“Where there are trees, there are no builders” - King's …€¦ · · 2017-06-22“Where...

1

Annette Green [0403335] 2015 THIS DISSERTATION IS SUBMITTED AS PART OF AN MA DEGREE IN TOURISM, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AT KING’S COLLEGE LONDON

“Where there are trees, there are no builders” Nature, discourse and the ‘Serengeti Highway’

2

KING’S COLLEGE LONDON

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON

DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY

MA/MSc DISSERTATION

I, Annette Green,

hereby declare (a) that this Dissertation is my own original

work and that all source material used is acknowledged therein; (b)

that it has been specially prepared for a degree of the University of

London; and (c) that it does not contain any material that has been

or will be submitted to the Examiners of this or any other

university, or any material that has been or will be submitted for

any other examination.

This Dissertation is 11,946 words.

Signed: …………………………………………...…………….

Date: 27th August 2015

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special thanks to Mirela Barbu for your help and patience, and my Nana whose

generosity allowed me to do this MA.

4

ABSTRACT

The power of the notion of nature must not be underestimated. Constantly evoked as an

argument against anything from gay marriage to GM crops, fracking to fox-hunting, animal-

testing to abortion, nature is repeatedly taken to be immutable, eternal, simply there. At

the same time, nature is increasingly framed as a resource which must be drawn into the

global market in order that it might ‘pay for itself’. Using a post-structuralist approach, this

paper examines the nature/culture, conservation/development nexus in Tanzania, using the

highly controversial and as-yet-hypothetical ‘Serengeti Highway’ as a touchstone for

discussion.

5

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 – Map of proposed Arusha-Musoma Road (AWF 2010) ......................................................... 10

Figure 2 – Knowledge as a filter structuring out understanding of nature (Castree 2005) .................. 14

Figure 3 – The ecotourism bubble and the green box of consumptive nature (Brockington et al 2008)

.............................................................................................................................................................. 23

Figure 4 – Facebook timeline photo, 19th August 2012, ‘ Explanation of these problems should be

given to all people, from schools to villages about the importance of protecting environment’ (STSH

2012) ..................................................................................................................................................... 32

Figure 5 – Facebook timeline photo, 30th July 2015 – Julius Nyerere and The Arusha Manifesto (STSH

2015e) ................................................................................................................................................... 33

Figure 6 – Facebook timeline photos, 16th January 2015 – Jane Goodall and “the essense of the Africa

of my childhood dreams” (STSH 2015a) ............................................................................................... 38

Figure 7 – Facebook timeline photo, 26th June 2015 – ‘Tourism is a $1.8 billion a year industry” (STSH

2015b) ................................................................................................................................................... 41

Figure 8 – Facebook timeline photo, 10th July 2015 – ‘Aren’t we worth one hour?’ (STSH 2015d) ..... 42

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 – List of respondents (in order of interview date), their role and connection to SENAPA, and

their basic position on the Arusha-Musoma Road………………………………………………………………………….26

6

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ANAW – African Network for Animal Welfare

AWF – African Wildlife Foundation

EACJ – East African Court of Justice

FZS – Frankfurt Zoological Society

MNRT – Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism

TANAPA – Tanzania National Park Authority

TANROADS – Tanzania National Roads Agency

TATO – Tanzania Association of Tour Operators

SENAPA – Serengeti National Park

STEP – Serengeti Teachers’ Environmental Programme (project of Save the Serengeti)

STS – Save the Serengeti

STSH – Stop the Serengeti Highway (Facebook page of Save the Serengeti)

WTTC – World Travel and Tourism Council

7

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................ 3

Abstract .................................................................................................................................................................. 4

List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................................... 5

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................................... 5

List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................... 6

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 9

1.1 Nature in a changing world .......................................................................................................................... 9

1.2 Establishing context: Tanzania, the international community and the ‘Serengeti Highway’ ..................... 11

1.3 The aims of this paper ................................................................................................................................ 13

2. Literature Review .............................................................................................................................................. 13

2.1 Nature and conservation ............................................................................................................................ 13

2.1.1 Social nature ....................................................................................................................................... 13

2.1.2 Colonial conservation and the national park ...................................................................................... 15

2.1.3 Contemporary conservation and conflict ........................................................................................... 16

2.1.4. Neoliberal nature ............................................................................................................................... 17

2.2 Tourism and development in Tanzania ...................................................................................................... 18

2.2.1 Development paradigms in the Tanzanian context ............................................................................ 18

2.2.2. Tourism’s role in development .......................................................................................................... 19

2.3 Globalisation, nature and discourse ........................................................................................................... 21

2.3.1 Globalisation and nature..................................................................................................................... 21

2.3.2. Conservation discourses .................................................................................................................... 21

2.3.3. Tourism discourses ............................................................................................................................ 23

3 Methodology ..................................................................................................................................................... 24

3.1 Methods ..................................................................................................................................................... 25

3.1.1 Discourse analysis ............................................................................................................................... 25

3.1.2. Interviews .......................................................................................................................................... 27

3.2 Reflexivity and positionality ....................................................................................................................... 29

3.3 Ethics .......................................................................................................................................................... 30

3.4 Limitations .................................................................................................................................................. 30

4 Analysis .............................................................................................................................................................. 30

4.1 What’s the issue? ....................................................................................................................................... 30

4.1.1 Peculiar epistemologies: what do we know about the road? ............................................................. 30

4.1.2 Suspicion and the state ....................................................................................................................... 34

4.2 The role of nature....................................................................................................................................... 35

4.2.1 Timeless nature ................................................................................................................................... 35

8

4.2.2 The human hand ................................................................................................................................. 37

4.3 Ownership and autonomy .......................................................................................................................... 37

4.3.1 Serengeti as a global asset .................................................................................................................. 37

4.3.2 “It’s all about money”: Selling the Serengeti, Saving the Serengeti? ................................................. 39

5. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................ 43

Appendix A – Ethics Screening Form .................................................................................................................... 45

Appendix B – Ethics Approval Notification ........................................................................................................... 46

Appendix C – Risk Assessment Form .................................................................................................................... 47

Appendix D – Risk Assessment Approval Email .................................................................................................... 67

Reference List ....................................................................................................................................................... 68

