Tanzanian Environmental Impact Assessment Laws and Practice for Projects in World Heritage Sites

Abstract

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is an integral component of sound decision-making. Environmental impact assessment helps to prevent or reduce environmental harms by informing the decision-makers the likely environmental impacts of intended project, its alternatives and/or mitigation measures before the implementation starts. This study examines the effectiveness of Tanzania EIA laws and related practice on the protection of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the world heritage sites during implementation of development projects. The study used data obtained from government officials, policies, laws and reports; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and World Heritage Committee reports; and scholarly works. The study demonstrates that Tanzania EIA laws are inadequate to ensure effective protection of OUV of world heritage sites against harms caused by development projects. The laws do not guarantee effective and broader participation of stakeholders and inclusion of heritage impact assessment in EIA study. The study, therefore, recommends for reform of EIA laws and institutions responsible for supervising EIA.

Keywords

environmental impact assessment world heritage sites laws in practice effectiveness Tanzania

Introduction

Development is understood differently across jurisdictions. The goals of development also differ from one jurisdiction to another or from one region to another. Globally, the goals of development are categorically stated in the Sustainable Development Goals. These goals include, inter alia, ending poverty, attaining good health, affordable and clean water, sustainable cities and others (UN, 2015). In the African context, development goals focus on eradicating poverty; ensuring that all Africans access decent and affordable housing in clean, secure and well planned environments; industrialising African economy; connecting African countries through world class infrastructures including roads and ensuring accessibility of efficient, reliable and cost-effective energy to all Africans, businesses, industries and institutions (African Union Commission, 2015). For the case of Tanzanian, development aims at attaining high quality life by eradicating poverty, achieving good governance, and attaining strong and competitive economy characterised by, inter alia, semi-industrialisation and adequate physical infrastructure (URT, 1995).

In order to achieve development goals, environmental issues should be mainstreamed in development plans. This is true since development activities including implementation of different infrastructure projects may have irreversible impacts on the environment and thus affecting the quality of human life. Since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the Earth Summit), the link between development and environmental protection and conservation has gained attention in legal and policy documents both at national and global level. The Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development states that development plans must take into consideration environmental protection (UN, 1993). To be precise, the Declaration advocates for sustainable development – the development that ‘meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (Dei, 1993, p. 98). In the context of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Convention, sustainable development entails development that balances the three values: environmental, social and economic values (Warnock, 2013). Further sustainable development should ensure that cultural and natural heritage properties of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) are protected, conserved, presented and transmitted to the future generations (General Assembly of the World Heritage Convention, 2015).

One of the tools that are used to promote the integration of environmental issues into development plans and decision-making is the environmental impact assessment (EIA). Through EIA, development projects that are likely to course significant harm on the environment including the World Heritage properties’ OUV are subjected to scrutiny with the aim of determining the negative impacts of the projects and finding out alternatives and/or measures to mitigate the identified impacts (World Heritage Committee, 2019). The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage of 1972 (World Heritage Convention) require EIA, heritage impact assessments (HIA) and/or strategic environmental assessments (SEA) to ‘be carried out as a pre-requisite for development projects and activities that are planned for implementation within or around [any] World Heritage property’ (World Heritage Committee, 2019, p. 33).

Tanzania is among the States Parties to the World Heritage Convention and one of the countries hosting World Heritage properties. By virtue of being a State Party to the above Convention, Tanzania is under obligation to observe and comply with the requirements for the protection and conservation of World Heritage properties as stated in the Convention and/or other documents adopted under the auspice of the Convention.

The aim of this study is to examine the effectiveness of Tanzania EIA laws and the related practice in ensuring the protection of OUV of World Heritage sites that are found in Tanzania. The motivation behind this study is the increasing complains and dissatisfactions by environmentalists and conservationists on projects that are implemented by Tanzania within World Heritage sites. The projects are accused for being harmful to the OUV of the World Heritage properties (Dye & Hartmann, 2019; UNESCO, 2018, 2019). The study draws experience from two case studies involving projects implemented within the two World Heritage sites to demonstrate the effectiveness of the above said legal framework. The two projects are the North Mara Road project and the Stiegler’s/Nyerere Hydroelectric Power project.

While there are a number of studies that have been conducted to address the effectiveness of the Tanzania legal framework for EIA in general (Mwalyosi & Hughes, 1998; Nyihirani et al., 2014; Sosovele, 2011), little is known about the effectiveness of the said framework in relation to projects that are implemented within or around World Heritage sites. Therefore, this study is expected to contribute to address the existing knowledge gap on the effectiveness of Tanzania EIA legal regime in protecting World Heritage sites. The study responds to the question whether Tanzania EIA law is adequate to guarantee protection of World Heritage sites against negative impacts that may result from the implementation of development projects.

Methodology

The methods used to collect data for this study are desk review and interview. In desk review, the author reviewed various government documents including EIA laws, policies and various reports on EIA and the reports on the implementation of the North Road project and Stiegler’s Hydropower project. The author also reviewed some EIA reports and laws from outside Tanzania for comparative reasons. The author further reviewed scholarly works that are relevant to the study. These included works on EIA in Tanzania and other parts of the world. The study also involved review of reports and documents of the UNESCO and World Heritage Committee that were relevant to the study. An examination of the World Heritage Convention and Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention was also made to determine the extent the Convection and its Operational Guidelines address EIA for the projects that are to be implemented within World Heritage sites. Some data were also collected through interview, telephone interview, in particular. The author interviewed National Environment Management Council (NEMC) officials for the purpose of obtaining broader understanding of the practical aspect of EIA in Tanzania.

World Heritage and Developments: Tanzania

According to the World Heritage Convention, world heritage properties are categorised into cultural and natural heritage. Cultural heritage is composed of monuments, groups of buildings and sites. On the other hand, natural heritage is composed of natural features, geological and physiographical formations, and natural sites. Considering that World Heritage is of outstanding interest to the whole mankind, and further recognising the increasing threat to World Heritage, the World Heritage Convention establishes mechanism of identifying, protecting, conserving, presenting and transmitting World Heritage to the future generations. The Convention also establishes a system of co-operation and assistance to support States Parties to conserve World Heritages found in their jurisdictions.

