There should be transparency in revenue collection and sharing
Promises should be delivered
There should be a network of shehias that works on protection and conservation of their resources
Village environmental committees should be given legal powers for conservation and should be recognized in the shehia govenment
WESHA
All stakeholders should meet regularly
There should be strong link and coordination between communities at the grass root level and other stakeholders
Resume powers of civil societies so as to be able create proper links and collaboration between stakeholders
Educate communities and fishers on the alternative income generation activities
Resume the previous revenue sharing from tourism activities
Involve environmental CBOs and NGOs to facilitate community awareness on natural resources conservation and livelihood
Community fisher organizations to work as committee that will provide a proper link and coordination in collaborative fisheries management at grass roots level could be preferable and will receive great support from the shehia community. It will really target the right group
Leaders should be ready to assist community and always be close to them
KISIWA PANZA
All social groups should be involved in awareness raising for conservation and knowing the purpose of conservation
Law enforcement agency should be involved in any patrol work for conservation interventions (police and anti corruption force KMKM)
Climate change issues should also be captured i.e currently you can see the effect of el nino in the underwater environment in K/P
Regular technical advice to communities and livelihood development groups
There should be an avenue to learn from other communities
There should trust in involving communities and benefits for conservation and livelihood activities should go to the target group
Roles of each stakeholders at all levels should clearly identified and each one should be made accountable
39
VILLAGE RECOMMENDATIONS
Coordination links should be clearly identified
Communication channel should be clearly depicted
MAKOONGWE
There should be good governance in place for the fisher committees
There should an organ or institution to regularly follow up community interventions and the fisher committee
6 OPPORTUNITIES FOR FFI INVOLVEMENT IN TANGA AND/OR
PEMBA CHANNEL
‘Co-management has been defined as “the sharing of power and responsibility between the
government and local resource users” (Berkes 2009:1692), and it involves the establishment of
a legal framework that institutionalizes both autonomous and shared decision making (McCay
and Jentoft 1996)’ (quoted in Levine 2014). McLean (2012) further interprets co-management
as ‘a participatory and flexible management strategy that provides and maintains a forum for
action on: participation, rule making, conflict management, power sharing, leadership, dialogue,
decision-making, negotiation, knowledge generation and sharing, learning, and development
among resource users, and government. It represents a shift away from centralized, top-down
form of management towards joint management of marine resources’.
Based on fieldwork for this study, both areas show a clearly defined need for local capacity
building for collaborative fisheries management at the village level. The legal framework in
each locale differs however, in term of enabling co-management of marine resources. On the
mainland the BMU legislation provides a clear framework for the ‘co-management actions’
outlined above. What is lacking is building the capacity of village BMU structures on the ground
both in knowledge and practice of the operation of the BMU and importantly how it correlates
to the previous TCZCDP CMAs (collaborative management areas). McLean et al in an analysis of
the Fisheries Legislation in Zanzibar make the comment ‘One of the key challenges of the Act is
the high degree of discretionary power granted to authorities under the Fisheries legislation
and the lack of provisions for processes of stakeholder involvement or consultation in decision-
making’ although they indicate that many of the concerns could be addressed through the
enabling MCU regulations which are currently pending (this study). Recommendations given
include the following:
40
Thus the working environment for a co-management arrangement on the ground is at a
different evolutionary stage in both locations. The tables below show perceived opportunities
(strengths), challenges and possible project activities for a CFM initiative in both locations.
Strengths of a Co-management intervention in Tanga and Pemba Channel Table 6:
6.1 STRENGTHS
6.2 TANGA 6.3 PEMBA
The TCZDP history has created high awareness and willingness
Local management plans already exist for review including CMAPs
Physical proximity to existing FFI project in Shimoni and mutual stakeholders
MCCN has contact villages in area Accessibility generally good, new road north
of Tanga Existing commercial markets – octopus,
lobster
• Willingness of fishers to participate in effective collaborative fisheries management
• MCCN target area and contact villages • Availability of other terrestrial NGOs for
collaboration purposes • Very little illegal fishing i.e dynamite fishing
(although occasional south Pemba) • Availability of livelihood development and
conservation knowledge i.e VSL, IGAs and cultural conservation ethics
• Fishers willingness to create shehias/villages network in protection and general conservation
• Can build on experience of MICA • Few existing alternatives for fishing
communities
Reduction of high level of the discretionary power granted to authorities under the framework law of Zanzibar and establishment of oversight bodies are needed to promote intersectoral coordination and accountability. This can be achieved through revision of the Draft MCU Regulations. For instance there is an urgent need for operationalization of the National Protected Areas Board, a Board of Trustees for the MCU and advisory committees for each of the MCAs.
Stronger mechanisms for stakeholder participation More explicit allowances made in the institutional structure for involvement of the broader stakeholder groups. It is important to include concrete and detailed provisions providing mandatory directives in the process of incorporating views from the public in making executive or legislative decisions affecting the creation of MCAs and management of Zanzibar’s marine environment using different models such as closed areas and seasons (Majamba, 2005)
Include provisions for a conflict management and appeals process in the law for conservation-related conflicts. Build conflict management expertise within the MCU. Also recommend a process to get fishermen input into designing a system for the MCAs that allows for closed seasons
Greater transparency of collection and dissemination of revenues from MCAs. The mechanism for collection, allocation and dissemination of revenues from the MCAs to the participating villages should be clearly outlined in the regulations. This promotes local-level decision-making on how the funds will be spent.
Stronger and more regular implementation and enforcement of laws and regulations. Support is needed for the MCAs for greater enforcement of the laws and regulations. Partnerships with participating villages and private sector tour operators have previously proved useful in this regard.
Clarification of the fee structure provisions by revising Schedule B of the Draft MCU Regs. to differentiate between “Outside visitors” who pay $20 per day and “Tourists” who pay $5 per day.
Greater support for co-management arrangements. The current emphasis on top-down decision-making should be shifted towards greater autonomy of local stakeholder decision-making and clearer allocation of processes for stakeholder involvement and co-management such as collaborative management in enforcing fisheries laws or community participation in endangered marine species management A useful model could be through “Beach Management Units” as defined in the Tanzania Fisheries Act.
41
In terms of challenges, Pemba presents the more challenging situation for involvement but also
presents more opportunity for establishing a pilot project that explores opportunities within
the current governance system and can thus set the scene for ‘scaling up’.
Challenges of a Co-management intervention in Tanga and Pemba Channel Table 7:
6.4 CHALLENGES
6.5 TANGA 6.6 PEMBA
• Dynamite fishing currently rampant • Closeness to the border and incursion of
Kenyan fishers into area using damaging gear such as ring-nets
• Judiciary/law enforcement weak • New Mkinga District - officers have little
previous experience in CFM • Fisheries Officers not active • Marine Park – poor effectiveness and ‘top-
down’ management • Two management regimes – BMU/TACMP
• Poor accessibility in some areas - many islands
• Lack of resources for regular patrol • Poor coordination between gov’t and fishers
committees as well as between Shehia gov’t and fishers committees.
• Unreliable and opaque revenue collection and sharing
• Political affiliations • No proper feedback mechanism • High cost to run a project in extensive area • Poor governance • Existing management regime topdown
A range of potential activities is given in the table below and hinges on capacity building at the
local committee level (BMU/VLC). Importantly in Tanga there is a need to harmonise past
management regimes (CMAPs) with current BMU systems. Villagers are very confused as to
how BMUs should work and how they correlate with what has gone before. In Pemba there is
little past history to build on apart from the MICA project which was focused on Misali Island as
a focal point and fishing ‘centre’. There are opportunities within the PECCA GMP to create pilot
‘locally managed marine areas’ not unlike a BMU scenario. This is discussed further below.
Potential Activities as part of a Co-management intervention in Tanga and Pemba Table 8:Channel
42
6.7 POTENTIAL ACTIVITIES
6.8 TANGA 6.9 PEMBA
• BMU capacity building north of Tanga at village and local government level
• Reviewing and implementation of by-laws • Training and awareness for judiciary • Review and assimilation of past management
plans • Collaboration with District authorities over
licence fee collection • BMU capacity building on revenue
management • Awareness raising • Interpretation of GMP for marine park in
liaison with MP authorities • Reinstating the CMAPs
• Capacity strengthening of village fishermen committees and local government
• Regular awareness raising programs and consultation to promote stakeholders awareness
• Strengthen coordination and cooperation between stakeholders
• Establishment, demarcation and effective management of local level fishing grounds
• Establishment of effective revenue collection mechanism
• Establish pilot area project within PECCA • Interpretation of GMP • Facilitation of by-laws • Capacity building in conflict mediation,
communication, book keeping, advocacy and recording and fisheries monitoring
At this point it is worth mentioning the upcoming SWIOFish Project financed by the World Bank.
Unlike the preceding MACEMP project it is taking an approach based on individual fisheries.