9

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 NATURE IN A CHANGING WORLD

The significance of the word ‘nature’ in both lay and specialist discourse must not be

underestimated. Even as a growing body of academic work seeks to destabilise

understandings of ‘nature’, whether from an ideological or a discursive perspective, some

scholars lament the endurance of a society-nature dichotomy in western thought, colouring

our outlook on, and treatment of, that which we call nature (Macnaghten and Urry 1998;

Castree 2001; Ramutsindela 2004; Castree et al 2009). Whilst the notion of nature as

eternal, immutable and essential has retained remarkable resilience since the

Enlightenment until recent times (Braun 2009; Castree 2001), the world has witnessed some

seismic shifts in economic and development thinking. Modernisation theory, the original

development paradigm, gradually gave way to ‘alternative’ development (Briggs 2014). The

Second World collapsed, Fordism became post-Fordism, and eventually neoliberalism grew

to become “the most powerful ideological and political project in global governance to arise

in the wake of Keynesianism” (McCarthy and Prudham 2004, p275). This proliferation of

global free-market capitalism has been accompanied by technological developments,

facilitating the rapid movement of people, capital and knowledge in a ‘time-space

compression’ that forms a central aspect of contemporary capitalism and globalisation (cf

Harvey 1990; Mowforth and Munt 2003). All the while, tourism has spread ever further into

the “pleasure peripheries of the Third World” (Dann 2002, p239), such as Tanzania, where

tourism has played an increasingly important macroeconomic role, and yet many millions of

Tanzanians continue to live in poverty (Nelson 2012).

In the autumn of 2010, news broke in western media and conservation circles of a particular

campaign promise made by the Tanzanian government in 2005. Jakaya Kikwete, incumbent

president and leader of ruling party Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM), had announced plans to

construct a major road in northern Tanzania, initially referred to within Tanzania rather

prosaically as the Arusha-Musoma road, and subsequently christened in mainstream

western media as the ‘Serengeti Highway’. Part of a wider campaign to connect all regions

in this enormous country, this approximately 480km road would serve to connect the

Arusha region, of which the capital is the rapidly-growing commercial and tourism centre of

10

Arusha, with the long-marginalised Mara region on the shores of Lake Victoria to the west.

Some 53km would cross the Serengeti National Park (SENAPA) – widely presented as

emblematic of wild African nature in western conservation and tourism alike (Okello and

Yerian 2009; Dobson et al 2010; Damania et al 2014; Beekwilder 2015 inter alia).

Figure 1 – Map of proposed Arusha-Musoma Road (AWF 2010)

Having followed the road’s developments since 2010, it became apparent to me that press

coverage in the west has been fairly confused and often emotionally charged, characterised

by conflicting logistical information on the road and its progress, a dearth of official

statements from government representatives, and with conservation ‘victories’ and ‘losses’

coming in rapid succession (see Ng'wanakilala 2011 for an example of such confusion).

Reviewing academic papers, environmental impact assessments and reactions from NGOs

and charities, the road was generally presented as a conservational and economic disaster,

centring on the primary concern that the road would halt the wildebeest migration, upon

which, it is claimed, the entire Serengeti ecosystem depends. Arguments drew on recurring

11

themes; the Serengeti in terms of its touristic value (measured in dollars), the folly of the

northern road in terms of development returns on investment (also measured in dollars), an

urgent sense of impending loss of the Serengeti ecosystem ‘as we know it’, and a general

mistrust of the Tanzanian state (AWF 2010; Dobson et al 2010; FZS 2010; Pimm 2010;

Wadhams 2010; Hopcraft et al 2015 inter alia). The developmental needs of rural

Tanzanians were usually acknowledged, but ultimately the road, ostensibly intended to

alleviate poverty in a marginalised region, was opposed. Perspectives of those ‘on the

ground’ in Tanzania were conspicuous by their absence.

In an attempt to redress lacunae both in academic interrogation of the notion of ‘nature’ in

specific contexts, and in the use of Tanzanian perspectives when discussing the ‘Serengeti

Highway’, for this paper I use a research design which harnesses the knowledge and unique

positionality of tourism stakeholders living and working in northern Tanzania, at once

dependent on both conservation and development for successful livelihoods. This

dissertation seeks to tug at the strands of the discursive knot that has grown around this as-

yet-hypothetical road, interrogating the notion of the ‘natural’, probing the conservation-

development nexus and exploring the spread of neoliberal nature in a country heretofore

characterised by aid dependency, abundant natural beauty and enduring poverty.

1.2 ESTABLISHING CONTEXT: TANZANIA, THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY AND

THE ‘SERENGETI HIGHWAY’

Tourism is undoubtedly significant in the Tanzanian economy, making a total contribution of

12.9% of GDP and 11.2% of employment in 2013 (direct contribution 4.5% and 3.8%

respectively) (WTTC 2014, p1). Tourism in Tanzania centres on wildlife viewing,

preponderantly in the six national parks of Tanzania’s northern circuit (Okello and Yerian

2009, p605). Within the northern circuit, SENAPA is a central attraction, receiving just under

a third of foreign arrivals to Tanzania’s 16 national parks in 2013/2014 (TANAPA n.d.).

Tourism has long been touted as a potential means for alleviating poverty in Tanzania,

though the simple fact remains that an alarming proportion of Tanzanians still lack the

means to make a meaningful livelihood, with almost three-quarters living on less than $2 a

day in 2012 (Nelson 2012; World Bank 2014).

12

Tanzania is a country which displays characteristics of weak governance common to

formerly colonised Sub-Saharan nations – corruption, concentration of power into few

hands in executive government, and a poor performance on the Human Development Index

(Nelson 2012; UNDP 2014). Aid dependency has been historically high, though waning, and

Nyerere’s vision for African socialism in Tanzania ended with the introduction of structural

adjustment in Tanzania as, in the wake of oil crisis recession in the late 1970s, President

Mwinyi accepted market-oriented economic reforms in exchange for financial aid from the

IMF (Hyden and Karlstrom 1993; Simon 2002; Edwards 2012). As such, Tanzania can be

identified as a country particularly vulnerable to the shocks and stresses of free-market

capitalism and essentially operating under a highly competitive neoliberal system over

which it has relatively little control (Brohman 1996; Mowforth and Munt 2003; Holden

2005). Its ‘natural’ endowments of aesthetically pleasing landscapes, ‘charismatic

megafauna’, wildlife spectacles, abundant birdlife and dramatic mountain, plain and coastal

scenery may be highly prized by tourists and conservationists alike, but the best means by

which to protect these endowments and at the same time alleviate Tanzania’s unrelenting

poverty is by no means uncontested.