Tanzania is a State Party to the World Heritage Convention since February, 1977 (Bellini, 2008, p. 3). To date, there are seven World Heritage sites: three cultural heritages; three natural heritages and one is mixed (WWF, 2018). The cultural heritages include the Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani and Songo Mnara – listed in 1981, the Stone Town of Zanzibar – listed in 2000 and Kondoa Rock Art Site – listed in 2006. The natural heritages are Serengeti National Park – listed in 1981, Selous Game Reserve (currently Nyerere National Park) – listed in 1982 and Kilimanjaro National Park – listed in 1987. The only mixed World Heritage found in Tanzania is the Ngorongoro Conservation Area – listed under natural criteria in 1979 and under cultural criteria in 2010 (WWF, 2018). The two case study of this article focus on development projects that are implemented within the two World Heritage sites: Selous Game Reserve and Ngorongoro Conservation Area.

Once an area is inscribed in the List of World Heritage, the World Heritage Convention requires the State Party in whose territory the listed heritage is situated to take measures to protect and conserve that heritage. In particular, article 5 of the Convention requires the State:

1. to adopt a general policy which aims to give the cultural and natural heritage a function in the life of the community and to integrate the protection of that heritage into comprehensive planning programmes;

2. ………

3. to develop scientific and technical studies and research and to work out such operating methods as will make the State capable of counteracting the dangers that threaten its cultural or natural heritage;

4. to take the appropriate legal, scientific, technical, administrative and financial measures necessary for the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and rehabilitation of this heritage; and

5 …….

Article 6 of the Convention insists further that ‘the protection of the World Heritage is the duty of the international community as a whole’. However, the primary role of protecting and conserving World Heritage lies to the State Party in whose territory the respective heritage is located. The role of international community in the protection and conservation of World Heritage is only to support the efforts of the State Party in whose territory the World Heritage is located, to protect and identify that World Heritage.

In spite of the fact that the World Heritage Convention does not define the words protection and conservation as used in the Convention, literature suggests that the words imply high standard of environmental management (Warnock, 2013). In their manual titled Managing Natural World Heritage: World Heritage Resource Manual, (UNESCO, 2012) emphasises that World Heritage properties need to be subjected to the highest international standards of care, control and management.

An important question relating to the protection and conservation of World Heritage properties/sites is whether the implementations of development projects such as construction of infrastructure within World Heritage sites is in line with the measures for the management of the sites. Neither the World Heritage Convention nor the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the Convention prohibit the implementations of projects in the World Heritage sites. However, the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention require States Parties to give notice to the World Heritage Committee of any intention to undertake new constructions in the sites protected under the World Heritage Convention. The notice has to be given before any significant decision regarding the implementation of the intended project is made (World Heritage Committee, 2019). The rationale of the notice is to give an opportunity to the Committee to assist in seeking appropriate solutions to ensure that the OUV of the World Heritage site where the project is intended to be implemented is fully preserved (World Heritage Committee, 2019).

It is also important to note that the implementation of development project within the World Heritage sites that have impacts which threaten the property forms a reason for the inscription of the World Heritage site in the List of World Heritage in Danger (World Heritage Committee, 2019). If the World Heritage site is inscribed in the List of World Heritage in Danger, it means that the site is in the danger of losing its heritage status. Further, being included in the List of World Heritage in Danger means that assistance is required to combat the danger and rescuing the site from losing its OUV; which ultimately results into the site being removed from the World Heritage List (International Council on Monuments and Sites; ICOMOS, 2009).

Therefore, as far as the implementations of development project in the World Heritage sites concerns, not every development project is allowed. In their response to the decision of Tanzania to construct dam for Hydroelectric power generation in the World Heritage site, UNESCO emphasised that the construction of dams with large reservoirs within the boundaries of World Heritage sites is incompatible with World Heritage status (UNESCO, 2018). Therefore, it can be argued that development projects that are allowed within World Heritage sites are those which are consistence with the objectives of the World Heritage Convention. In particular, development projects should not cause negative impacts on the OUV of the World Heritage sites since the OUV is the basis for inscription in the World Heritage List (IUCN, 2013).

Environmental Impact Assessment as a Decision-Making Tool in Tanzania

Environmental impact assessment is defined to mean ‘a structured approach for obtaining and evaluating environmental information prior to its use in decision-making in the development process’ (R. B. B. Mwalyosi et al., 1995, p. 1). It is an interdisciplinary and multi-step process that ensures that environmental issues are taken into considerations during decisions regarding development projects that may have significant impacts on the environment. The main objective of EIA is to identify potential environmental impacts of a proposed project, both positive and negative, alternatives to the project and to design measures to mitigate the identified impacts (Duinker & Greig, 2007; Momtaz, 2002; Morgan, 2012) before major decisions and commitments relating to the implementation of the intended project are made (UNEP, 2008). Environmental impact assessment is considered to be guidance to the administrative organs for making environmentally sound decisions (Leelakrishnan, 1992) as it informs the decision-makers the negative and positive environmental impacts of the intended project and available alternatives as well as mitigation measures early before the implementation of the project takes off.

Historically, EIA was firstly introduced in Tanzania in 1980s (Sosovele, 2011). The first EIA was conducted in respect of Stiegler’s Power and Flood Control Project, in the year 1980 (R. Mwalyosi & Hughes, 1998). However, before 2004, EIA was a voluntary compliance process with no comprehensive guidelines (Sosovele, 2011). Existed guidelines were sectoral oriented. For instance, in 2001, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism made its EIA Guidelines to guide the conduct of EIA in marine parks and reserves (URT, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, 2001). Most of the EIA conducted before 2004 were in respect of donor agencies requirement as part of grant-aiding process (Guilanpour & Sheate, 1997). It was in 2004 when EIA was made compulsory, through an Act of the parliament, the Environmental Management Act (EMA), for all projects that are likely to have significant harms on the environment.