The actual detail of the project is still under development but preliminary information (Rubens
pers. comm., Talia pers. comm. this study) has yielded the following detail:
Probable start January 2015
Not structured on MACEMP but will work primarily through the government
WB funded – probable 3 phases of 5 years each
Fishery based i.e. 6 different fisheries - Tuna, Prawns, Sardines, Reef fishery, Octopus,
Small pelagics
Will focus in mainland on BMU strengthening but DFMR will not have the capacity to
cover all BMUs
Whatever shape the planned CFM project is to take, it would be beneficial to be compliant with
the SWIOFish approach and this should be easier once the detail of the project has been decided.
6.10 Tanga District
6.10.1 Stakeholders
The following tables show basic stakeholder matrices for marine resources in the villages in the
Tanga District both north and south of Tanga. An organogram showing the relationship of the
different stakeholders is included in Appendix 5. ( In the following tables stakeholder categories
A,B,C and D are explained after Table 11 – stakeholder matrix for PECCA).
Stakeholder matrix for marine co-management Tanga North Table 9:
43
6.10.2 Institutional Framework.
Stakeholder matrix for marine co-management Tanga South Table 10:
The institutional framework within which management of MMAs in mainland Tanzania is is
multi-sectoral across the central government and local government authorities. The central
TANGA NORTH IMPORTANCE OF STAKEHOLDER
Unknown Little/no importance
Some importance
Significant importance
INFLU
ENC
E OF STA
KEH
OLD
ER
Significant influence
Village BMU Committees; Tourism enterprises (Fish Eagle Point hotel etc.); Commercial marine product buyers and agents (Tanpesca); District, Ward and Village administration; Village Environmental committees; District and regional Fisheries Officers; District magistrates; Central Coordinating Committees; Village councils
A Ministry of Livestock and
Fisheries Development ; Ministry of Regional Administration and local government ; research institutions such as TAFIRI, the Institute of Marine Science (IMS - University of Dar es Salaam) and WIOMSA; ; World Bank Project SWIOFish; Department of Forestry; NEMC
Somewhat influential
Little/No influence D Local and regional NGOs
e.g. Smartfish; IUCN
B Village Seaweed Committees;
Commercial Seaweed Companies; Community Forestry Management Association; Village communities
Unknown
TANGA SOUTH IMPORTANCE OF STAKEHOLDER
Unknown Little/no importance
Some importance Significant importance
INFLU
ENC
E OF STA
KEH
OLD
ER
Significant influence C Village Liaison
Committees; Tourism enterprises (Peponi hotel etc.); Commercial marine product buyers and agents (Tanpesca); District, Ward and Village administration; Village Environmental committees; District and regional Fisheries Officers; District magistrates; Village councils
A Ministry of Livestock and
Fisheries Development ; MPA Board of Trustees, TACMP Advisory Committee; Ministry of Regional Administration and local government ; research institutions such as TAFIRI, the Institute of Marine Science (IMS - University of Dar es Salaam) and WIOMSA; ; World Bank Project SWIOFish; Department of Forestry; NEMC
Somewhat influential
Little/No influence D Local and regional NGOs
e.g. Smartfish; IUCN
B Village Seaweed Committees;
Commercial Seaweed Companies; Village mangrove committees; Village communities
Unknown
44
legal framework that provides for the institutional framework in environmental management in
mainland Tanzania is the Environmental Management Act, 2004 (Mangora et al 2012). This
framework confers the task of overall coordination of environmental management in the
country and provision of the central support functions to the Ministry Responsible for
Environment, under the Vice President’s Office. These functions concern the overall
organization, coordination of regulations and the establishment of a coherent general context
for environmental management. The placement of environment portfolio under the Vice
President’s Office is considered advantageous in that it offers strong policy and political
influence, strong capacity for inter-sectoral coordination and creates high visibility for
environmental management.
The Act confers the role of management of specific natural resources or environmental services,
such as agriculture, fisheries, forestry, wildlife, mining, water, and waste management to
respective sector ministries, and the LGA. With reference to the central EMA, the conferred
functions are to a large extent directly and operationally guided by respective sector specific
policies and legislation. In the case of MMAs, the legislative back-ups are multi and cross-
sectoral at various administrative levels .
For the formal institutions, the existing laws and regulations provide for various government
institutions with legal mandates to carry out coastal and marine resources management with
varying degrees of authority and levels of resources and occasionally with competing interests.
With regard to management of MMAs, the MPRU is a formal institution that oversees the
establishment and management of MMAs and LGAs within which other forms of community-
based collaborative arrangements for management of MMAs are practiced (roles of the MCRU
are discussed in Appendix 3).
BMU administration comes under district administration as shown in the organogram in
Appendix 5. The recent review of the BMU establishment in mainland Tanzania has shown that
in order to improve performance and operations of BMUs, the critical conditions necessary
include adequate resources, understanding of jurisdiction boundaries, necessary democratic
procedures for governance, means of addressing conflicts, networking between BMUs and
minimizing the influence of external factors such as distance from district headquarters, and
BMU member perceptions of identity. These findings reflect those found in this study and
indicate that the weaknesses of the current system include record-keeping and reporting on
registration and meetings, patrol records, sustainable financing, adequacy of resources,
awareness of roles & responsibilities and cooperation.
There is an clear potential role for FFI to carry out BMU capacity building north of Tanga much
along the lines of the neighbouring FFI/EAWLS project in Shimoni, Kenya.
Harrison (2010) in his report entitled ‘Entrenching livelihoods enhancement and diversification
into marine protected area management planning in Tanga, Tanzania’ has detailed activities
necessary for a livelihood and diversification strategy which includes establishing a tourism and
research centre, improving mariculture activities, enhancing agriculture, improving textile
production, improving fishing production and processing, and improving beekeeping. He also
recommends prioritising Village Environment Management Plans (VEMPs) as the cornerstone
45
of MPA management and supporting the linked development of the Village Marine Park Liaison
Committees under the Village Environmental Committee. This process would utilise lessons
learned under the Collaborative Management Area process developed under TCZCDP. FFI
and/or collaborators could play a meaningful role in this process.
6.11 PECCA
6.11.1 Stakeholders
The following table shows a stakeholder matrix for PECCA and is followed by a discussion of the
role of the key stakeholders.
Stakeholder matrix for PECCA Table 11:
IMPORTANCE OF STAKEHOLDER
Unknown Little/no importance Some importance Significant importance
INFLU
ENC
E OF STA
KEH
OLD
ER
Significant influence
C PECCA Manager; Director
Fisheries Development; Director Seaweed Farming and Marine Resources; PECCA Management Committee; Minister and PS MLF; PECCA Advisory Committee; Village Shehas; Fishermen’s Executive Committees (FEC); MCU (Head Coordinator, assistant Head); Village Fisheries Committees; Tourism enterprises (Swahili Divers, Manta Reef Hotel, etc.); Commercial marine product buyers and agents; District, Ward and Shehia administration; Shehia ICM committees
A Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries ;
Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources MANR comprises six Departments (Planning, Policy and Research; Administration and Human Resources; Agriculture; Forest and Non Renewable Natural Resources); Department of Archives, Museums and Antiquities of Zanzibar (DAMA); Department of Urban and Rural Planning; Department of Tourism; Zanzibar Investment Promotion Authority (ZIPA); Ministry Responsible for Transport; and Ministry of State for Regional Administration. Other organisations that have important roles include parastatals such as the Zanzibar Ports Corporation; research institutions such as the Institute of Marine Science (IMS) and WIOMSA; Zanzibar Technical committee on Integrated Coastal Management (ICM unit); World Bank Project SWIOFish
Somewhat influential
Little/No influence
D Local NGOs e.g. Community
Forestry International; Millenium Village Project; CARE International
B Village Seaweed Committees; Commercial
Seaweed Companies; Community Forestry Management Association;
Unknown
A Stakeholders with high degree of influence on project and high importance for success. Good relationships will ensure an effective coalition for project. B Stakeholders of high importance to project but low influence i.e. may need special initiatives to protect their interest; they may be project beneficiaries C Stakeholders with high influence and can affect project outcomes but whose interests are not necessarily aligned with project e.g disburser of funds. They may be a source of risk and need careful monitoring and managing
46
D These stakeholders have low influence of importance to project objectives; they may need monitoring but are of low priority
Between 2000 and 2010, the mandate for the management of the fisheries sector, and therefore
marine conservation, lay within the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Environment (2000 –
2010). Following the General Election in 2010 the mandate for Fisheries was shifted to the MLF,
the mandate for management of Forestry, Environment and Agriculture was placed with the
Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources (MANR). MANR comprises six Departments
(Planning, Policy and Research; Administration and Human Resources; Agriculture; Forest and
Non Renewable Natural Resources; Irrigation; and Food Security and Nutrition), two Institutes
(Kizimbani Agricultural Training Institute and the Institute of Agricultural Research) and the
Liaison Office in Pemba. The activities of the MANR are integral to the effective governance of
marine ecosystems for instance it has responsibility for mangrove and coastal forest resources
management under the Forest and Non Renewable Natural Resources Department.