Taken together, this has created a context in which the international community’s reaction

to President Kikwete’s plans for constructing a road through SENAPA became quite

hysterical, drawing upon accusations of corruption, greed and short-sightedness, threats of

aid withdrawal, and doom-mongering about the destruction of Tanzania’s apparently

lucrative tourism industry. Reactions from outside Tanzania were so extreme that Kikwete’s

campaign promise remains unfulfilled some 5 years after construction was apparently set to

begin, with the project starting and stalling several times during that period. The most

recent major development has been the successful suing of the Tanzanian government by

ANAW, a Kenyan NGO, in the East African Court of Justice (EACJ), which deemed the road

plans to be “unlawful and an infringement of…the Treaty for the Establishment of the East

African Community” (EACJ 2014a, n.p.). The Tanzanian Government are currently in the

process of appealing this decision, one of the grounds being that the EACJ erred in ruling

against what is effectively, they claim, still a “mere proposal” (EACJ 2014b, p2).

13

1.3 THE AIMS OF THIS PAPER

The three central and overlapping research aims of this paper are:

To explore how issues of conservation and development surrounding the ‘Serengeti

Road’ are represented by different tourism stakeholder groups

To examine the ways in which these tourism stakeholders engage with or subvert

dominant discourses of ‘nature’, conservation and tourism

To assess the pervasiveness of ‘neoliberal nature’ on Tanzania’s northern safari

circuit

Using a controversial road proposal as a conversational and analytical ‘touchstone’,

employing purely qualitative methods, and adopting a post-structuralist philosophy through

which to interpret my findings, I hope to paint a picture of how ‘nature’, far from something

essential or given, is a powerful social construct which, in being drawn into the global

market and discursively projected from the global north onto parts of the global south, is no

less materially impactful for being socially constructed.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 NATURE AND CONSERVATION

2.1.1 SOCIAL NATURE

For all that the meaning of ‘nature’ is so often taken to be self-evident, the word itself is

deceptively complex, encompassing centuries of changing human history and shifting ideas

(Williams 1980, p67; Williams 1983, p21). The cursory, even unthinking use of the word by

conservation NGOs, makers of wildlife programming, big businesses, tourism marketers,

tour guides, scientists, movie-makers, think tanks and more, belies the long, interrelated

histories of hegemony, domination and alienation that have fed into some deeply

problematic mainstream understandings of ‘nature’ in the global north today (Castree 2001,

2005). For centuries, the natural has been defined in terms of its opposite – the social – and

vice versa; shaped by ideas of religion and the divine, political ideals and intellectual

movements, a nature/society dichotomy has remained deeply ingrained for centuries

(Castree 2001).

14

A ‘social nature’ approach to the society-nature nexus, as espoused by Castree (2001), seeks

to move away from the nature-society dichotomy, recognising nature as intrinsically,

inescapably and necessarily social. Though he touches upon feminist and Marxist readings

of social nature, Castree’s notion of a poststructuralist approach to ‘knowing nature’

resonates most clearly with this paper (2001). Here, Castree urges us to recognise the

impossibility of ‘knowing’ some essential nature through science or empirical observation,

and instead look to claims about and portrayals of nature as containing and revealing

dominant nature narratives that cannot be separated from their socio-historical contexts

(ibid.). He pushes us towards an understanding of ‘nature’ that encompasses language, and

how it is used variously by different groups both to make sense of and produce certain

nature(s) – indeed, for Castree there is “no objective, nondiscursive way of comprehending

nature ‘in the raw’” (ibid., p12). He claims that the acceptance or rejection of certain nature

discourses is unavoidably political, with dominant nature discourses becoming “so deeply

entrenched in both lay and expert ways of thinking that they themselves appear natural”

(ibid., p12). Figure 2 depicts how, for Castree, ‘nature knowledge’ is separate from that

‘nature’ it seeks to represent, acting as a filter which illuminates certain understandings of

nature and obscures others.

Figure 2 – Knowledge as a filter structuring out understanding of nature (Castree 2005)

Castree emphasises, however, that the social nature approach does not seek to deny the

material reality of nature (2001). On the contrary, geographers working from the

perspective of social nature emphasise that, in attempting to divorce nature from its

inextricably social context, society is in danger of validating, perpetuating and even creating

15

unequal power relations which can have very real material impacts (Castree 2001).

Acknowledging that nature is social is an important step towards a new, deeper

understanding of nature and natural processes.

2.1.2 COLONIAL CONSERVATION AND THE NATIONAL PARK

We must acknowledge that the portrayal of nature as eternal, immutable, separate from

humanity and somehow objective or simply there has continuously fed into the fallacy that

conservation in Africa can somehow be apolitical or divorced from countries’ specific socio-

historical contexts (Anderson and Grove 1987). Wrapped up in those conservation activities

undertaken by colonial governments are myriad conflicts, tensions, and political motivations

and pressures which are belied by our contemporary acceptance of the national park as an

area of ‘wilderness’ that is, as Cronon so succinctly expresses, “all the more beguiling

because it seems so natural” (1996b, p7).

The notion that nature could only exist where humans did not found its earliest and

cruellest expression in the cursory (but neither isolated nor outmoded) eviction of native

people from lands deemed worthy of ‘protection’ in the twentieth-century United States.

These pioneer ‘wilderness areas’ would form the blueprint for national parks to be exported

all over the world (Cronon 1996b; Neumann 1998). For colonial administrators in Tanzania,

the national park ideal centred on “the notion that ‘nature’ can be ‘preserved’ from the

effects of human agency by legislatively creating a bounded space for nature controlled by a

centralized bureaucratic authority” (Neumann 1998, p9). In order to impose the European

vision of wild nature onto the African landscape, humans needed to be removed, or at least

those humans who were seen to be insufficiently ‘primitive’ (ibid., p128). National park

creation in Tanzania served political as well as ideological functions, however. Insidiously,

the creation of national parks in European colonies was considered key in forging colonial

identities in distant lands, reinforcing the dichotomous division between ‘culture’ in Europe

and ‘nature’ in the colonies, as well as “[eliminating] the record of indigenous history and

culture, [and] replacing it with a vacant landscape into which Europeans streamed” (ibid.,

p33). Thus Neumann makes abundantly clear how the gazetting of protected areas,

perhaps the example par excellence of conservation activity as we understand it today, was

at its conception a tool in exercising power and establishing dominance in colonial Africa.