In 1997, before the enactment of EMA, the National Environmental Policy was made. The policy explicitly states that:

EIA as a planning tool shall be used to integrate environmental considerations in the decision-making process, in order to ensure that unnecessary damage to the environment is avoided. It shall be a mandatory requirement to ensure that environmental concerns receive due and balanced consideration in reconciling urgent development needs and long-term sustainability, before a final decision is made. In this way, environmental considerations will not become an afterthought in planning and decision-making, but rather, part of our consciousness and awareness of our development realities.

The Policy further called for the formulations of guidelines and criteria for conducting EIA (URT, 1997).

The Environmental Management Act is a framework legislation for environmental management and the principal law that regulate environmental management in Tanzania. All other sectoral laws are required to comply with the provisions of EMA as far as the management of environment concerns. The Environmental Management Act requires mandatory EIA for all projects that are likely to cause significant impacts on the environment. The Act also establishes the NEMC and vests it with the powers to monitor the implementation of the Act and the power to review environmental impact statement (EIS)/EIA report and to recommend to the Minster responsible for environment for decision-making. The Minister responsible for environment is vested with powers to issue or refuse to issue EIA certificate. If the Minister approves EIS, he will issue EIA certificate thereof. If EIS is not approved, EIA certificate will not be issued and the Minister will have to give his reasons for his decision disapproving the EIS.

In 2005, the Environmental Impact Assessment and Audit Regulation (EIA Regulations) were made to complement EMA on the aspect of EIA. Among others, the Regulations lay down procedures and specific criteria for conducting EIA in Tanzania. The obligation of conducting EIA is vested to every proponent or developer of the project that requires mandatory EIA. The project developer can be an individual, a company or a government institution or ministry. The project developer is required to commission environmental expert of his own choice to conduct EIA. However, the environmental expert to be commissioned must be duly certified and registered in the Register of Environmental Experts. Thus, the project developer will have to choose environmental expert form the list of registered environmental experts.

Projects that require mandatory EIA are specified in the Third Schedule of EMA. Environmental impact assessment have to be conducted before the commencement of the project. To emphasise on the need to conduct EIA before the commencement of the project, EIA Regulations restrict relevant authorities from issuing certificate or licence for any project that requires mandatory EIA unless the project proponent has obtained EIA certificate. Initially, development projects were categorised into two. These were projects requiring mandatory EIA (Type A projects) and those which do not require mandatory EIA (Type B projects). For the projects that did not require mandatory EIA, the project proponent or developer was required to register the project with NEMC for screening.

Following amendment of EIA Regulations in 2018, the categories of development projects for EIA purposes have been increased into four. The new categories of projects in the amended Regulations are projects requiring mandatory EIA (Type A projects); projects that do not require mandatory EIA (Type B1 projects); projects that do not require EIA at all (Type B2 projects) and Special Projects. For projects that fall in the first category, that is Type A projects, EIA is required as a mandatory procedure before the implementation of the intended project starts. On the other hand, Type B1 projects require registration and screening to determine whether EIA should be conducted or not while Type B2 projects require registration only. Special projects are essentially Type A projects, in the sense that they require mandatory EIA before their implementation. However, unlike other type A projects, special projects require detail pecialized study prior to EIA in order to ascertain their potential risks on the environment. Projects that fall under this category are forestry projects including projects relating to introduction of alien tree species and development of forest plantation and projects relating to selective removal of single tree species.

The amended EIA Regulations have also introduced a new type of environmental clearance, namely, provisional environmental clearance. Provisional environmental clearance was introduced purposely to reflect the vision and priorities of the fifth government, which included increased investments in the industrial sector (Lamtey, 2018). Provisional environmental clearance is issued to the proponent or developer of an industrial project, agro-processing project or any project of national strategic or public interest. The holder of provisional environmental clearance is required to complete an EIA study within 4 months from the date of issuance of the said clearance. However, the holder of provisional environmental clearance is not allowed to commence implementation of the project, unless he has obtained EIA certificate. Therefore, provisional environmental clearance does not replace, introduce or modify rules of conducting EIA study. The provisional environmental clearance entitles its holder to execute initial activities related to the implementation of the project, for example, mobilisation of material, labour, capital and production facilities, and securing other necessary permits. Nevertheless, issuing licences and permits before EIA certificate is obtained contravenes regulation 4 of the EIA Regulations which prohibits issuing permits and licences to the project proponent before EIA certificate is obtained.

The steps for conducting EIA are elaborated comprehensively in the EIA Regulations. These steps are project registration and screening, scoping, baseline study, impact assessment, impact mitigation and enhancement measures, preparation of EIS, review of EIS, environmental monitoring, and auditing and decommissioning. Of importance to note in respect of the steps for conducting EIA is the participation of different stakeholders, including the public in the EIA process. The law provides for two stages where the public should be consulted. The first is at the time the project developer is conducting EIA and the second is during review of EIS by NEMC. Other stakeholders including relevant government institutions are also consulted during review of EIS.

With respect to the first stage where public need to be consulted, EIA Regulations oblige every developer, when conducting EIA study to seek and obtain views of members of the public who are likely to be affected by the intended project. The methods of collecting views of members of the public include holding public meetings. The public meeting must be preceded by publications of the intended project and issuance of notice of the meeting to the members of the community to be affected by the intended project. The report of the public meeting should be attached to EIS that is submitted to NEMC. National Environment Management Council may also visit the site where the project is to be implemented in order to verify if public hearing was conducted.

During review of EIS, NEMC is required to invite the general public, relevant ministries and institutions to provide their comments on the EIS submitted by the project developer. Comments may also be submitted orally during a public hearing, if NEMC chooses to convene public hearing. Environmental impact assessment Regulations require the Minister when making decision to take into consideration, inter alia, views of stakeholders and reports of public meeting.

As noted in the preceding discussion, the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention require States Parties to the World Heritage Convention to conduct EIA, HIA and/or SEA before a decision to implement development project within World Heritage site is made. Nevertheless, the Guidelines do not lay down specific procedures to be followed by States Parties when conducting EIA/SEA for projects intended to be implemented within World Heritage sites. This implies that the procedures provided in the EIA laws of the States Parties are applicable to projects intended to be implemented in the World Heritage sites.