The Marine Conservation Unit within MLF is a key and influential stakeholder – its scope, vision,
role and capacity is discussed in Appendix 2.
The mandate for environmental management also shifted after the 2010 elections to the
Department of Environment under the First Vice President’s Office. Activities of this
Department are critical for ensuring healthy marine and coastal ecosystems given its mandate
for ICM, environment assessment and the establishment of the National Protected Areas Board
and Nature Conservation Areas Management Unit. There is the provision for establishment of a
National Parks Advisory Board (NPAB) and Zanzibar Nature Conservation Areas Management
Unit (ZNCAMU) and once they are established and the Integrated Coastal Management Strategy
is implemented, cooperation between the Department of Environment and the Marine
Conservation Unit will be essential (McLean et al. 2012).
Some of the other important institutions that have a central role to play in the management and
utilisation of marine and coastal resources include the: i) Department of Archives, Museums and
Antiquities of Zanzibar (DAMA); ii) Department of Urban and Rural Planning; iii) Department of
Tourism; iv) Zanzibar Investment Promotion Authority (ZIPA); v) Ministry Responsible for
Transport; and vi) Ministry of State for Regional Administration. Other organisations that have
important roles include parastatals such as the Zanzibar Ports Corporation; research
institutions such as the Institute of Marine Science (IMS) and WIOMSA; private sector investors
and tour operators; Community-based organisations; and NGOs.
47
The way in which these diverse stakeholder groups currently coordinate or participate in
marine conservation is on a somewhat ad-hoc basis (McLean et al. 2012). There appears to be is
no functional mechanism for collaboration of the Marine Conservation Unit with other
stakeholders beyond the Fishermen’s Executive Committees (FEC) at the level of the MCAs and
the consultation of stakeholders in the development of the GMPs for each MCA. McLean et al.
consider that a number of issues that could either provide opportunities for strengthening
management of the conservation areas or for generating additional revenues2, are not being
realized and that some of the threats associated with for instance marine transport or
inappropriate coastal development, could be more effectively addressed.
6.11.2 Policy framework for CBNRM
Zanzibar government policy encourages community participation in natural resources
management. As detailed in the paper ‘Establishment and involvement of village fishermen
Committees in management of fisheries in Zanzibar’ (MLF 2009) there is an emphasis in
government policy on community participation in fisheries management.
The government’s agriculture policy (fisheries sub-sector) of 2000 includes the following:
i. Increase fish catch in artisanal fisheries in a sustainable manner
Strategy: Revive and encourage through community participation traditional fisheries
management practices.
ii. The government will promote sustainable development of artisanal fishers.
Strategy: promote establishment of fishers association for easy provision of extension
services building awareness and for pooling resources for investment.
iii. To promote the conservation of marine environment.
Strategy: promote community participation in managing and conserving aquatic resource.
iv. Stop the use of destructive fishing gears and technique in artisanal fisheries.
Strategy: involve fishers association in the monitoring and reporting on the use of
destructive fishing gears.
v. To ensure the fishing community lives in harmony. Promote greater awareness among
fishers on the issues that cause conflicts and make use of traditional method of solving
problems.
2 Such opportunities include partnerships between the private sector tour operators and the MCU for
monitoring of ecosystem health, training of divers, enforcement, use and management of underwater
cultural heritage to name a few.
48
Strategy: Involve community groups and or fishers association to enforce relevant laws and
regulations.
Within the Fisheries Act 2010 there is allowance for villages and districts to establish their own
management plans and by-laws although this has not been exploited. It mentions that the
director can make regulations:
(a) Prescribing the contents and presentation of any fisheries management plan;
(e) Describing procedures and requirements for the villages and districts in order to
establish by-laws under this Act;
DFMR (MCU) state in the aforementioned paper that VFCs can propose traditional conservation
methods to be used for the management of their areas, for example seasonal area closures, gear
restriction and fish camping periods. Any such proposal will then be forwarded for
consideration by the government authority (conservation management committee) and an
agreement will be reached between the two parties. The VFCs can organize fisheries patrols
within their areas, and report illegal fishing activities to the government, which has an
obligation to respond to every illegal activity reported by the patrol committee. There is the
facility for local fishermen through their respective VFC to be involved in reef monitoring, data
collection, and a number of volunteering activities like beach and coral reef cleaning.
Other responsibilities of the VFC are listed as:
To encourage their communities in marine environment conservation, in their
respective areas as well as outside.
To act as liaison between the locals and any fisheries oriented developmental projects in
their areas.
To collect and record any information deemed necessary for the conservation and
development of their areas.
6.11.3 Selection of potential pilot areas
In terms of villages included within PECCA, the PECCA Rapid Assessment carried out in 2005
lists the villages covered by the then proposed PECCA MPA and these are shown in the table
below together with estimated population numbers:
49
PECCA villages and population estimates (from DFMR 2005) Table 12:
NORTHERN REGION SOUTHERN REGION
MICHIWENI DISTRICT
WETE DISTRICT
CHAKE CHAKE DISTRICT
MKOANI DISTRICT
Makangale 9135 Konde 8849 Mgogoni 6033
Mtambwe Kaskazini 5772 Fundo 2134
Kisiwani 3247 Gando 4559 Utaani 10064 Mtambwe Kusini 3679 Bopwe 8458 Ukunji 2110 Kipangani 6589 Piki 5845
Chanjaani 6134 Ziwani 6651 Ndagoni 3534 Kwale 5306 Mgelema 1188 Kilindi 2753 Tibirinzi 5323 Chachani 3140 Mvumoni 3708 Wesha 3209
Ngombeni 4573 Makoongwe 1359 Shidi 1011 Michenzani 5651 Chokocho 4201 Kisiwa Panza 2721 Wambaa 2603 Mbuguani 331l Makombeni 1809 Uweleni 2295
Total population in Shehias covered by target area is 146,955
There is significant scope for FFI involvement in capacity building and village level marine
resource planning within the PECCA management framework. In the selection of pilot co-
management areas some consideration will need to be given to candidate villages in
consultation with DFMR; criteria could include (but not limited to) the following:
High proportion of fishers in the community Willingness to be involved Strong leadership Previous involvement in Misali Project Previous trial of closed areas Capacity for tourism or other revenue
Some of the enabling factors for fisheries co-management in a study in Hawaii carried out by
Levine and Richmond (2014) have been shown to be cultural and ethnic diversity, the
intactness of traditional systems and community organising structures, local leadership and
government support. Differences in program design, including processes for program
implementation and community involvement, supportive government institutions, adequate
enforcement, and adaptive capacity, also played important roles in the implementation of co-
management regimes. In Hawaii the erosion of traditional resource tenure systems, high
cultural and ethnic diversity, a centralised approach to governance, and a highly politicized
environment surrounding fishing regulations of any kind indicated that the development of co-
management would be challenging. Critical components of program design including having a
clear process for program implementation and community-government collaboration,
supportive government institution, the ability to effectively exclude outsiders, adequate
enforcement, and adaptive capacity was seen to also play important roles in the successful
implementation of co-management legislation on the island groups studied. In an earlier study,
Zanzibar ‘local responses to marine conservation in Zanzibar’ (2004) Levine found that the
Menai Bay program in southern Zanzibar provides an excellent example of the complexity of
factors involved, which can result in dramatically different village-level responses to a single
program. These factors include, but are not limited to, differences in geography and
50
infrastructure (accessibility to programme/govt staff), the potential for tourism development
and alternative sources of income, pre-existing community structures within each village (such
as VFCs) , and the relationship of conservation program managers to the Zanzibari government.
While these factors are complex and difficult to predict, it is essential that conservation
programs take them into account when trying to establish community-based marine
conservation programs that will be sustainable in the long-term.
In comparison with the mainland, where TCZCDP was effective and the BMU governance system
has shown some success, Zanzibar does not have a history of effective fisheries co-management;
it is still early days. The current governance system in terms of extensive marine protected
areas presents both challenges and opportunities in terms of active collaborative management,
however predominantly a ‘top-down’ approach. McLean (2014 pers. comm.) following an
institutional review of MPAs in Zanzibar was not aware of any examples of by-laws drawn up
for local marine management in Zanzibar but was of the opinion that ‘despite the institutional
challenges it is worth developing a model in Pemba making sure that it is robust in terms of
transparent governance, very clear procedures and conflict management’.