16

2.1.3 CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATION AND CONFLICT

The path from colonial to contemporary ideas of conservation and nature is presented as

fairly direct in the literature (Anderson and Grove 1987; Blaikie 2001; Gregory 2001;

Neumann 1998). Put crudely, the projection of European ideas about nature and the

‘African landscape’, originally permissible through the colonist/colonised relationship, still

endures. Some of the trends and characteristics of what McAfee (1999) and Brockington,

Duffy and Igoe (2008) refer to as mainstream conservation can be traced back to colonial

roots. Dispossession of land is a prime example of this (Craggs 2014), and indeed, the

deference to science that endures in contemporary mainstream conservation has links to

conservation practices which, at the time, used ‘science’ as a means of legitimating what

was effectively land alienation by portraying African land use as wasteful and damaging

(Neumann 1998). The enduring authority of those positioned as conservation or nature

‘experts’ leaves unaddressed the fact of such ‘expertise’ having hailed almost entirely from

Europe and North America (Anderson and Grove 1987, p3).

Similarly, in recent years, Büscher and Dressler (2007) have identified a shift in conservation

thinking towards a ‘back to the barriers’ approach, redolent of the thinking behind

protected area creation in colonial sub-Saharan Africa. They deem this rise in

‘neoprotectionism’ to be a backlash against (what came to be known as) community-based

conservation, which emerged in the 1970s as a more people-centred approach to

conservation which would also attempt to incorporate, or at least not ignore,

developmental issues. This return to colonial-era ‘fortress conservation’ is justified by a

perceived incompatibility between people and nature, and the view that biodiversity

protection governance should be left solely to ‘experts’ such as conservation biologists (cf.

Fletcher 2010). Ultimately, these ‘expert’ viewpoints tend to refer back to “well-trodden

neocolonial arguments about wildlife and local population growth” (Büscher 2012, p34) and

a lack of conservation knowledge and appreciation amongst local populations (Neumann

1998). While Neumann concedes there is some value in considering such issues, taken alone

he considers them to be so narrow as to greatly limit the scope of analysis of what is

ultimately a highly complex and multifaceted problem.

17

At the same time, contemporary mainstream conservation has become increasingly large-

scale and international in scope, with the power to shape conservation discourse and policy

concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer mainstream conservation organisations

(McAfee 1999; Brockington and Duffy 2010; Fletcher 2010). Powerful conservation BINGOs

are focusing on ever more narrowly-defined methods of conservation, all centring on the

premise that contemporary environmental problems can be resolved through market

mechanisms (Arsel and Büscher 2012; Brockington and Duffy 2010; Igoe 2010; Igoe, et al

2010; McAfee 1999; McCarthy and Prudham 2004). This is a central tenet of what is

referred to in the literature as neoliberalisation of nature.

2.1.4. NEOLIBERAL NATURE

In their exploration of the relationship between neoliberalism and nature, McCarthy and

Prudham describe the former as “the most powerful ideological and political project in

global governance to arise in the wake of Keynesianism” (2004, p275). Though the

definition of neoliberalism is not uncontested, within the neoliberal ideology one can

definitively point to a deference to market mechanisms, above all else, for the efficient

allocation of resources (McCarthy and Prudham 2004). Neoliberalism, moreover,

necessitates a global restructuring to facilitate the widest possible spread of free-markets

(Igoe and Brockington 2007). In the context of conservation, neoliberalism has contributed

to the increasingly pervasive expectation that nature must ‘pay its own way’ (McAfee 1999;

Büscher 2012, p34).

Though the relationship between capitalism and conservation is not new, in the literature

there is a broad consensus that the relationship is becoming closer (McCarthy and Prudham

2004; Igoe and Brockington 2007; Fletcher 2010; Igoe 2010; Igoe et al 2010), with McAfee

(1999) and Smith (2007) identifying the neoliberalisation of nature from mountaintops to

the molecular level. Commodification is a central aspect of the neoliberalisation of nature,

with Prudham recognising both a ‘stretching’ whereby networks of exchange expand across

ever greater distances, and a ‘deepening’ whereby more and more facets of nature are

drawn into the provision of commodities (2009, p125). Klein (2007) even identifies

environmental crises themselves as increasingly serving as opportunities for capitalist

expansion.

18

For Büscher (2012), the spread of neoliberalism into conservation has a significant

consequence in the Sub-Saharan African context: it is now pervasive to the point where the

liberalisation of ‘natural’ commodities, combined with powerful discourses on ‘nature’

emanating from the global north, has created a sort of ‘inverted commons’, wherein African

nature is portrayed as a ‘global’ as opposed to African resource, which is increasingly ‘sold’

to westerners. In turn, when we determine the value of nature on international markets,

McAfee tells us, “the global environmental-economic paradigm justifies the claims of those

with the greatest purchasing power worldwide to the greatest share of the earth’s biomass

and all that it contains” (1999, p138). Taken together, this results in an inequitable spread

of global conservation power in which conservation ‘norms’ are largely dictated from the

global north, whilst the burdens of conservation remain African (Büscher 2012). In addition,

certain knowledges and understandings of nature (including those that are ‘local’ and which

do not allow for commodification of nature) being excluded from the global economy and

thus delegitimised (McAfee 1999).

2.2 TOURISM AND DEVELOPMENT IN TANZANIA

2.2.1 DEVELOPMENT PARADIGMS IN THE TANZANIAN CONTEXT

In the 1950s, the ‘original’ development paradigm of modernisation proposed that poorer

countries could move on an accelerated track towards ‘development’ simply by emulating

those countries that were already ‘developed’. In colonised countries such as Tanzania,

colonisers held the view that “the colonised could only develop in accordance with the

values of western civilisation” (Ramutsindela 2004, p55). Modernisation theory fell out of

favour around the 1980s, when it was realised that advances that had been made in

developing countries had been more modest than anticipated (Schuurman 2014).

Alternative development paradigms grew up over this period, defined by the so-called

‘development impasse’ in which both modernisation and other ‘grand narratives’ of

development, which used the nation-state as an analytical linchpin, were rejected under a

post-modernist shift (ibid.). Globalisation, contested as it is, rushed to fill this theoretical

gap in the social sciences, and has been influential as a means of conceptualising how the

nation-state is being “hollowed out”, losing legitimacy as an economic actor in the wake of

widespread privatisation and deregulation (ibid., p23).