Empirical Perspective: EIA and World Heritage Sites in Tanzania

This part discusses two projects that are implemented in different World Heritage sites in Tanzania. These projects are the North Road project and Nyerere Hydropower project. This part also discusses the situations through which the decisions relating to the implementations of the above projects were made and the procedures that were involved including the conduct of EIA study. The aim is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the Tanzania legal framework for EIA as well as related practice in ensuring that the OUV of World Heritage sites are protected against harms that may result from the implementation of development projects.

The Construction of North Road Project and Objections

The decision to construct North Road (Natta – Mugumu – Tabora B – Kleins Gate – Loliondo Road) was made in 2005. About 53 Kilometres of the intended Road dissect the Serengeti National Park, which is renowned for the natural migration of millions of wildebeests and hundreds of thousands of gazelles and zebras. Serengeti National Park is also known for harbouring globally endangered animal species (Røskaft et al., 2012; UNESCO, n.d.). According to the government of Tanzania, the construction of the road is expected to stimulate socio-economic growth of more than two million Tanzanians and to reduce transport costs between Mugumu and Loliondo Centres.

The decision to construct North Road project was seriously criticised by various environmentalists and conservationists for being threat to the ecosystem of Serengeti National Park. In its 34th session held in Brasilia from 25 July–3 August 2010, the World Heritage Committee, which is responsible for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention, expressed its concerns about the proposed North Road project. The World Heritage Committee was of the view that the proposed project could result to the irreversible harm to the Serengeti’s ecosystem. The Committee argued Tanzania to submit EIA to the World Heritage Centre before the implementation of the project starts (World Heritage Committee, 2010). During its 35th session held in Paris from 9 to 29 June 2011, the Word Heritage Committee further requested the government of Tanzania to ‘maintain the stretch of 53 km from Kleins gate to Tabora B traversing the northern wilderness area of the [Serengeti National Park] as a gravel road, under the management of the Tanzania National Parks and reserved mainly for tourism and administrative purposes’ (World Heritage Committee, 2011, p. 52). This request of the World Heritage Committee reflected the recommendations of the EIA report for the North Road project.

Moreover, in 2010, the African Network for Animal Welfare (ANAW), a Charitable Pan-African animal welfare and community-centred organisation registered as a Non-Governmental Organisation in Kenya, challenged the decision of the government of Tanzania to construct North Road before the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) (African Network for Animal Welfare (ANAW) v The Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania, (2014). Before the EACJ First Instance Division, ANAW (the Applicant) argued that the intended construction would cause deleterious environmental and ecological effects and is likely to cause irreparable and irreversible damage to the delicate ecosystem of the Serengeti and adjoining national parks including the Masai Mara in Kenya. The Applicant further argued that the construction will disrupt animal migration; lead to loss of scenic and visual quality; increase wildlife death caused by speeding motor vehicles; and further, the construction will lead to land, water and air pollution, to mention but a few.

In response to the above arguments, the government of Tanzania (the Respondent), among other things, argued that the intended project was preceded by EIA study commissioned by the government and further that the EIA report provides for available alternatives for implementing the project. The Respondent argued further that if the project is implemented as suggested by the EIA report, it will reduce negative impacts and will also enhance the safety of the animals. However, the Respondent did not point out how the said construction will enhance the safety of the animals. The Respondent cemented its arguments by putting clear that it will abide to its laws and rules on environmental preservation and conservation as well as its obligations to all international and regional treaties on the subject. The Respondent also emphasised that the construction has been commended by the World Heritage Committee.

The decision of the EACJ First Instance Division was that any roads in the Serengeti should generally be used by wildlife, tourists and Park administrators and not the general public because of the attendant risks associated with such use. Further, the Court was of the view that if the project is implemented as originally intended, it may cause an irreversible negative impact on the Serengeti’s environment and ecosystem. The Court therefore issued permanent injunction restraining the government of Tanzania from implementing its initial proposal of constructing or maintaining a road of bitumen standard across the Serengeti National Park.

The government of Tanzania being aggrieved by the decision of the EACJ First Instance Division appealed to the Appellate Division of the EACJ (The Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania v African Network for Animal Welfare (ANAW), 2015). The appeal was partly allowed on the ground that the First Instance Division dealt with hypothetical case/mere idea or plan and not a live case. However, the Appellate Division maintained that the permanent injunction issued by the First Instance Division in respect of the initial plan of the government of Tanzania was proper. This meant that the government of Tanzania could continue with its plan to construct the North Road but subject to addressing environmental harms that are likely to be caused by the intended construction. Summarily, the government of Tanzania could continue with its plan provided the road could be constructed in gravel standard and further that the road is reserved for the use and management by the Park’s authority. However, this was not the original intention of the government of Tanzania. The government needed the road to addresses transport challenges facing members of the society.

Nyerere Hydropower Project

Nyerere Hydropower project is implemented in the Selous Game Reserve, one of the largest protected areas in Africa and relatively undisturbed by human impact (IUCN, 2017). Seluos Game Reserve which is 50,000 square kilometre large, harbours significant concentrations of elephant, black rhinoceros, cheetah, giraffe, hippopotamus, crocodile and other species (IUCN, 2017). In 2014, Selous Game Reserve was listed in the List of World Heritage in Danger, mainly due to significant decline of elephants caused by poaching. The implementation of the project has been added as a justification for the Selous Game Reserve to remain in the List of World Heritage in Danger (IUCN, 2019a, p. 1).

Nyerere Hydropower project involves construction of a dam in the main watercourse of the Reserve, Rufiji River (IUCN, 2019a, p. 1; URT, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, 2019, p. 2). It is expected that the project will result into clearance of 1.8% of the Selous’s forestry area (URT, Ministry of Energy and Minerals, 2019, p. 1; URT, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, 2019). Upon completion, the dam will be the fourth largest in Africa and ninth in the World, and the project is expected to double Tanzania’s current power output. In particular, Nyerere Hydropower project is expected to add 2115 MW of electricity to the national grid (Daily News Reporter, 2020).