While further consultation would be required in terms of selection of initial pilot areas
(including consultation with DRMR), on first inspection, both Kisiwa Panza and Makongwe in
the south of Pemba present themselves as potential pilot areas. Both have a high proportion of
men and women in the population involved in marine resource management (fisheries, shellfish
and seaweed harvesting) and both were involved in the Misali Island Project and have had
recent trial fishery closures with some success. Being islands, local fishing grounds are fairly
easily demarcated and Kisiwa Panza in particular has demonstrated strong leadership and keen
fisher involvement. Tondooni and nearby villages to the north-west of Pemba could also be
considered for development of a pilot area although tourism presents both challenges and
opportunities in this area and it may be preferable to extend to this area at a later stage.
Initial programme activities could be informed by the experience of WWF Rumaki project (this
is detailed in a project review document (Benno et al. 2012) and the final WWF project
narrative (2012)). One activity that has proved very successful in this project is the formation
village community banks (VICOBA). It is important to build on past successes and a number of
“lessons learned” have been generated from the Misali Island Conservation Project (DFMR 2005
PECCA rapid assessment). Firstly it is imperative to address the issue of the coastal
communities’ livelihood security before aiming to engage them in conservation initiatives. The
Misali Island Conservation project constitutes a positive example where government
departments and NGOs worked together. The project also aimed to work with the shehias, which
represent an ideal entry point to the communities. Torres-Castro (2009) shows in her study of
‘Bwana-dikos’ (official village beach recorders) in Zanzibar that well-designed organization and
clear regulations might be necessary, but not sufficient, to achieve successful management – her
study showed that four dilemmas, i.e., kinship, loyalty, poverty, and control, interfered with
institutional performance, thereby decreasing efficiency. These factors should also be borne in
mind when designing an intervention.
McLean et al (2012) reported that the Head of the Department of Fisheries; and Marine
Resources, Mr Mussa Aboud Jumbe, stated that from the government’s side
51
“the key point of PECCA will be to support the people”. This is a good starting point and shows
willingness for collaborative management at the senior government level.
7 Recommended Course of Action
Bearing in mind FFI’s previous project activity in Pemba and also with the knowledge that
Tanga region is more prominent and more likely to receive attention from others, the authors
are of the opinion that the Pemba Channel should be the priority site for long-term FFI
involvement. Having said this there would be benefit in working with partners to engender a
collaborative seascape approach.
Recommended steps forward would include the following:
i. Commission a project design team who would be informed by some of the initiatives
mentioned in this study, in particular the WWF Rumaki project.
ii. The project design team should engage with all stakeholders including DoF and the
SWIOFish project to help design interventions and select pilot sites.
iii. The project team should consider what engagement is indicated to address some of
the administrative and legal constraints existing.
iv. The project team will design the project workplan and budget.
v. Liaise with other organisations to encourage (and potentially collaborate) BMU
capacity building in Tanga and to build a regional seascape approach.
8 CONCLUSIONS
There is a definite need both in the Pemba channel and in Tanga region on the mainland, for
capacity building at the local level to facilitate CFM. The study has analysed the differences
between the areas both in the history of CFM initiatives and current management regimes.
Tanga region has had many years of exposure to CFM through the activities of the 10-year
Tanga Coastal Zone Conservation and Development Project, which has left a marked community
and institutional legacy in terms of an understanding of the principles of marine ecosystem
based management and the importance of local participation. In other words recognising
maintenance of essential ecosystem linkages, for instance including essential coastal ecosystems
such as mangrove forests into management areas. Also recognising the benefits to both
community and the marine environment of the village role in management i.e. being involved in
the demarcation of management boundaries, the establishment of rules in the form of by-laws,
local resource monitoring, and the formation and training of a representative and democratic
local management committee. The waters have somewhat been ‘muddied’ through the
imposition of new institutional frameworks since the demise of the project but in terms of
working within the new framework, it would be relatively straightforward to pick up the baton,
at least in the area north of Tanga where the BMU system is in the process of being adopted and
the national guidelines have already been written for its establishment. There is a strong
rationale for FFI involvement in CFM directly adjacent to their project in Shimoni across the
border in Kenya. There is also definite scope to assist in the management of the Tanga
Coelacanth Marine Park, primarily through strengthening mechanisms for community
52
participation, strengthening local liaison committees and incorporating lessons learned from
the TCZCDP, but politically this may be less straightforward.
Within PECCA there is definite scope for a coordinated community-based conservation initiative
with the advantage that the area has had little past attention or capacity building. There would
be much to gain in establishing a long term programme that begins with pilot work in 2 or 3
target villages along the lines of the TCZCDP and Rumaki projects and building the capacity of
VFCs (Village Fisher Committees). As mentioned by McLean et al, ’the operational success of
these bodies relies on regular communication and established processes of cooperation, and
experience of late appears to suggest a breakdown of these mechanisms’. The main risk (or
remedial opportunity) for an involvement in Pemba is the current institutional ‘top-down’
regime and the transparency of revenue collection. A key challenge will be standardising
revenue sharing procedures such that there is a longer-term model for self-financing
community management. The past MICA project has demonstrated that this is possible. There is
room within the current legislation to develop village-based approaches within the current GMP
(including establishment of by-laws and local management plans) but this has not yet been
piloted. The PECCA rapid assessment carried out in 2005 (DFMR) states that establishment of
the conservation area requires a careful, thorough and above all a collaborative approach in
which the local inhabitants will play the central part – this is not currently the case but FFI could
certainly play a role in facilitating this recommendation.
Experiences from elsewhere illustrate any successful CFM project must build on past local
successful initiatives (TCZCDP/MICA) and also incorporate alternative income generation
activities. There is much to be learned from other Tanzanian projects such as Rumaki (WWF)
who have demonstrated widespread success with VICOBA activities in particular and the Pwani
project active in Bagamoyo and Zanzibar.
Bearing in mind FFI historical involvement with Pemba and the lack of current investment in
fisheries co-management, the authors of this study recommend that the Pemba Channel should
be the priority location for FFI intervention. To maximise chances of success, any engagement
must be for the longer term and FFI should also consider how to effectively address some of the
issues affecting sustainability including the administrative and legal framework existing for the
governance of PECCA.
The flora and fauna of traditional seascapes such as that on the Tanzania coast do not recognise
national and district boundaries in their distribution and migrations. Likewise, traditional
fisherfolk have historically traversed borders and islands up and down the East African coast
and continue to do so. There is much to be gained from a ‘cross-border seascape’ community
management initiative building on experiences on both sides of the border. For this reason it
makes sense to facilitate a long-term initiative that encompasses both Tanga region and Pemba.
While this may be outside the present scope of FFI, it is possible to seek partners with whom it
can collaborate to take forward some of the suggestions in this report and facilitate a regional
CFM approach.
53
9 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Benno, B., Otsyina, R. and P. Onyango (2012) Final Evaluation Report WWF Tanzania Project
Reducing poverty in Rufiji, mafia and Kilwa districts through improved livelihoods and
sustainable coastal and marine resource management, July 2008 – Feb 2012.
DFMR (2005) Pemba Channel Conservation Area (PECCA) Feasibility Study for Nomination as
World Heritage Site. MACEMP, Tanzania GEF/WB
DFMR (2005) Rapid Assessment of the Proposed Pemba Channel Conservation Area (PECCA)
Marine and Coastal Environment Management Project (MACEMP), Tanzania GEF/WB
DFMR (?) Establishment and involvement of village fishermen Committees in management of
fisheries in Zanzibar. Paper accessed on MCU website
http://www.mcu.go.tz/Documents/EstaVillComettees.pdf
DFMR (2010) PECCA Draft Management Plan revised 2010
Harrison, P. (2010) Entrenching Livelihoods Enhancement and Diversification into Marine
Protected Area Management Planning in Tanga, Tanzania. A report commissioned by IUCN
ESARO, Nairobi Kenya. 95pp.
Hurd, A. 2003. Sustainable financing of marine protected areas in Tanzania. Accessed
http://www.lindhjem.info/FinanceTz.pdf
Levine, A. (2004) Local Responses to Marine Conservation in Zanzibar, Tanzania.
Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, Volume 7, Numbers 3-4, pp. 183-202.
Levine, A. S., and L. S. Richmond (2014). Examining enabling conditions for community-based
fisheries comanagement: comparing efforts in Hawai‘i and American Samoa. Ecology and Society
19(1): 24. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06191-190124
Mangora, M., Shalli, M., and B. McLean (2012) An assessment of Legal and Institutional
Framework for Effective Management of Marine Managed Areas in Tanzania. Marine Parks and
Reserves Unit, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
McLean, B., Hikmany, A.N., Mangora, M. and M. Shalli (2012) An assessment of Legal and
Institutional Framework for Effective Management of Marine Managed Areas in Tanzania.
Zanzibar Report, Marine Conservation Unit, Zanzibar, Tanzania
MLFD (2009) Guidelines for Establishing Community based Collaborative Fisheries
Management in Marine Waters of Tanzania. Produced by the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries
Development with WWF. Accessible on http://www.dlist-
asclme.org/sites/default/files/doclib/Guidelines%20for%20establishing%20community%20b
ased%20collaborative%20fisheries%20management%20in%20marine%20waters%20of%20T
anzania.pdf
Onyango, P. (2014) BMU Assessment Study: Tanzania Marine Districts. Smartfish Technical
Report March 2014.
