The natural resources-rich country has just set a 60 percent limit on expenditure for the self-reliant public corporations, hitting hard the conservation agencies, in the face of deadly poaching threat.
A just amended Treasury Registrar (Power and Functions) Act, Cap 370, has added a section 10A (1) in a bid to impose a limit for the running overheads of the corporations, which, are not financed through the government budget.
Now, the operation costs of the self-financing public corporations are restricted not to exceed 60 percent of their annual gross revenue in any financial year.
Moreover, the revised law demands a 70 percent of their balance obtained after deducting the operative expenses permissible in subsection (1) to be remitted to the consolidated fund.
Finance Minister, Ms Saada Mkuya says the idea behind the amendments is to make money - making public corporations to significantly contribute to the consolidated fund.
“We also want to put in place procedures that will regulate expenditure,” Ms Mkuya explains.
Though the law seems to target all public corporations, in reality it eyes Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA) and Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority (NCAA).
These are the only self-sufficient corporations, as they collect entry fees from tourists and hotels concession dues.
Others like Tanzania Tourists Board (TTB), Tanzania Electric Supply Company (TANESCO), Air Tanzania Company Limited (ATCL), Tanzania Railway Limited (TRL), State-Mining Corporation (STAMICO), National Development Corporation (NDC), Tanzania Petroleum Development Corporation (TPDC) are reliant on the treasury’s subsidies.
However, conservationists say that should the law enforced it will compromise conservation and frustrate efforts on war against poaching, as it will take away the much-needed resources to finance the two crucial activities.
For instance, Tanapa Director general, Mr Allan Kijazi says that conservation activities alone consume 70 percent of the agency’s Tsh 150 billion ($75 million) gross revenue annually.
The remaining 30 percent goes to pay wages for its 2,190 workers, facilitate development of tourism products and services, maintain about 7,000 km of roads, 16 airstrips, pay tourism development levy and other taxes.
Truly, Tanapa is charged with conservation of eco-systems and tourism development in 16 national parks, covering nearly 57,024 square kilometres, an area bigger than Burundi.
Nature-based or wildlife tourism is the main source of income that is ploughed back for management, regulation and fulfillment of all organisational mandates in the national parks.
“Going by the overheads ceiling, our conservation budget would shrink from 70 to somewhere around 30 percent of our gross revenue because other expenses like wages and taxes are fixed” Mr Kijazi says.
To make the matters worse, he argues, only Kilimanjaro and Serengeti national parks are generating a surplus to run other 11 parks.
The financially struggling parks include Gombe, Katavi, Kitulo, Mikumi, Mahale, Mkomazi, Ruaha, Rubondo Island, Saadani, Udzungwa mountains and Saanane Island.
Arusha, Tarangire and Lake Manyara national parks, on the other hand, are generating revenue sufficient to break even.
“Conservation involves costly tasks and must be done regardless whether or not the areas being conserved generate income” Mr Kijazi underlines.
In the case of Ncaa, the law will trim down the conservation and community development overheads from current 60 to 20 percent of its Tsh 60 billion ($30 million) gross annual revenue.
Ncaa was established in 1959 with an eye to protect an area covering 8,300 square kilometers, promote tourism, and develop the Maasai population living within the area and their livestock.
Acting chief conservator, Mr Julius Kidebe says that the law would frustrate the conservation efforts, war against poaching and affect the Maasai community welfare.
With the conservation budget cut, he worries that the poachers will triumph, as it would be a daydream for the hungry and ill equipped rangers to win the battle.
“Conservation is something we are not supposed to play with, otherwise its ripple effect will do harm our $2.05 billion tourism industry” Mr Kidebe says.
Tourism, which overtaken gold as a key foreign currency earner, directly employs close to half a million Tanzanians and contributes to almost 25 percent of total exports earnings.
It represents approximately 17.5 percent of Tanzania's total GDP but the level could be even more when considering its indirect impacts on other areas such as agriculture and transportation.
It represents approximately 17.5 percent of Tanzania's total GDP but the level could be even more when considering its indirect impacts on other areas such as agriculture and transportation.
So the move to cut conservation funds could pile pressure on a government that has been heavily criticized for its inability to stop a flood of poached ivory being stripped from its national parks.
For instance, Tanzania’s elephant population is one of the continent’s largest. But data, released in June 2015 by the government, showed that between 2009 and 2014 the number dropped from 109,051 to 43,330, equivalent to a 60 percent catastrophic loss.
The world-renowned conservationist, Dr. Alfred Kikoti, cautioned the state to be careful and not to milk the conservation agencies until they bleed to death.
“Somehow, somewhere, some people think Tanapa and Ncaa are generating a lot of money, yes, they do, but a lions share of the cash goes to protect our flora and fauna” Dr Kikoti who works at the World Elephant Center in Tanzania, explains.
However, a Law Lecturer at Tumaini University Makumira, Elifuraha Laltaika says; “The objectives of the Amendments, namely contribution to the consolidated fund is crucial. It is from the fund that judges are paid for example so it should be stable”.
Regarding its impacts on conservation and community, the Law Don says it is insignificant: “I am not convinced that the cut will significantly affect conservation. Ncaa and Tanapa may improve the management of their revenues and embrace community based natural resources management, which is comparably cheaper and more sustainable.”
0 comments:
Post a Comment