Historically, the idea to build Hydropower project at Rufiji River started with the first President of Tanzania, Julius K. Nyerere, in 1960s, before the inclusion of Selous Game Reserve in the World Heritage List (Hoag & Öhman, 2008, p. 643). Hoag and Öhman (2008) state that between 1961 and 1984, there were more than 30 major studies about Rufiji River and the potential ecological impacts of the proposed construction of the Stiegler’s Gorge dam for Hydropower production. The studies were undertaken by foreign consultants as well as natives. While some of the studies supported the construction of the dam, some of the studies including studies undertaken under the University of Dar es Salaam’s Bureau of Resource Assessment and Land Use Planning objected the construction of the dam because of its likely negative effects (Hoag & Öhman, 2008). In 1984, Nyerere’s government abandoned the Stiegler’s dam construction plan due to, among other reasons, the damage the project could cause to the environment and high expenses for implementing the project (Hoag & Öhman, 2008).

In the current implementation of the project, the fifth government of Tanzania commissioned the University of Dar es Salaam Consultancy Bureau to conduct Environmental and Social Impact Assessment whose report was completed on May, 2018 and updated on October, 2018. It is the above report which the government relies on to show that the project is environmental friendly and that it will not result into devastating harms as claimed by environmental groups and other environmental stakeholders. The World Heritage Committee, during its 41st session held in Krakow, Poland, from 2–12 July 2017, apart from requesting Tanzania to conduct a comprehensive SEA/HIA before deciding to proceed with the construction of the project and submit the report to the World Heritage Centre for review in accordance with paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines; the Committee also requested Tanzania to consider alternatives to the Rufiji Hydropower project (World Heritage Committee, 2017).

The decision to implement Rufiji Hydropower project attracted attention from other environmental stakeholders too. Many of the stakeholders are concerned that the project is likely to have a ‘devastating and irreversible impact on Selous’ unique ecosystem, and that it will jeopardise the potential of the site to contribute to sustainable development’ (Mwenda, 2020). To date, a number of studies have been undertaken with the purpose of identifying the likely impacts of the project. The studies include the one commissioned by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) to review the EIA for the Rufiji Hydropower project. The findings of the study point out that the project’s EIA ‘falls considerably short of international standards for a project with potentially significant impacts in an area of such high biodiversity and social sensitivity’ (IUCN, 2019a, p. 19). The report highlights the weaknesses of the project’s EIA to include inadequate and detailed description of the project’s activities, lack of baseline data, lack of sufficient detailed assessment of impacts of the project on the physical environment, irrelevant mitigation measures and lack of clear justifications that no alternatives to the projects are available (IUCN, 2019a). The report further provides that Rufiji Hydropower project is also likely to have negative effects outside Selous Game Reserve. The project is likely to cause negative impacts on the livelihood of many dependents of downstream Rifiji River (IUCN, 2019a).

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s response to the implementation of Rufiji project was that the ‘construction of dams with large reservoirs within the boundaries of World Heritage properties is incompatible with their World Heritage status’ (UNESCO, 2018). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization thus argued Tanzania not to proceed with the project, emphasising that the project is likely to cause irreversible harm to the Selous’s OUV hence resulting to its removal from the list of World Heritage (UNESCO, 2019). World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) considers the construction of the project as a violation of principles of the World Heritage Convention to which Tanzania is a party. WWF argues that the project will impact negatively more than 200,000 livelihoods and would also affect the downstream Rufiji River by increasing erosion and loss of soil fertility (Dye & Hartmann, 2019).

In spite of all of the criticisms against the project, the government of Tanzania maintained its firm position to execute the project. Those who challenged the project were threatened to be jailed (Mwenda, 2020). The Government commenced the implementation of the project before conducting SEA as requested by World Heritage Committee (Environmental Investigation Agency, 2021, p. 5) and as required by EMA.

Discussion

Environmental impact assessment is an important tool that ensures that environmental issues are considered in the decisions relating to the implementation of development projects (Mwalyosi et al., 1999). Environmental impact assessment informs decision-makers the environmental consequences of implementing a proposed project and the available alternatives (Ortolano & Shepherd, 1995). It also helps in developing appropriate mitigation measures to prevent or reduce likely impacts of development projects on the environment (National Environment Commission, 2011). Therefore, where EIA is done properly, it may help to protect and conserve the environment by preventing or reducing the negative environmental impacts of the intended development project.

Environmental impact assessment as decision-making tool is popular both at international and national level. At international level, the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention requires EIA, HIA and/or SEA for projects that are to be developed within World Heritage sites. The Guidelines emphasise that the EIA, HIA and/or SEA should help to identify development alternatives, as well as both potential positive and negative impacts of the intended project in the World Heritage sites and to recommend mitigation measures (World Heritage Committee, 2019). However, the Operational Guidelines do not lay down specific procedures to be followed when conducting EIA, HIA or SEA. In 2011, the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) developed guidance of HIA for World Heritage properties. Among the reasons for developing HIA guidance was that EIA is inappropriate for assessing impacts in the World Heritage properties. Environmental impact assessment is not directly tied to attributes of OUV (ICOMOS, 2011). Since there are no guidelines issued by UNESCO for EIA or SEA, national EIA and SEA frameworks apply to govern the conduct of EIA or SEA for projects to be implemented within World Heritage properties.

At national level, the main laws that regulate the conduct of EIA in Tanzania are EMA and EIA Regulations. The laws were published in 2004 and 2005, respectively. The EIA Regulations were revised in 2018. The laws prohibit implementation of some projects, mainly projects that are likely to have irreversible impacts on the environment without undertaking EIA. These projects include those implemented in the protected areas such as national parks and others. However, the above laws do not mention explicitly for the requirement of HIA, even where the intended project is to be implemented within World Heritage sites. Practically, HIA is incorporated in the EIA study. In an interview with NEMC official, the officer averred that there is no separate HIA which is to be done in respect of the intended development project. Issues relating to HIA are normally addressed during EIA.

The problems associated with the Tanzania legal framework for EIA and related practice make EIA ineffective to protect World Heritage sites against impacts that may result from development projects implemented within World Heritage sites. Already, ICOMOS (2011) argues that EIA is ineffective to determine impacts of the intended project in the World Heritage sites. On top of that, for the case of Tanzania, the situation through which EIA is conducted provides an opportunity for obtaining biased EIA results. The laws require project proponent to undertake EIA on his own costs and submit the report to NEMC for review before a decision is made by the Minister responsible for environment. It is the project proponent who finds and commissions a suitable environmental expert to undertake the study. Therefore, the environmental expert who undertakes EIA is accountable to the project proponent. Under such a situation, it is likely for the environmental expert to please his employer by writing EIS that reflects the wish of the project developer.