19

In terms of movement of capital, neoliberalism is a defining characteristic of contemporary

globalisation. In the wake of the 1973 and 1979 oil crises and the ensuing recession,

economics and state actors turned to neoliberalism fuelled by a “rather naïve belief” in the

market as an economic regulator (Simon 2002). Neoliberalism was effectively brought to

Tanzania in the form of structural adjustment in the 1980s under President Mwinyi, as

discussed in section 1.2. Tanzania suffered extraordinary hardship under structural

adjustment and yet Tanzania is often presented as an economic ‘success story’ (ibid.),

Despite this continued struggle with poverty, undernutrition, poor provision of education

and deficient healthcare provision, the notion of “development as an economic

measurement” has been difficult to shake off (Holden 2005, p108). The dominant economic

paradigm operating in the global north has remained that of neoclassicism, with its

associated preoccupation with growth and efficiency (Friend 1992; Mowforth and Munt

2003, p37).

2.2.2. TOURISM’S ROLE IN DEVELOPMENT

In a country such as Tanzania, endowed as it is with aesthetically pleasing landscapes,

abundant birdlife and unique wildlife spectacles, the belief in the potential of tourism to lift

people out of poverty and bring prosperity has remained fairly unwavering in mainstream

development and economic thinking, with the notion that developing countries ought to

exploit their comparative advantage a central tenet of the prevailing neoliberal paradigm

(Simon 2002). World Bank, for example, as one of the most powerful and influential

financial institutions in the world, has considered tourism to be a potential means of

poverty alleviation for some decades (Harrison 2008, p851; Caballero 2014). One can

understand the appealing simplicity of selling ‘naturally’ occurring tourism endowments,

and it is tempting to look to job creation statistics or tourism’s contribution to GDP to

reassure ourselves of tourism’s good. Recognition of tourism’s potential in generating

foreign exchange earnings, bringing economic diversification, and reducing balance of

payments deficits, however, are tempered by certain misgivings in the academic literature

(see Linton 1987; Brohman 1996; Sharpley and Telfer 2002; Dann 2002; Holden 2005 inter

alia). Dann justifiably questions the impacts of an industry which, under globalisation, can

aid in the erosion of indigenous interests in place of those of international corporations, and

urges scholars to carefully consider the “developmental implications of promoting pre-

20

modern authentic differences of Third World host cultures for a postmodern clientele of

generating countries nurtured on an ethos of de-differentiation” (2002, p239). Moreover,

in the developing world it is common for tourism wealth to accumulate in the hands of

elites, especially expatriate owners and managers (Mowforth and Munt 2003; Holden 2005;

Sharpley and Telfer 2008). As such, the impacts of tourism can be somewhat difficult to

predict and control, and it absolutely cannot be claimed that tourism always yields positive

results in terms of development.

This has certainly been the case in Tanzania, a country emblematic of the tensions that arise

between the official ‘party line’ of tourism as a force for developmental and/or

conservational good, and the on-the-ground experiences of those people who must live

amongst or alongside major tourism ‘assets’ like wildlife. An enduring issue surrounding

tourism-as-development in Tanzania is that of land use. Conflict resulting from the

proliferation of land protection in Tanzania is discussed at length in Neumann’s Imposing

Wilderness (1998), which traces the country’s protected area establishment from its colonial

roots through to the enduring attraction of Tanzania’s national parks to wealthy tourists.

The very first national parks in East Africa were, Neumann tells us, widely regarded as “a

playground for white tourists” (1998, p136). Even when Neumann was writing in 1998,

maintenance of the interest of foreign investors in Tanzania was very much dependent on

the suppression of conflict over land and resources in potential eco and nature tourism

destinations (ibid., p6). In contemporary Tanzania, mainstream and alternative media,

blogging from ‘on the ground’ and academic literature provide reports of coercion,

corruption, criminal activity, eviction, alienation and even violence that suggest that this

trend continues (see Monbiot 1994; Igoe and Croucher 2007; Honey 2008; Igoe 2010;

Gardner 2012; Nelson 2012; Ngowi 2014; Smith 2014; Friedman-Rudovsky 2015; Nordlund

2015 inter alia).

In short, there exists a danger for tourism to become “overly burdened with ideals it cannot

realise” (Chok et al 2007, p51). Even community-based tourism or pro-poor tourism

presents, for some, little more than a tokenistic commitment to poverty alleviation

(Scheyvens 2007). Without what Harrison (2008) describes as a ‘developmental state’

providing the right context for tourism to lift people out of poverty, it is unlikely that

21

altruism alone will triumph over the pursuit of profit (Chok et al 2007; Mowforth and Munt

2003).

2.3 GLOBALISATION, NATURE AND DISCOURSE

2.3.1 GLOBALISATION AND NATURE

Though the definition of globalisation is contested in academia, here it is a useful way of

conceptualising increasingly interconnected networks of information-sharing, personal

mobility, and, in an economic context, the ever-spreading networks of exchange that

constitute contemporary capitalism. This rapid movement of information, ideas and capital

is central to the formation of dominant discourses surrounding nature and conservation,

which then shape ideas and influence movement of capital in turn.

2.3.2. CONSERVATION DISCOURSES

Büscher and Dressler (2007) discuss Ferguson’s hypothesis that conservation and

development institutions deliberately omit political realities from discussions and

implementations of new projects as a means of presenting a kind of ‘united front’ to the

watching world, and that as a consequence there opens up in global environmental

governance an ever-widening gap between rhetoric and reality. They take the idea further

and posit that conservation and development discourse has, in an attempt to comply with

the dominant discursive consensus, created a “layer of discursive blur” which leaves not

only no possibility but also no incentive to bridge this chasm between rhetoric and reality

(ibid., p596). This discursive blur precludes the need to address political realities, socio-

historical contexts or any other difficult truths that are systematically excluded particularly

from mainstream conservation (ibid., p596). Igoe et al, meanwhile, synthesise Debord’s

idea of the spectacle and Gramsci’s notion of hegemony and posit that, in order to ‘sell’

nature successfully, mainstream conservation organisations or BINGOs must use

“spectacular representations of the values and goals of global conservation” (2010, p489).

Within this conservation ‘spectacle’, lay people are invited to join the ranks of conservation

‘heros’, often celebrities, without confronting conservation problems inherent to

contemporary western consumption, and disguising or ignoring inequities or conflicts

resulting from certain conservation activities – protected area creation being a prime

22

example of this (Igoe forthcoming, in Igoe et al 2010, p493). To sum up, these organisations

“not only celebrate and reproduce the dominant worldview and the action it implies, they

also play an important role in concealing and managing discord and discontent” (ibid.).

