Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
While community-level governance represents a significant challenge, these
problems are greatly exceeded, and often exacerbated, by institutional factors at
higher levels of government. Government policy has consistently provided rhetori-
cal support for community-based tourism, but legal and administrative actions
belie such rhetoric. Starting in 2000, community-based tourism ventures faced
something of a crisis when regulations issued by the Wildlife Division declared all
tourism activities occurring within hunting blocks on village lands subject to the
authority of the Director of Wildlife (Masara, 2000; MNRT, 2000). This measure
was motivated by the incentives on the part of wildlife authorities to maintain
exclusive access to village lands in the hands of the hunting companies.The regula-
tions effectively tried to replace village authority for developing commercial
agreements with tour operators, as had emerged during the 1990s, with a much
more centralized regulatory framework. Since the Wildlife Division's main interest
has always been maintaining stability in tourist hunting management on commu-
nity lands, this measure could have served to shut down many community level
tourism ventures.This outcome did not occur, mainly because most tour operators
and village governments never recognized the authority of the Wildlife Division to
regulate these ventures, and simply carried on business as before.The government,
perhaps recognizing its weak legislative basis for controlling commercial tourism
ventures on village lands, only forced the matter intermittently, and most areas
continued in a state of moderate conflict over jurisdictional authority, occasionally
boiling over into localized crises. The regulations have, however, greatly increased
the costs of doing business in community areas for most operators, and served to
discourage entry into new community-based ventures for many mainstream firms.
The government's approach has greatly impeded the spread of community-private
tourism partnerships, which have existed for the past 8 years in an institutional
environment that is effectively hostile to their existence. Another outcome of this
situation is the weakening of facilitation for community-operator ventures; many
NGOs have been discouraged from working to promote community-based
tourism, since such ventures are now nominally illegal in most high-potential areas.
It is thus something of a testament to the extremely high market potential of
community-based tourism in the region, and the resilience of both private opera-
tors and local communities, that most initiatives have continued to operate, and
even expand, within this institutional context.
Understanding the discrepancy between policy and institutional practice
requires placing community-based tourism within the broader configuration of
political economic trends and dynamics in modern Tanzania. The past 20 years of
economic reforms have led to the growth of commercial markets and investment
activity, but this has occurred within the context of a heavily centralized state
based around patron-client relations and interests. As investment in Tanzania has
increased, so have the private interests of public functionaries (Kelsall, 2002).
Although the narrative of 'economic liberalization' in Tanzania presents an image
of government withdrawal from direct control of markets and economic produc-
tion, this is partially illusory. Most key productive resources remain under the
control of central institutions, which manage their use and allocation in pursuit of
Search WWH ::
Custom Search