Moreover, NEMC is expected to give professional advice to the government. That being the case, it is supposed to be composed of persons with professionalism and high integrity. The Chief Executive of NEMC is Director-General who is appointed by the President. The President is the head of government. National Environment Management Council reviews EIS and advises the Minster for environment. The Minister is an appointee of the President. The Minister is not bound to accept advice given by NEMC. The Minister can accept EIA study and issue EIA certificate contrary to the advice rendered by NEMC. For instance, in the case of projects that are highly needed by the government as the case of the two case studies, it is difficult for the Minister to act contrary to the wish of the government. It is therefore not uncommon for government projects to be implemented without conducting EIA and/or SEA as required by national laws (Environmental Investigation Agency, 2021; Nyihirani et al., 2014; Sosovele, 2011). To wit, the implementation of Nyerere Hydropower project started before conducting SEA as required by EMA (Environmental Investigation Agency, 2021; URT, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, 2019). In its Conservation Report of 2019 submitted to the World Heritage Centre, the government of Tanzania admitted that the construction of Rufiji Hydropower project was contrary to its environmental laws. The government particularly stated that although SEA is a mandatory requirement under EMA for mega projects including Hydropower projects, it was practically impossible to conduct SEA for Rufiji Hydropower project given the urgent need for energy and investment required to conduct SEA (URT, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, 2019, p. 5).

Environmental Management Act provides an opportunity to challenge the decision of the Minister approving or disapproving EIS. However, the Environmental Appeals Tribunal that is vested with the powers to entertain such action is yet to come into existence. Further, although NEMC is vested with powers to oversee compliance with EMA, in the situation where the violation of the Act is done by the government or an investor who has relationship with the government, it lacks courage to condemn such violation on the fear of been considered to be anti-development (Sosovele, 2011). Therefore, practically, there is no remedy against Minister’s decision to approve or disapprove EIA study.

Stakeholders’ participation including the public is another critical area during the conduct of EIA in Tanzania. Public participation in EIA helps to integrate economic, social and environmental objectives (National Environment Commission, 2011). Public participation also helps to reduce delay of projects and further increases acceptability of the project by the public (Cuppen et al., 2012; National Environment Commission, 2011). The examination done by this study shows that EIA in Tanzania is characterised by inadequate participation of stakeholders (Environmental Investigation Agency, 2021). As noted earlier in this study, members of the public are to be consulted in two stages: during the conduct of EIA study by the project developer and during review of EIS. Environmental impact assessment laws require the developer of the project to make sure that the public are consulted, through public hearing, in particular. However, the laws do not lay down mechanisms to ensure that the developer will consult the public as required. The laws also do not require any NEMC official to participate in the public hearing. Further, the laws give NEMC the discretion to decide whether to visit or not to visit the site where the project is to be implemented for purposes of verifying whether public hearing was conducted. The project developer is only required to consult NEMC during the appointment of the person to receive and record both oral and written comments. Therefore, although public hearing report forms part of the appendices, the procedures through which public hearing is made do not guarantee authentic and genuine public hearing report that represents views of the members of the public.

There are times where environmental impacts of development projects respect no boarder. For instance, in the Trail Smelter Case (United States v Canada (1938), a smelter plant situated in Canada emitted hazardous fumes that caused environmental impacts across the border in Washington State in the United States. The above case implies that effective EIA study needs to seek and obtain views from neighbouring states where the project to be implemented is of a nature that it may cause trans-boundary environmental impacts. Therefore, national EIA laws should provide a framework for seeking and obtaining views of neighbouring countries during EIA study. For instance, the Zambia’s Environmental Protection and Pollution (EIA) Regulations of 1997 require EIS for a project that is likely to affect the environment of neighbour state to be transmitted to the respective state for comments. For the case of Tanzania, EIA legal framework is silent on the above requirement. The laws do not provide for an avenue for neighbouring countries to participate if the impacts of the project are trans-boundary in nature. For instance, the construction of the North Road was criticised, among others, that the project will interfere the natural movement of wild animals from Serengeti National Park to Masai Mara National Park in Kenya. As such, Kenya had right to participate in the respective EIA since her environment was likely to be endangered by the project to be implemented in Tanzania.

The World Heritage Convention and its Operational Guidelines lay down a framework for protecting World Heritage sites and a framework for the implementation of projects within World Heritage sites. The World Heritage Convention also establishes the World Heritage Committee. The Committee is responsible for, among others, the implementation of the Convention. The Committee is also vested with powers to decide whether a property is to be inscribed in the World Heritage List and further to decide whether the property is to be inscribed or deleted on the List of World Heritage in Danger. For the purposes of protecting World Heritage sites, States Parties to the Convention are required to comply with the requirements of the Convention. However, the weaknesses are on the measures to hold accountable a State Party that violates the Convention and/or the Operational Guidelines. For instance, the implementation of Nyerere Hydropower project by Tanzania was not only against national laws but also against the international agreements to which Tanzania is a party (Environmental Investigation Agency, 2021). Strategic environmental assessments for the Rufiji Hydropower project was commissioned after the government has signed contracts with the contractors and after the commencement of the project (Waterpower, 2019). As such, Rufiji SEA was not embedded in the decision-making process. It was more an attempt to justify ‘a decision that has already been made’ (IUCN, 2019b).

Furthermore, SEA for the Rufiji project is faulted for being inadequate. The independent review commissioned by IUNC describes Rufiji SEA as being fundamentally short of both international and national guidance for SEA. In particular, Rufiji SEA does not assess the economic viability of the project, social and environmental impacts, or alternatives to the project (IUCN, 2019b). This is against World Heritage Convention and against EMA. But it is like the World Heritage Committee is unreasonably unable to make Tanzania accountable for its acts (IUCN, 2019b). The failure of the Committee to act promptly against violations of the World Heritage Convention sets bad precedent to the future of World Heritage sites elsewhere in the world. Available data show that only two sites have ever been de-listed in the history of World Heritage Committee (Environmental Investigation Agency, 2021).