54
Richmond, M.D. (ed.) 2011. A Field Guide to the Seashores of Eastern Africa and the Western
Indian Ocean Islands. Sida/WIOMSA. 464 pp.
RGoZ (2005) Pemba Channel Conservation Area An Order 23rd Sept.2005 Legal supplement
(part II) to the Zanzibar Government Vol. CXIV No 6111 of 23rd September, 2005 The Fisheries
Act No. 8 Of 1988
Ruitenbeek, J., Hewawasam, I., and Ngoile, M. (2005). Blueprint 2050: Sustaining the marine
environment in mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar. The World Bank, Washington DC., XX pp.
Samoilys M.A. and Kanyange N.W. 2008. Natural resource dependence, livelihoods and
development: perceptions from Tanga, Tanzania. IUCN ESARO, Nairobi. 30pp.
De la Torre-Castro, M. (2006). Beyond regulations in fisheries management: the dilemmas of the
“beach recorders” Bwana Dikos in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Ecology and Society 11(2): 35. [online]
URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art35/
WWF (2012) Final narrative report 1/7/08 to 28/2/12. Submitted to Delegation of the
European Commission in Tanzania ‘Reducing Poverty in Rufiji-Mafia-Kilwa, Tanzania through
improved livelihoods and sustainable coastal and marine resources management (2008-11)
with eight months no-cost extension period to February 2012’
55
10 APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1. List of persons consulted during this study
Location Village/shehia Name Occupation
Tanga Chongoleani Omar Kombo Community member
Fatma Mohd Community member/women fisher
Mbwana Dondo Community member/fisher
Rafael Mgimwa Community member/fisher
Mwanaisha Mohd Community member/fisher
Moa Kijiru Sheha Haji Community member/fisher
Rehema Juma Community member/fisher
Hamza Ali Community member/fisher
Saumu Juma Community member/fisher
Abdalla Kitapa Community member/fisher
Tongoni Omar Bushiri Community member/fisher
Yaya Nassoro Community member
Mtoro Mndiga Community member/fisher
Mwashamba Nzai Previous CCC member
Kigombe Tajiri Twaha Community member/fisher
Vumilia Mbaruku Community member/own boat
Shinuna Community member
OFFICERS Mussa Dengo retired Fisheries officer
Hassan kalombo Coordinator for TCZMP/acting Regional Ad.
Modest Kiwia Marine park and reserve -Kigombe
Pemba Tondooni Ali Omar Idd Fisher
Jabu Kombo Rajabu Fisher
Yussuf Hama yussuf Fisher
Sultan Rashid Ali Fisher
Khamis Juma Hassan Fisher
Wesha Salim Haji Mwadini MICA secretary
Haji Mohd Ali MICA Chair
Said Mohd Village PECCA Chair
Masoud hashim Ali Fisherman
Kisiwa panza Juma Ali Mati mvuvi/JSEUMA
Alamii Haji Said Fisher
Makame Juma Vuai Fisher
Machano Jongo Juma Fisher
Haji Othman Haji Fisher
Makoongwe Ali Mohd Haji Fisher
Haji Abdulla Mohd Fisher
Omar Juma Makame Fisher
56
Shaib khamis Uleid previous Misali Ranger
Juma haji Juma previous Misali Ranger
OFFICERS Said Juma Ali Chief Forest Officer -Department of Forest Pemba
Mbarouk Mussa Omar
MICA staff (previously)/Coordinator Community forest Internation Pemba
Ali Said Hamad Department of fisheries Pemba
Ramla Talia DFL officer responsible for SWIOfish
Annan Masudi Manager Menai Bay Conservation Area
Jason Rubens Consultant to WB SWIOfish project
APPENDIX 2. Marine Conservation Unit Zanzibar (from McLean et al. 2012)
Scope, vision and goals of the MCU
The Marine Conservation Unit (MCU) was established in November 2005 by the Department of
Fisheries and Marine Resources Zanzibar and was legally enabled through the Fisheries Act No. 7 of
2010. The MCU was established as the entity responsible for coordinating the management of all
marine conservation areas in Zanzibar and also for promoting the coordination role with other forms
of marine managed areas (MMAs) such as privately managed sanctuaries. As mentioned previously,
the existing controlled areas in Zanzibar as established by legislative Orders or Rules, include the
Menai Bay Conservation Area (MBCA), Mnemba Island Marine Conservation Area (MIMCA), and
Pemba Channel Conservation Area (PECCA).
Management of these areas involves community stakeholders to a greater or lesser extent. Chumbe
Island Coral Park (CHICOP) is a privately managed Park that includes the Chumbe Reef Sanctuary (a
no-take area) and the Chumbe Forest Reserve. Three new conservation areas, CHABAMCA, TUMCA
and KOMCA Island areas, are in the process of being gazetted and will be formalised through the
adoption of the draft MCU Regs. The MCU has also been given the responsibility of identifying new
areas and support their establishment and designation as marine conservation areas.
The vision of the MCU is properly managed and sustainable use of the conservation area[s]. The
mission of the MCU is to conserve the biological diversity and other natural and cultural values of
the area in the long term, while providing recreational, social and economic benefits for the present
and future generations (MCU, 2012).
Currently, the main objective of MCU is Sound Management of the Coastal and Marine Environment.
The MCU is guided by four main goals, three Core values and five Strategic Objectives:
Goal 1 To manage the use and harvesting of marine and fisheries resources at ecologically
sustainable levels and to manage the development of marine tourism to maximize economic
benefits to the community.
Goal 2 To manage the marine area by promoting the sustainability of the existing resources.
57
Goal 3 To demonstrate the sustainable harvest of marine resources, identifying the habitats and
aquatic environments on which marine resources depend; and enhance the social and
economic benefits for all people.
Goal 4 To promote community education and dissemination of information on conservation and
sustainable use of resources in the area.
Core value 1: Marine and Coastal resources are conserved for sustainable development.
Core value 2: Communities are involved and fully participate in the management and conservation
of marine and coastal resources.
Core value 3: Efficient management of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and delivery of high quality
services from them.
Strategic Objective 1: Create an enabling environment for smooth operation of the Marine
Conservation Unit.
Strategic Objective 2: Establish and maintain Marine Protected Areas.
Strategic Objective 3: Improve Financial Mobilisation and Management.
Strategic Objective 4: Improve Information, Education and Communication.
Strategic Objective 5: Facilitate Research, monitoring of resources and socio-economic conditions
(MCU, 2012).
Five key result areas provide a framework for the monitoring and measurement of the activities of
the MCU:
1. Legal framework, organisation and management; 2. Conserve biodiversity, cultural resources and ecosystem processes; 3. Financial mobilisation, accountability and sustainability; 4. Information, education and communication; and 5. Research and monitoring.
Structure of the MCU
58
The MCU is located within the Department of Fisheries Development. The staffing of the MCU
currently totals approximately seven members, including the Head of the MCU, an Assistant Head,
and managers of the MCAs and a small number of fisheries officers3.
The MCU is ultimately responsible for the development, management, regulation and
implementation of all activities within the controlled areas including the Menai Bay Conservation
Area (MBCA), Mnemba - Chwaka Bay Marine Conservation Area (MIMCA), Pemba Channel Marine
Conservation Area (PECCA), Tumbatu Marine Conservation Area (TUMCA), Changuu-Bawe Marine
Conservation Area (CHABAMCA), and Kojani Marine Conservation Area (KOMCA) and any other
controlled area as may be established under the Fisheries Act 2010.
According to Section 3(2) of the draft MCU Regs. that will enable the MCU to take up the identified
responsibilities, the MCU should consist of: i) a Coordinator who is the chief executive of the Unit
that is appointed by the Principal Secretary; ii) managers of the controlled areas; iii) members of the
fishermen’s executive committees; and iv) any other officer or any local community member
appointed by the Director.
The draft regulations outline a number of functions for the MCU, some of which include:
identifying and proposing the establishment or decommissioning of controlled areas;
managing all controlled areas established under the Fisheries Act and as advised by director in a way that benefits local communities and facilitate their active participation in management;
coordinating and supervising all activities of the controlled areas;
generating and managing revenues and financial grants or donations to further the objectives of the Unit;
allowing research and tourism activities in the controlled areas;
proposing different zoned areas within controlled areas including ‘no-take’ or multiuse zones and issuing guidelines for activities in the controlled or conservation areas; and
promoting awareness and the importance of the Zanzibar controlled areas and advising, stakeholders on MCA issues.
The functions of the MCU according to the draft MCU Regs, while broad in nature, are limited in
autonomy due to extensive provisions that require the MCU to obtain approval by the Director.