Within the discursive blur or conservation spectacle, capitalism is presented as the only

feasible means through with nature can be ‘saved’ (Büscher and Dressler 2007; Igoe et al

2010). Even as early as 1999, McAfee identified international environmental organisations

as “sites for the production of a ‘global’ environmental discourse”, within which the

dominant voice advocates for a “postneoliberal version of environmental economics,

applied on a world scale” (p133). For Igoe et al, certain natural commodities begin to

circulate as ‘currencies’ which spread across both conservation and commercial networks,

and are more effective as part of the conservation spectacle for being shared (2010, p494).

Under pressure to secure funds, conservation organisations offer their lay audiences

simplistic market solutions to increasingly complex environmental problems, such as

‘buying’ land, ‘adopting’ animals, or using carbon offset schemes (Igoe 2010; Igoe et al

2010). National parks are also identified by Igoe et al (2010) as an example of a natural

‘good’ which is circulated as currency within the conservation spectacle. They are

continuously presented as an obvious and logical means for generating capital which can in

turn be reinvested into conservation, for example through ecotourism, which is generally

presented and accepted within the mainstream to be a (relatively) non-consumptive

industry (Carrier and Macleod 2005). All the while, the history of land alienation and

conflict that comes with protected area creation is successfully obscured through

commodity fetishism of nature, in which consumers of that nature have little to no

understanding of the social and environmental inputs that went into its ‘production’

(Prudham 2009; Igoe 2010; Igoe et al 2010). Igoe et al (2010), after Carrier and Macleod

(2005), conceptualise this as the ‘green box of consumptive nature’ (see Figure 3).

Brockington et al (2008) identify alarming similarities between the green box of nature and

Marx’s black box of nature, claiming that both serve to abstract consumers from the

practices of their consumption, either obscuring the finiteness of natural resources or

presenting such issues as resolvable through the market.

23

Figure 3 – The ecotourism bubble and the green box of consumptive nature (Brockington et al 2008)

2.3.3. TOURISM DISCOURSES

Far from trivial, tourism discourses shape memories, identity, and senses of self, place,

culture and nature – acting, in short, as a means of making sense of the world we live in –

and the sheer size of the tourism industry lends it a discursive power which Norton

describes as “tremendous” (1996, p355). For Prudham even the very idea of nature itself is

increasingly commodified through tourism marketing (2009, p124). Salazar (2010) explores

the power of discourse in the Tanzanian ‘tourism imaginary’ – the concept of collective

notions of a destination constructed in the global north through tourism marketing, nature

documentaries and magazines, travel writing etc. Touristic fantasies are not, therefore,

rooted in experience but rather “in the circulation of more collectively held imaginaries”

(Salazar 2010, p43). This is very closely related to Urry and Larsen’s (2011) idea of the

tourist gaze, which conceptualises how tourists are ‘trained’, through a variety of means, to

view the world around them in a particular way. Through an in-depth examination of those

outputs which feed into the tourism imaginary, combined with an extended period of

ethnographic research of safari guides on Tanzania’s northern circuit, Salazar identifies a

tourism imaginary of Tanzania which trades on an “ambivalent nostalgia for the past” in

which tourists temporarily engage with a myth of an unchanged, uncivilised Africa

representing a way of life to which, in reality, they do not want to return (Salazar 2010,

p43).

The marketing of East Africa as a tourism destination engages in a combination of colonial

nostalgia, exotic tribalism and Edenic nature (Norton 1996; Bruner 2001; Bruner and

24

Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 1994) which together form what Echtner and Prasad (2003), in their

exploration of touristic marketing of third world destinations, refer to as the ‘The Myth of

the Uncivilized’. Here, nature is presented as primordial and savage. For Bruner and

Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, nature is the “star in East African tourism – raw, wild, untouched,

given” (1994, p437), something which certainly resonates with Igoe’s (2010) idea of the

spectacle of ‘nature’ as discussed above.

Brockington et al (2008) describe national parks as ‘landscapes of consumption’ which are

reserved for touristic elites. Having acknowledged that contemporary experience of the

environment takes place in a realm “suffused with discursive forms”, Mels (2009) points

specifically to national parks as a space wherein tourists, far from simply allowing this

‘natural’ space to wash over them and absorbing, almost via osmosis, the immutable and

objective reality of ‘nature’ that surrounds them, are in fact presented with visual and

verbal information that feeds into their understanding of ‘nature’. As he states, “With every

visit, national parks…stand out as spatialities at which environmental knowledges are

produced rather than merely found” (ibid., p385), acting as sites of production of both

tourism and conservation discourse.

3 METHODOLOGY

My ultimate aim in this paper is to explore both the what and the how of contested

representations of conservation and development on Tanzania’s northern safari circuit. In

doing so, I used the controversial but as yet hypothetical ‘Serengeti Highway’ as a

conversational and analytical ‘touchstone’. Selection of the highway as a central point of

discussion allowed for exploration of highly complex subject matters, such as nature,

conservation activities, conflict, neoliberalism and impacts of tourism and development,

without necessarily having to name those things or prompt within interviews, at the same

time keeping the conversation fairly easily bounded.

My approach is post-structuralist in its epistemology and takes a constructionist ontological

standpoint which rejects any notion of an objective, essential ‘truth’ which can somehow be

mined or uncovered using the ‘correct’ methods, and instead actively embraces those

tensions, contestations and even outright contradictions that can and do constitute certain

‘truths’ for certain people. Whilst this paper also takes on some post-modernist

25

sensibilities, within which there is also a suspicion of any claims to a universal ‘truth’

(Gubrium and Holstein 2003; Bryman 2012; Hoggart et al 2002), post-structuralism’s

emphasis on power (both as a by-product and a central feature) of language and discourse,

makes this approach particularly appropriate to research concerned how certain issues are

understood and articulated. Such a methodology is served well by qualitative methods

which do not seek to make generalisations, and which avoid “[abstracting] the phenomenon

that is being studies from the rest of the social world and [fixing] meaning within what

might be described as a contextual vacuum” (Goodson and Phillimore 2004, p31). Rather,

my research was intensive, allowing for multiple and overlapping levels of meaning to be

found within both primary and secondary data (Cloke et al 2004, p127).