Recommendation

In order to address the challenges in the legal regime for EIA in Tanzania, in respect of projects implemented within World Heritage sites, this study recommends the following:

Firstly, the EIA laws should state specifically the need to conduct HIA assessment for projects that are likely to cause impacts on the OUV of the world heritage properties.

Secondly, NEMC need to be separated from political influence. This can be achieved by ensuring that the Chief Executive officer of NEMC is not appointed by and is not accountable to the President.

Thirdly, the parties to the World Heritage Convention should adopt mandatory binding procedures that need to be observed by the State Parties during EIA/SEA for projects to be implemented within World Heritage sites.

Lastly, Tanzania EIA laws need to be amended in order to guarantee broader participation of stakeholders and to give confidence that the views of the stakeholders will be considered during decision-making.

Conclusion

Environmental impact assessment is an important tool for achieving sustainable development. However, EIA will only achieve the above goal where there is a supportive legal framework coupled with practice that adhere to the provisions of the laws. Tanzania EIA laws have shortfalls in relation to EIA for projects to be implemented in the World Heritage sites. The laws do not allow broader participation of stakeholders, and further, the laws are open to be abused by government officials. The World Heritage Convention and the Operational Guidelines had an opportunity of filling the gap in the national EIA laws of the States Parties to the Convention by describing minimum EIA standards or EIA rules for the projects intended to be implemented in the World Heritage sites. However, both the Convention and the Operational Guidelines have failed to fill the gap. Subjecting EIA for projects to be implemented within World Heritage sites to the national laws endangers the existence of the properties, especially when national laws and the respective institution are not adequate to guarantee effective and independent EIA study. Furthermore, the inability of the World Heritage Committee to act promptly against violations of the World Heritage Convention undermines the objectives of the Convention.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Elia Mwanga

Author Biography

The author holds LL.B (Hons), LL.M and PhD (Law) both from the University of Dar es Salaam. The author is a Lecturer of Law at the University of Dodoma, Tanzania and an Advocate of the High Court of Tanzania. He is also the Coordinator of Postgraduate Studies and Research at the University of Dodoma - School of Law. Contacts:E-mail: mwanga23@gmail.com; elia.mwanga@udom.ac.tz.

References

African Union Commission . (2015). Agenda 2063: The Africa we want (Popular version). African Union Commission. https://au.int/sites/default/files/documents/36204-doc-agenda2063_popular_version_en.pdf.

Bellini

(2008). Ngorongoro: Broken promises – what price our heritage? https://pubs.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/migrate/12546IIED.pdf?

Cuppen

Broekhans

Enserink

(2012). Public participation in EIA and attitude formation. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(2), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2012.660348.

Daily News Reporter (2020). Tanzania: Govt upbeat on nyerere hydropower project completion. Daily News. https://dailynews.co.tz/news/2020-04-065e8b3acb59aa7.aspx.

Dei

G. J. S.

(1993). Sustainable development in the African context: Revisiting some theoretical and methodological issues. Africa Development, XVIII(2), 97–110.

Duinker

P. N.

Greig

L. A.

(2007). Scenario analysis in environmental impact assessment: Improving explorations of the future. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(3), 206–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2006.11.001

Dye

Hartmann

(2019). The true cost of power: The facts and risks of buildng Stiegler’s Gorge hydropower dam in selous game reserve, Tanzania. WWF. https://c402277.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/publications/1078/files/original/ESIA_Classification_Memo_for_Disclosure_-_GEF_Nepal_LD_2013.pdf?1499097238

EACJ (2014). African Network for Animal Welfare (ANAW) v The Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania, Unreported). EACJ. https://www.eacj.org/?cases=the-attorney-general-of-the-united-republic-of-tanzania-vs-african-network-for-animal-welfare.

Environmental Investigation Agency (2021). World heritage dammed: The need to uphold the integrity of the world heritage convention in the case of Tanzania’s reckless selous-rufiji hydropower project. Environmental Investigation Agency. https://eia-international.org/wp-content/uploads/2021-EIA-Report-World-Heritage-Dammed-Single-pages.pdf

10.

General Assembly of the World Heritage Convention (2015). Policy for the integration of a sustainable development perspective into the processes of the world heritage convention. World Heritage Committee.

11.

Guilanpour

Sheate

W. R.

(1997). A systematic review of tanzanian environmental impact statements. Project Appraisal, 12(3), 138–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/02688867.1997.9727053

12.

Hoag

H. J.

Öhman

M.-B.

(2008). Turning water into power: Debates over the development of Tanzania’s Rufiji River Basin, 1945–1985. Technology and Culture, 49(3), 624–651. https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.0.0061

13.

ICOMOS (2009). World heritage in danger: A compendium of key decisions on the conservation of cultural heritage properties on the unesco list of world heritage in danger (compendium II). ICOMOS. https://whc.unesco.org/document/106357

14.

ICOMOS (2011). Guidance on heritage impact assessments for cultural world heritage properties: A publication of the international Council on monuments and sites. ICOMOS and World Heritage Centre. https://www.iccrom.org/sites/default/files/2018-07/icomos_guidance_on_heritage_impact_assessments_for_cultural_world_heritage_properties.pdf

15.

IUCN (2013). World heritage advice note: Environmental assessment. IUCN. https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/import/downloads/iucn_advice_note_environmental_assessment_18_11_13_iucn_template.pdf

16.

IUCN (2017). IUCN conservation outlook assessment 2017: Selous game reserve. IUCN. https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/node/994/pdf/en?year=2017

17.

IUCN (2019a). Technical review of the environmental impact assessment for the Rufiji hydropower project in selous game reserve. IUCN. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2019-015-En.pdf

18.

IUCN (2019b). Independent technical review of the “strategic environmental assessment for the proposed Rufiji hydropower project” in selous game reserve world heritage site, Tanzania. IUCN. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2019-044-En.pdf

19.