While a certain amount of oversight of the Unit is healthy and necessary, this would best be
achieved through an advisory Board of Trustees comprising multiple stakeholders and a transparent
3 The exact number of fisheries officers who provide support to the MCU is not clear due to the absence of
some staff who were on study leave, the apparent lack of a formal structure of the MCU and the
administrative and operational support provided to the MCU by different offices of the Department of
Fisheries and Marine Resources.
59
process through which decisions are made and implemented. This would allow the MCU to
strengthen its capacity over time and allow a greater focus on conservation rather than being limited
to fisheries issues which is currently the case.
Operational Capacity of the MCU
The MCU is not yet fully operational and conservation-related roles and responsibilities of each of
the MCU members have yet to be clarified. Some of the achievements of the MCU since its inception
and with the support of the MACEMP project include: the development of a programme of
operation; initiation of baseline data collection towards establishing long-term monitoring activities
within some of the MCAs; and development of a website for as part of the move to establish an
information management system. Staff changes in the MCU in 2011 resulted in a loss of momentum
of activities, which the Unit is now trying to address.
The Unit currently has a Head Coordinator, an assistant Head, Managers of the three MCAs: MIMCA,
MBMCA and PECCA and a small number of fisheries officers. While the structure of the MCU has yet
to be formalised, the skills and capacity of the staff is currently strongly aligned to fisheries
management rather than the necessary conservation or marine protected area management
expertise or even marine tourism management. The majority of the staff have qualifications in
fisheries management through a Fisheries Diploma or similar. This leaning is expected given the
relatively new status of the MCU and it’s location within the fisheries sector. It would however,
benefit the Unit greatly to either provide targeted training to relevant government officials or to
attract staff with experience in appropriate marine conservation or tourism fields. There is also a
need for a greater number of staff to build the capacity of the Unit as an effective conservation
authority and to fulfil all relevant tasks required to ensure effective conservation activities.
Key Competencies and challenges
Key Competencies
Some key competencies which are essential for coordinated and efficient management of marine
managed areas and which should be developed within the MCU as the Unit grows and strengthens,
include: Marine and coastal ecosystem management (with a particular emphasis on marine tourism
management and coral reef conservation); participatory conservation planning; social ecology and
community liaison; conflict management and dispute resolution; research, monitoring and
evaluation; fund raising and financial management; information technology and data management;
outreach education and training; legal and regulatory development and review and enforcement. A
concerted effort is needed to ensure adequately capacitated and resourced staff for the MCU.
Strengthening revenue management
In Sections 3(g), 3(h) and 3(i) of the draft MCU Regs, strong provisions are made for the generation
and soliciting of revenues and other financial sources to further the objectives of the Unit as directed
by Director. Ensuring adequate finances for the sustainability and growth of the Unit is essential.
There is however, a need for a mechanism to ensure greater accountability and transparency on the
soliciting, utilization and allocation of these finances. Again this mechanism would be best
coordinated and monitored through a multi-sectoral Board of Trustees that would oversee the
60
activities of the MCU. The issues of operational capacity and revenue collection and financial
management are linked to a number of challenges to the effective management of the MCAs.
There is a clear need to clarify the role of the rangers and address the risk to the MCU and the
Fisheries Officers and Rangers of focusing purely on revenue generation rather than on conservation
activities. This concern was voiced on numerous occasions by stakeholders during the research
whereby the task of the ranger is often seen to be limited to revenue collection (collecting tourism
fees) rather than as a conservator that ensures that resource users abide by all regulations. Another
related challenge is the apparent increase in incidents of conflicts between marine resource users.
During the research, interviewees mentioned a growing number of conflict incidents among
stakeholders the tourism sector and fishermen fishing illegally in the MCAs4.
Concern was also raised by some of the local community stakeholders who were not members of
the fisheries committees, that the process for distributing the 30% share of tourism revenue to the
community was not transparent. A more transparent and accountable mechanism for revenue
collection and disbursement, will therefore, benefit the MCU and assist to address some of the
conflicts. It may also lead to greater opportunities for fund-raising and for partnerships with the
private sector and NGOs. The lack of resources facing the MCU following the closure of the MACEMP
project could be mitigated by establishing stronger and more targeted partnerships with members
of the local communities affiliated either the MCAs, the research community (i.e. IMS and WIOMSA),
conservation NGOs and the private sector5.
APPENDIX 3. MPRU Vision, Mission and Values (from Mangora et al. 2012)
Vision:
- Marine Protected Areas in Tanzania become the joy and pride for all.
Mission:
- To establish and manage Tanzania’s marine protected areas for sustainable use.
Motto:
- Let us share the gift of nature together
4 Incidents of conflict included an illegal fisherman threatening scuba divers with a spear gun and the
catch of a juvenile dolphin in one of the MCAs by fishermen that was witnessed by tourists who expressed
dissatisfaction with paying for using an unprotected area. 5 Informal arrangements already existing between some of the dive operators and the Department, show
promise for improving monitoring and enforcement of illegal fishing and in support to fisheries officers in
the form of equipment, logistics and in conservation assessments and net removals from sensitive reef
areas. Strengthening or formalising such arrangements could assist the MCU in many operational tasks
and in boosting practical experience for staff in conservation activities.
61
Core values:
• Marine and coastal resources are conserved for sustainable development
• Communities are involved and fully participate in the management and conservation of marine and coastal resources.
• Management of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and delivery of high quality services from
them is carried out efficiently.
In order to drive towards its vision and achieve its mission MPRU has set its objective as:
To manage Marine and coastal areas so as to promote sustainability of the use, and
the recovery of areas and resources that have been over exploited or otherwise
damaged.
To ensure that communities and other local resident resource users in the vicinity of
the Marine protected area that depend on the resources for their livelihood are
involved in all phases of the planning, development and management.
Communities share in the benefits of operations of the protected areas and have
the priority in the resource use and economic opportunity accrued by the
establishment of a protected area.
To promote community oriented education and dissemination of information
concerning conservation and sustainable use of the marine protected area.
To stimulate the rational development of underutilized natural resources.
To protect, conserve and restore the species and genetic diversity of living and non-
living marine resources and ecosystem processes of marine and coastal areas; and
To facilitate research and to monitor resource conditions and uses within the marine
protected area.
In order to fulfil these objectives, the duties of MPRU are guided by the following activity
strategies:
a. To put in place and legal tools for smooth management of MPAs.
b. To consolidate the human resource capacities in the MPRs management to meet the
demand.
c. To publicize and disseminate Marine Parks and Reserves information such as
regulations and its amendments to all stakeholders.
d. To establish and maintain boundary development in all Marine Parks and Reserves.
e. To develop and establish an effective revenue collection system in all Marine
protected Areas as per law.
f. To undertake 5 year strategic Planning Exercises including a Mid and Long Term
MPRs Financing strategy aimed at reducing excessive Board's dependency on
government funding.
g. To improve the economic welfare of the local communities living inside marine Parks
and Reserves through promotion of ecologically, socially and economically
acceptable practices.
62
h. To develop and maintain open and consultative procedure between the Board,
Marine Parks and Reserves management, local government authorities and other
stakeholders in relation to institutional arrangements, mandates and administration.
i. To put in place generic management tool for guiding development within MPAs.
Operationalization
For performance indication, monitoring and evaluation, the MPRU strategic plan and
activities are geared to address five key result areas. These key result areas implicitly form
operational units within the MPRU administration. These are:
• Legal Framework, Organisation and Management
• Conserve Biodiversity, Cultural Resources and Ecosystem Processes
• Financial Mobilisation, Accountability and Sustainability
• Information, Education and Communication
• Research and Monitoring
The draft MPRU of the new strategic plan for the next 5 years (2012-2016) it is mentioned
that MPRU will strive to establish 3-5 new MPAs. But there does not seem to be any
rationale for it, or capacity to manage the existing MPAs. While MPRU has strived to
discharge it functions using a mixture of both top-down and bottom-up approaches, there
are yet emerging concerns from some stakeholders that MPRU seems to have a very rigid
idea of what they want to do – which is very top-down. MPRU is criticized especially by the
private sector that it being driven away from its core function of conservation and only
seems to aim at the collection of revenue rather than conservation outcomes. This is a
critical management factor that MPRU or rather MPRA (once the proposed Act revision is
approved) will need to resolve in order to maintain the supportive atmosphere from
conservation partners in the private sector.
Leadership hierarchy - lines of administration, command and reporting
Board of Trustees: As depicted already in Fig 4.3 above, the Board of Trustees (BoT) for
Marine Parks and Reserves in mainland Tanzania operates under the umbrella of the
Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development. The core function of the Board is to advise
the responsible Minster on the overall policy and legislative matters pertaining to the
management and conservation coastal and marine resources. Specifically the BoT is charged
with the functions of:
• formulating policies on marine parks and related facilities and activities;
• overseeing the use of the Marine Parks and Reserves Conservation and
Development Fund;
63
• advising the Director of Fisheries Development on management of marine
reserves;
• advising the Minister on approval, revision and amendment of general
management plans of MPAs;
• designating specified marine and coastal areas as marine parks, marine reserves or
buffer zones;
• preparing and ensuring implementation of regulations, and other matters affecting
marine parks and reserves.