3.1 METHODS

My research questions do not allow for the emergence of one ‘truth’, but rather for a

multiplicity of (possibly conflicting) truths. In order to allow for the complex, mercurial

nature of themes as they emerge from my data, my methods were not held to a rigid

research design, but rather were overlapping, iterative and grounded (see Hoggart et al

2002, p616). I have taken as my philosophy O’Reilly’s contention that “qualitative research

is as often art as science” (2005, p4), by which I do not mean that my research will be

casually observed or with no relation to ‘real life’, but rather that my methods were flexible

and the analysis grounded. The methods outlined below must therefore be taken as fluid,

overlapping and hybrid, with reference to theory, background reading, data collection and

analysis ongoing. As Hoggart et al inform us, “Research is not conducted in a series of

discrete steps. It is an iterative process, where clean lines and neat packages are something

poor textbooks imply, but which honest research accounts disabuse you of” (2002, p314).

3.1.1 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Discourse analysis adopts the perspective that “language is not simply a neutral medium for

communicating information or reporting on events, but a domain in which people’s

knowledge of the social work is actively shaped” (Tonkiss 2012, p406), and thus is especially

suitable for a post-structuralist methodology. Holstein and Gubrium do, however, express

reservations about emphasising the “how of the social process” at the expense of the “what

of lived experience” (2003, p69). Heeding this advice, this paper does not seek to deny the

26

what of experiences as expressed by respondents, nor the material impacts the construction

of a road through the Serengeti could hypothetically have. I seek only to emphasise that

discourse, be it in text or talk, is not a neutral vehicle through which information, truth or

meaning is imparted (Bryman 2012), and to recognise, after Foucault, that behind

statements (or collections thereof) that are accepted as ‘true’ or ‘common sense’ lie forces

or history, power and social context (Waitt 2010). In terms of defining discourse, Foucault

himself offered more than one definition, all of which were concerned with how knowledge

is produced and circulated (Waitt 2010). A suitable working definition for this paper would

be: a group of statements, unified by a particular theme, and thus accumulating legitimacy

and having effects on the world (reworked from Waitt 2010 and Tonkiss 2012).

Foucault was reluctant to provide guidance on how discourse analysis ought to be

conducted, concerned that it would lead to development of a ‘formulaic’ process (Waitt

2010). Academic writing on the subject generally professes that there is no ‘right’ way to

‘do’ discourse analysis (see Gee 1999; Gill 2000; Tonkiss 2012). In preparation for my

dissertation, however, I did attempt to “absorb myself” in the social context of my research

subject(s), as per the recommendation of Rose (2001, in Waitt 2010). I began by ‘following’

on Facebook Stop the Serengeti Highway (STSH), the social media arm of Save the Serengeti

(STS), an NGO dedicated solely to stopping the construction of the ‘Serengeti Highway’,

since around January 2015. I also ‘followed’ the African Network for Animal Welfare,

African Wildlife Trust and the Africa Wildlife Foundation, all of which were far less prolific on

social media than STSH. This allowed me to emulate any follower of conservation NGOs,

letting the dominant discourse(s) wash over me and absorbing information via a sort of

social osmosis. Familiarising myself with dominant discourses in this way, alongside in-

depth reading of academic literature, prepared me for interviews and attuned me both to

engagements with and subversions of dominant conservation discourses that might arise in

interview data, as well as possible discursive ‘silences’. For Waitt, attuning oneself to these

‘silences’ is as important as an appreciation of what is present in text and speech (2010,

p235). Castree (2005) also highlights the importance of what he calls ‘symptomatic

silences’, in which knowledge claims about nature work on certain assumptions which are

no less present for not being explicitly addressed or voiced. In short, my ‘light’ online

27

ethnography served not as a means of triangulation, but to provide me with a kind of

discourse-informed analytical prism through which to consider interview data.

3.1.2. INTERVIEWS

Respondent Group and link to SENAPA Relationship to Tanzania

Position on the road

IN1 Public organisation - tourism officer at TANAPA

Tanzanian citizen Contra

IN2 Safari guide Tanzanian citizen Contra

IN3 Private - tented camp owner/manager

European expatriate, lived in Tanzania 50+ years

Pro


IN5 Public organisation - executive at TATO



IN7 Private - tour operator and opposition politician

Tanzanian citizen Pro

IN8 Private - tourism consultant, self-identified activist


IN9 Private - tour operator European expatriate, lived in Tanzania 15+ years

Pro

IN10 Public organisation - researcher at FZS

European expatriate Contra

IN11 Private - tented camp manager/ university teacher



IN13 Private - tented camp manager

Southern African expatriate, lived in Tanzania 20+ years

Pro

IN14 Public organisation - Chief park warden, SENAPA


Table 1 – List of respondents (in order of interview date), their role and connection to SENAPA, and basic

position on Arusha-Musoma Road

A total of fourteen semi-structured interviews were conducted, with respondents all fitting

broadly into one of three groups: safari guides, private tourism stakeholders, and

representatives of public organisations (see Table 1). Respondents were selected

purposively, based on their specific roles which were different from each other yet shared

28

the crucial commonality of being stakeholders in Tanzanian tourism. Thus each respondent

was able to bring a different perspective whilst still informing the central research

question(s), much like a Venn diagram. This kind of purposive sampling is appropriate for a

research project which does not seek to make generalisations about a wider population

(Bryman 2012), but rather appreciates that each interview is “a site of, and occasion for,

producing reportable knowledge itself” (Holstein and Gubrium 2003, p68).

Perhaps the most important methodological strength of the semi-structured interview is

that it allows respondents the freedom to move within broader subject matter, responding

flexibly to questions in terms of what is most important to them (Arksey and Knight 1999;

Dunn 2010; Longhurst 2010). This is crucial for a project seeking to explore how particular

issues are framed. For this reason, I did not prepare a list of formal questions to be

replicated in each interview, but used instead flexible interview guide to ensure pertinent

themes were covered. Respondents were generally forthcoming and eager to put forward

their points of view, engaging with anticipated themes largely without initial prompting.

Prompting was used, however, as a means of eliciting a more elaborate response from

interviewees when necessary. Although Kitchin and Tate warn against prompting as

opening up the interview to the danger of ‘bias’ (2000, p217), for the purposes of this

research I referred to a more nuanced discussion of the concept of bias, as espoused by

Holstein and Gubrium (2003). They posit that the concept of bias is only meaningful if one is

working from a positivist epistemology, in which the interview could be considered merely

as a “pipeline for transmitting knowledge (Gubrium 1995, p3), and interviewees in

possession of some pure knowledge that the ‘incorrect’ interview technique could corrupt.