Lamtey

(2018). Tanzania to ‘fast-track EIA certificates’: Makamba says. The citizen. https://www.thecitizen.co.tz/news/Govt-to--fast-track-EIA-certificates-/1840340-4652162-11mahdk/index.html

20.

Leelakrishnan

(1992). Environmental impact assessment: Legal dimensions. Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 34(4), 541–562.

21.

Momtaz

(2002). Environmental impact assessment in Bangladesh: A critical review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22(2), 163–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(01)00106-8

22.

Morgan

R. K.

(2012). Environmental impact assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2012.661557

23.

Mwalyosi

Hughes

(1998). The performance of EIA in Tanzania: An assessment (IRA research paper No. 41 an IIED environmental planning issued No 14). Institute of Resource Assessment and International Institute for Environmental and Development. https://pubs.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/migrate/7781IIED.pdf

24.

Mwalyosi

Hughes

Howlett

(1999). Introduction course on environmental impact assessment in Tanzania: Resource handbook. International Institute for Environment and Development and Institute for Resource Assessment. https://pubs.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/migrate/7791IIED.pdf

25.

Mwalyosi

R. B. B.

Mohamed

Hughes

Dalal-Clayton

(1995). Environmental assessment in Tanzania: A needs assessment for training. [IRA Research Paper No. 36]. IRA & IIED. https://pubs.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/migrate/7756IIED.pdf

26.

Mwenda

(2020). Tanzania to build Stiegler’s Gorge dam in a wildlife reserve and UNESCO site. Lifegate. https://www.lifegate.com/stieglers-gorge-dam-tanzania

27.

National Environment Commission (2011). Environmental management tools and techniques:a learning material. National Environment Commission.

28.

Nyihirani

Katima

Mbululo

(2014). Performance of environmental impact assessment (EIA) regime in Tanzania. Ethiopian Journal of Environmental Studies and Management, 7(1), 754–764. https://doi.org/10.4314/ejesm.v7i1.6s

29.

Ortolano

Shepherd

(1995). Environmental impact assessment: Challenges and opportunities. Impact Assessment, 13(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/07349165.1995.9726076

30.

Røskaft

Fyumagwa

Gereta

Keyyu

Ntalwila

Nyahongo

Hassan

Bevanger

Graae

Lein

Skj

(2012). The dynamics of large infrastructure development in conservation of the Serengeti ecosystem – the case study of a road through Serengeti national park(p. 22). Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute. https://rmgsc.cr.usgs.gov/outgoing/Powell/Migration/TAWIRI-IPBES_Report_first-phase2011.pdf

31.

Sosovele

(2011). Governance challenges in Tanzania’s environmental impact assessment practice. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 5(2), 126–130.

32.

The Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania v African Network for Animal Welfare (ANAW) (2015). Appeal No. 3 OF 2014. EACJ, July 29 https://www.eacj.org/?cases=the-attorney-general-of-the-united-republic-of-tanzania-vs-african-network-for-animal-welfare

33.

Trail Smelter Case (United States, Canada) (1938). III Reports of International Arbitral Awards 1905 (16 April 1938 and 11 March 1941). Office of Legal Affairs: United Nations. Retrieved January 30, 2022, from https://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_III/1905-1982.pdf.

34.

UN (1993). Report of the united Nations conference on environment and development (Vol. 1). United Nations. https://undocs.org/en/A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1(vol.I)

35.

UN (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf

36.

UNEP (2008). Desalination Resource and guidance manual for environmental impact assessments. United Nations Environment Programme, Regional Office for West Asia, & World Health Organization, Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean.

37.

UNESCO (2012). Managing natural World Heritage: World Heritage resource manual. UNESCO. http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-703-1.pdf.

38.

UNESCO (2018). UNESCO reiterates its grave concern over planned dam construction within selous game reserve world heritage property (United Republic of Tanzania). UNESCO. https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/1920#:∼:text=The%20Committee%20also%20recalled%20its,impacts%20of%20the%20Stiegler's%20Gorge

39.

UNESCO (2019). UNESCO concerned about insufficient strategic environmental assessment of the Rufiji hydropower project in selous game reserve (Tanzania). UNESCO. https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/2071

40.

UNESCO (n.d.). Serengeti national park. Unesco. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/156

41.

URT (1995). The Tanzania development vision 2025. http://www.tzonline.org/pdf/thetanzaniadevelopmentvision.pdf

42.

URT (1997). National environmental policy. Vice President’s Office. https://www.nemc.or.tz/uploads/publications/sw-1576228807-NEP%201997.pdf

43.

URT, Ministry of Energy and Minerals (2019). Rufiji hydropower project: The untold story of the socio-economic benefits of the project in transforming lives to generations of Tanzanians. http://www.maelezo.go.tz/storage/app/uploads/public/5d3/d91/a72/5d3d91a72b973281392133.pdf

44.

URT, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (2001). Guidelines & procedures for undertaking environmental impact assessment in marine parks and reserves in Tanzania.

45.

URT, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (2019). A report on state of conservation of selous game reserve world heritage property (N199).

46.

Warnock

(2013). World heritage sites and sustainable development: Case of the western ghats. Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 55(3), 327–345. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.2139/ssrn.3263873

47.

Waterpower (2019). Independent report says Rufiji environmental assessment is ‘inadequate’. Waterpower. https://www.waterpowermagazine.com/news/newsindependent-reports-says-rufiji-environmental-assessment-is-inadequate-7563907

48.

World Heritage Committee (2010). Decisions adopted by the world heritage committee at its 34th session. http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2010/whc10-34com-20e.pdf

49.

World Heritage Committee (2011). Decisions adopted by the world heritage committee at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011). World Health Committee. https://whc.unesco.org/archive/2011/whc11-35com-20e.pdf

50.

World Heritage Committee (2017). Decisions adopted during the 41st session of the world heritage committee, forty-first session, 2 – 12 July 2017. https://whc.unesco.org/archive/2017/whc17-41com-18-en.pdf

51.

World Heritage Committee (2019). Operational guidelines for the implementation of the world heritage convention. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. https://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide12-en.pdf

52.

WWF (2018). Tanzania and the world heritage sites. WWF. https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?326433/Tanzania-and-the-World-Heritage-Sites.