The Unit and Unit Manager: The Unit is within the Division of Fisheries Development, and is
by the provision of the MPR Act established by the Director of Fisheries Development, who,
in consultation with the BoT, appoints the Unit Manager. Functions of the Unit are to:
- Establish, monitor, control, manage and administer of marine parks and reserves;
- Seek funds for establishment and development of MPAs;
- Expend such funds in furtherance of MPAs;
- Implement provisions of MPR Act and subsidiary legislation;
Operationally, the Unit, with consent of the responsible Minister, may undertake any of the
following additional functions:
- Establish, operate or manage office and service for the purposes of their duties
under the MPR Act, in the publicizing of their activities, the promotion of interest in
conservation, and the assistance of visitors to the marine parks;
- Promote educational material and informational services to local resident users of
the park or reserve;
- Establish, operate or manage or grant concession or licenses to other persons to
operate or manage on their behalf any rest camps, lodges, restaurants or other
places of accommodation of visitors travelling to or from any marine park or for the
accommodation of visitors to any place of aesthetic, geologic, historic or scientific
interest which may be operated in connection with any marine park;
- Operate transport services for the conveyance of visitors.
Advisory Committee: The MPR Act provides for formation and functions of ACs for marine
parks. The core role of these ACs is to advise the BoT in consultation with the Warden in
Charge on regulations, technical, scientific, and operational matters related to day-to-day
running of the particular marine park. These committees constitute the representative of
Marine Park stakeholders including the local community, local government academia,
private sector and conservation NGOs.
Warden in Charge: Each marine park has a Warden in Charge who is vested with
responsibilities to administer the Park subject to the control and authority of the Board and
64
advice of the Advisory Committee. The warden appoints officers to administer the marine
park in consultation with the Board.
Village Liaison Committees: The MPR Act provides for formations of VLCs as a structure to
involve village councils representing communities in the vicinity of MPAs which affects or is
affected by MPAs. Either directly or through VLCs, each Village Council as provided by the
MPR Act shall:
- Participate fully in all aspects of the development of any amendment of regulations, zoning or GMP;
- Advise Warden in Charge, AC, and/or Unit Manager concerning matters relevant to management and conservation of park;
- Serve as a liaison between members of the village or community and the Warden, Advisory Committee, Unit Manager, and the BoT.
65
APPENDIX 4. PECCA ORDER (as provided by Fisheries Office Pemba) PEMBA CHANNEL CONSERVATION AREA
AN ORDER
23RD SEPT.2005
Legal supplement (part II) to the Zanzibar Government
Vol. CXIV No 6111 of 23rd September, 2005
THE FISHERIES ACT NO. 8 OF 1988
AN ORDER
{Made Under Sections 7(1) and 32}
IN EXERCISE of the powers conferred upon me under sections 7(1) and 32 of the Fisheries Act No. 8 of 1988, I,
MOHAMMED ABOUD MOHAMMED, Minister of Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment and Co-
operatives do hereby make the following Order:-
1. This Order may be cited as the Establishment of Marine Controlled Area around Pemba Channel, which
shall be known as Pemba Channel Conservation Area (PECCA) Order, 2005 and shall come into effect from the
day that the Minister shall sign this Order.
2. In this Order, unless the context otherwise requires, the provisions of section 3 of the Fisheries Act, 1988
shall apply in the interpretation of this Order. In addition, the following words and expressions shall have the
meanings as hereunder assigned to:-
Area means the Pemba Channel Conservation Area (PECCA) declared under Rule 3 of this Order;
Community means residents, fishermen in particular, within the Shehias of Makangale, Gando, Ukunjwi,
Fundo, Kipangani, Selemu, Bopwe, North Mtambwe, South Mtambwe, Kisiwani, Ziwani, Kwale, Ndagoni,
Wesha, Tibirinzi, Kilindi, Wambaa kwa Azani, Mkoani, Makoongwe, Kisiwa Panza, Michenzani, Ngomeni and
Chokocho.
Destructive fishing means all fishing activities, practices, gears and methods prohibited by the Fisheries Act,
1988 and include the use of drag nets, use of nets having mesh size of less than two inches, use of spear gun,
carrying out fishing that involve the use of poles to break corals, or practice any other fishing that destruct
marine ecosystems;
Filming means photographic activities undertaken within the Area for business purposes;
Minister means the Minister responsible for fisheries;
Operator means any person or boat operator entering the Area to undertake any legalised activity;
Pollution means an introduction by man, directly or indirectly, of any substance or energy in solid,
liquid or gaseous state to the marine water or environment resulting in deleterious effects such as harm to
marine organisms, impairment of the quality of seawater and reduction of amenities;
Sport or game fishing means legalised fishing for pleasure or entertainment or amusement and not
for commercial or trade purposes;
66
Water sport activities means all tourists oriented marine activities including diving, swimming, goggling, sport
or game fishing, glass-bottom boat riding, snorkelling, wind surfing, sun bathing and watching dolphin, whale
or any other marine creature or environment;
4. (1) There is hereby established PECCA Management Committee, which shall be an executing organ for all management issues of the Area in accordance with this Order.
(2) The Management Committee shall consist of members from all Shehias of the Community and the
Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources.
(3) Members of the Management Committee shall, among themselves, elect chairperson, secretary and
treasurer from the first meeting of the Committee. Elections for such posts shall be done after every three
years period from the date of previous election.
(4) Any condition or order or guidelines issued by the Management Committee to be observed, after being
signed by its Chairperson and Secretary, shall automatically be part of this Order.
(5) (i) The Management Committee may employ or hire any person or find an agent to execute or perform any
of its responsibilities in accordance to this Order.
Provided that there shall be a Manager of PECCA, appointed by the Director of Fisheries and Marine
Resources, who shall be responsible of implementing day to day activities of the PECCA Management
Committee. In addition, the Manager shall be a permanent invited member to the Management Committee
meetings.
(ii) The Manager of PECCA and any person employed or hired by the Management Committee shall have legal
power to execute the duty assigned to him in accordance to this Order including to stop or restrict any
operator from entering the Area if he has a reasonable ground to believe that any or all provisions of this
Order is contravened or have been contravened.
(6) Members of the Management Committee will meet at least twice a year in six months basis, however, the
emergency meeting may be organised where necessary.
(7) Any member of the Management Committee whose membership is not determined by virtue of being
government employee shall serve a period of three years, and if the need arises, can be re-appointed for one
more three-year term only.
3. All that area of marine waters starting from the beach of Kangani at point 5 o 25.8’ South; 39 o 40.4’ East to the beach of Kigomasha at point 4 o 53.7’ South; 39 o 42.0’ East through the limits defined by the following points:-
(i) 5o 31.0’ South; 39 o 40.1’ East,
(ii) 5 o 32.0’ South; 39 o 37.5’ East,
(iii) 5 o 24.1’ South; 39 o 31.5’ East,
(iv) 4 o 49.5’ South; 39 o 39.4’ East,
(v) 4 o 49.6’ South; 39 o 43.0’ East,
is hereby declared to be controlled area and shall be known as the Pemba Channel Conservation Area (PECCA).
67
(8) The quorum for the Management Committee meetings shall not be less than half of its members.
Invitations can be extended to any one to participate if it deems necessary.
(9) Voting shall be by simple majority rule on all issues. However, the chairperson shall have a casting vote
where necessary. Invited members shall have no right to vote.
(10) Roles of the Management Committee, in collaboration with the Department responsible for fisheries, shall
include:-
(i) Making decisions on all management issues for the Area, (ii) Establishing closed fishing seasons or fishing zones, camping areas and periods, or limitations
of fish to be caught and fishing gears to be used within the Area. (iii) Ensuring that no destruction of marine ecosystems within the Area. (iv) From time to time, reviewing the fees imposed and source of revenue and may make
changes on the same or impose new fee to be paid for any activity undertaken within the Area.
(v) Consult with Advisory Committee of the Area, as established under Rule 5 of this Order, on all aspects of management issues within the Area.
(vi) Consult with any institution on technical, scientific and operational matters concerning the Area.
(vii) Prepare a PECCA General Management Plan. (viii) Prepare quarterly, semi annual and annual operational work plans,
(ix) Prepare quarterly, semi annual and annual management reports to the Director of Fisheries and to the Advisory Committee. The reports shall include:-
(a) Fisheries management activities undertaken within the Area, (b) Services provided to the Community, (c) Implementation of respective operational work plan, (d) Revenue collected and financial expenditures, (e) Operational statement (work plan) for the coming period, and includes budgets. (f) Any other business.
(11) Where the post of any officer of the Management Committee mentioned under rule 4(3) of this Order
becomes vacant by reason of death, resignation, removal or any other reason, the Management Committee
shall convene an emergent meeting to fill the vacant position of such officer.
(1) There is hereby established a PECCA Advisory Committee, which shall be an advisory organ for
all management issues of the Area in accordance with this Order.
(2) Members of the Advisory Committee shall constitute the Directors responsible for Fisheries,
Environment, Forestry and Institute of Marine Sciences; Executive Secretary for Tourism
Commission; Honourable District Commissioners of Micheweni, Wete, Chake Chake and Mkoani
Districts; Honourable Members of the House of Representatives for Konde, Gando, Utaani,
Mtambwe, Ziwani, Chake Chake, Mkoani and Chokocho Constituencies; and Shehas from the
Community.
(3) Members of the Advisory Committee shall, among themselves, elect chairperson and
secretary from the first meeting of the Committee. Elections for that post shall be done after
every five years period from the date of previous election.
(4) Secretary and Treasurer of the Management Committee shall be permanent invited members
to the Advisory Committee meetings. However, invitations can be extended to any one. Invited
members shall have no right to vote.
68
(5) Members of the Advisory Committee will meet at least once a year, however, the emergency
meeting may be organised where necessary
(1) No person shall practice or undertake any destructive fishing within the Area.
(2) No person shall anchor or moor within the Area for the purpose of carrying out water sport
activities, filming, and research or study tour save under a written permit issued and upon
reasonable payment of prescribed fees by this Order.
(3) No person shall, for any purpose whatsoever, remove corals from the Area, or undertake any
act that may cause pollution within the Area.
(4) Notwithstanding with sub rule (2) of this Rule, water sport activities, anchoring or mooring
undertaken within the Area shall not destroy marine ecosystems or environment of the Area.
Management Committee shall prepare guidelines or code of conduct to be observed for
anchorage, mooring, water sport or any other marine activity where necessary.
(5) No person shall, within the Area, camp for any purpose whatsoever. Camping areas for local
fishing activities shall be designated by the PECCA Management Committee.
(1) There are hereby imposed fees to be charged for different activities to be carried out within
the Area.
(2) Chargeable fees for different activities to be carried out within the Area are shown in the
SCHEDULE of this Order.
(3) All moneys collected under this Order shall be used in the following manner:-
(a) seventy percent for operational costs of the Area including costs for Advisory and Management Committees meetings, patrols and administration activities, and
(b) thirty percent for supporting community activities including supplying of fishing implements to local fishermen and seaweed farmers.
(4) Management Committee shall be responsible for all revenue collection from the Area.
(5) Management Committee shall keep proper records of the revenue collected and the
expenditure in a professional manner.
(6) Monthly financial reports shall be made available to any member of the Management
Committee on request.
Any person or group of people before permitted to undertake study or research activity within
the Area shall submit a proposal of such activity and within seven days after completion of such
activity shall submit first draft report to both Management Committee and Department
responsible for fisheries.
(i) Any person who contravenes any provision of this Order shall be a guilty of an offence and
shall on conviction be liable to a fine of not less than two hundreds United State Dollars or to be
sent to an educational centre for a term of three months or to both such fine and committal to an
educational centre.
(ii) Any person who causes any provision of this Order to be contravened shall be a guilty of an
offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine of not less than five hundreds United State
69
Dollars or to be sent to an educational centre for a term of five months or to both such fine and
committal to an educational centre.
In addition, the Management Committee may forever stop the offender from undertaking or
operating any activity or business within the Area. In addition, the Department of Fisheries and
Marine Resources may stop the offender from undertaking or operating any activity or business
within the Area for ever.
(iii) Any person convicted to pay a fine shall make the payment in United States Dollars or its
equivalent to Tanzanian Shillings
(1) The Principal Secretary responsible for fisheries may appoint any person to investigate on
allegations against any member of the Management Committee with regard to execution of his
responsibilities. If such allegations prove true, disciplinary action shall be taken against such
member.
(2) After consultation with the Principal Secretary responsible for fisheries, the Director of
Fisheries and Marine Resources shall have the power to suspend, remove or dismiss any member
or members of the Management Committee if he is satisfied and has a reason to believe that
such a member or members do not execute his or their responsibilities in accordance with this
Order.
(3) A member who conducts himself contrary to the provisions of this Order shall be liable to face
disciplinary action. Provided that nor disciplinary action shall be taken against such member
unless and until the right of defence is given to him.
(4) The Department responsible for fisheries is directly responsible to over-see and ensure that
the activities undertaken within the Area conform to requirement of this Order.
(5) The Department responsible for fisheries shall have the power to undertake or permit to be
undertaken, within the Area, any act for the interest of education, research, conservation, all or
part of the community or government.
Any member who is not satisfied with the decision of the Director for dismissal or removal shall
have the right to appeal to the Minister. An appeal to the Minister shall be final.
12. The following Order and Rules are hereby repealed:-
(a) The ORDER (L.N. No. 48 of 1998) issued by Vol. CVI No. 5785 of 1st August, 1998.
(b) The RULES (L.N. No. 61 of 1999) issued by Vol. CVIII No. 5814 of 21st August, 1999.
SCHEDULE
Activity ! Residents (US$) Foreigners (US$) *Locals (T.Shs)
Anchoring per day/boat;
70
Tourist boat 20.00 50.00 2,000
Fishing boat 500.00 1000.00 Free
Others 1000.00 1500.00 5,000
SCHEDULE
Activity Residents (US$) Foreigners (US$) Locals (T.Shs)
Entrance per day/person
Students 2.00 3.00 Free
Outside/visiting 10.00 20.00 1,000
Others 5.00 10.00 Free
SCHEDULE
Activity Residents (US$) Foreigners (US$) Locals (T.Shs)
Filming;
From one day to 6 days 200 200 100,000
Between 1 and 4 weeks 500 600 200,000
Above 4 weeks 1000 2000 500,000
SCHEDULE
Activity Residents (US$) Foreigners (US$) *Locals (T.Shs)
Research
From 1 day to 6 days 150 150 50,000
Between 1 and 4 weeks 300 350 100,000
Above 4 weeks 500 600 200,000
SCHEDULE
Activity ! Residents Foreigners *Locals
71
(US$) (US$) (T.Shs)
Educational;
From 1 day to 6
days
10 10 5,000
Between 1 and 4
weeks
50 60 10,000
Above 4 weeks 100 150 45,000
! Includes Tanzanians from mainland who are not Zanzibarians
* Zanzibarians only ^ Research findings must be made available to the Area management
(Hon. MOH’D ABOUD MOH’D)
MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, NATURAL RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENT AND COOPERATIVES, ZANZIBAR
29 July, 2005
72
APPENDIX 5.1 Institutional framework for Marine Managed Areas in
mainland Tanzania (from Mangora etal. 2012)
APPENDIX 5.2 Organizational chart indicating dual lines of reporting for
MPRU (Mangora et al 2012)
73
Minister
Principal Secretary
Deputy Principal Secretary
Director policy & planning
Director Veterinary
Services
Director animal production &
marketing
Director of research & extension
Account Auditing Admin. & Training
Planning
Head r & e livestock
Head r & e fisheries
Fisheries research
Fisheries extension Head of dept.
Pemba
Director seaweed farming & marine
resources
CMRO
Account
Auditing
Planning
Seaweed farming Fish
farming
Shrimp farming Marketing &
value-addition
Crab farming Admin. & Training
Quality control &
inspection Lawyer
Shellfish farming
Head Dept. Pemba
Director Fisheries
Development
CFO
Account
Auditing
Admin. & Training
MCU
Biodiversity conservation
Lawyer
MCS
Semi-industrial fishing
Processing & quality control
Head Dept. Pemba
Director administration MU officer-
in-charge Pemba
Auditor Lawyer DSFA Research council
APPENDIX 6.Organogram of the
Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Znz
(from McLean et al. 2012)
74
APPENDIX 7. Organogram of the Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources Zanzibar (from McLean et al. 2012)
Director
Marine Conservation Unit
Conservation Area
Fisheries Commitee
Development of Artisanal Fisheries
Artisanal Fisheries Officer
Deputy Artisanal Fisheries Officer
District Fisheries Officer
Licence
Quality Control
Ispection Unit
Education Officer
Processing & Marketing
Planning
Budget
Transport Officer
Statistic
Lawyer
Accountant
Administation & Manpower
Officer Superintendant
Correspondant
Training Unit
Kalamazoo
Development Fisheries industry
Deep sea Coordinator Biodivesity Conservation
Protected Resources Conservation
Habitats Conservation
Sustanailable Resources User
Monitoring Control Surveilance
Deputy Monitoring Control
Surveilence
Information Officer
Rangers
Guard Unit
Fisheries Committee
Officer in Charge Pemba
1