Since I am considering my research through a post-structuralist lens, so to speak, the notion

of revealing the ‘truth’ is redundant. Thus concerns over bias in my interviews were

superseded by the necessity of keeping interviews flowing and conversational, and

encouraging respondents to elaborate pertinent points.

My interview technique was akin to what Douglas (1985, in Dunn 2010) refers to as ‘creative

interviewing’. Interviewees were encouraged as I attempted to “humble [myself] before the

Goddess” (Dunn 2010, p115), proffering no background information before interviews, and

never seeking to question or ‘correct’ respondents’ statements on logistics of road

construction, government plans, or even the length of the highway itself, even when directly

29

conflicting with other information I had gathered. Here, it was more important to establish

rapport and encourage respondents to talk as freely as possible, allowing me to explore how

respondents understood and articulated issues of contestation surrounding the road, than it

was to simply elicit ‘facts’ about the road itself.

All interviews were audio-recorded, with the exceptions of one refusal and recording failure.

Audio-recording allowed me to be more engaged with my respondent, maintaining a more

‘natural’ conversational flow (Dunn 2010; Kitchin and Tate 2000). Brief notes were made

during all interviews, however, as per the recommendation of Dunn (2010), acting as a

reminder to return to particular topics as they arose, and allowing me to record my

thoughts on respondents’ demeanour and mood, endowing my data with a ‘thicker

description’, to bastardise the phrase of Geertz (1973). For the respondent who refused to

be recorded, more extensive notes were taken and typed up immediately following the

interview. The failed recording was noticed directly following the interview, and so I was

able to draw on basic notes and memory to write up pertinent observations and even some

very short direct quotations.

3.2 REFLEXIVITY AND POSITIONALITY

Adopting a certain reflexivity and carefully considering one’s positionality it particularly

important in projects concerned with post-structuralism; as Aitken reminds us, “Students

grappling with post-structural ways of knowing draw explicit attention to the context within

which they are working, noting its contradictions, complications and complexities as

insightful rather than obfuscating aspects of their positioning as readers, researchers and

writers” (2005, p248). All researchers are necessarily and unavoidably gendered, situated

within a culture or cultures, and within a post-structuralist-cum-post-modernist approach,

this very ‘humanness’ is not only acknowledged but also celebrated (Hoggart et al 2002,

p456). Nonetheless, one must accept that one “cannot ever fully recognize or represent

[one’s] own positionality (Cloke et al 2004, p129). Similarly, Crang warns researchers

against “[dividing] positionality formulaically into being insiders (good but impossible) and

outsiders (bad but inevitable)” (2003, p496). Suffice to say, throughout my research I

accepted that it would be neither possible nor pertinent to ‘mitigate’ my positionality as a

female, white, and relatively privileged researcher. Instead, I accepted that meaning would

30

be “actively and communicatively assembled in the interview encounter” with “[both

parties] necessarily and unavoidably active” (Holstein and Gubrium 1995, p4).

3.3 ETHICS

Ethical issues are unavoidable whenever research involves human participants, as Kitchin

and Tate remind us (2000). Marzano (2012) legitimately probes the tension between

conducting iterative, grounded research (such as this), which by its nature will morph and

transform as a project evolves, and the necessity of providing details of one’s project on

consent forms (to be signed by interviewees) to satisfy ethics committees. Nonetheless,

carefully-worded consent forms and information sheets were used, ensuring at a minimum

that respondents understood how and for what general purpose interview data would be

used.

3.4 LIMITATIONS

During my fieldwork in Tanzania I was not able to gain access to government

representatives. Given that the ‘Serengeti Highway’ is a government initiative, forming an

important campaign promise in 2005, this could potentially be problematic for my research.

In an attempt to mitigate this, I sought out official statements on the road on Tanzanian

government and ministry websites such as MNRT and TANROADS, but no official

information was forthcoming. I ultimately relied on newspaper reports and information

gleaned from interviewees to make the best picture I could of government attitudes and

motivations surrounding the road – a picture which, tellingly, is not clear. Indeed, it was

telling enough that government employees approached responded to me quite cagily, with

one even advising me to pursue another topic entirely, as surely no-one would be willing to

discuss the highway with me.

4 ANALYSIS

4.1 WHAT’S THE ISSUE?

4.1.1 PECULIAR EPISTEMOLOGIES: WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE ROAD?

Common amongst respondents was an empirical approach to ‘knowledge’ of the impacts of

the road, not necessarily drawing on science or conservation ‘expertise’, with interviewees

31

considering their respective positionalities as endowing them with the insightful

understanding of the situation in and around the Serengeti. IN1 claimed that TANAPA know

the impact of the road would be negative because they simply know the Serengeti – “They

are living with it”. When IN5, a road objector representing TATO, was asked about the

benefits of the so-called ‘southern route’ advocated by STSH and Frankfurt Zoological

Society (FZS) amongst others, he stated “It’s outright visible. You can see it”, and discussing

the overall situation, he stated “I am at a point where I can get the bigger picture. I can

easily connect the dots. And for that I don’t need data. I can just see it”. References to

being able to ‘see’ the truth were also made by other respondents, both in support of and

objection to the road, such as IN10 (“you can see it first-hand”), IN9 (“It’s very, very,

very…um easy. To see”) and IN8 (“We have seen what has happened along Mount Kili”).

Perhaps the most crucial thing to note here is that these ‘visible truths’, expressed by both

objectors and supporters to the road and deemed so evident by respondents, are quite at

odds with one another if not mutually exclusive. This in itself is demonstrative of how

multiple understandings of reality, in this case concerned with nature, operate

simultaneously, superimposed on one another. This is a central feature of Castree’s

definition of social nature, positing that certain places or features will take on different

attributes and significances depending on who is using or interacting with it (2001, p14).

Parallel to this was a tendency for respondents to project a lack of understanding onto

those who opposed their stance on the road. Generally they spoke of a need to impart

knowledge or bring understanding to opposing parties, who simply did not comprehend the

reality of the situation in the way he/she did. IN9, a road supporter, expressed this in terms

of road objectors lacking a holistic knowledge, stating “They don’t have the larger view I

think, about larger development, or about, um, what it means for the country”. Other road

supporters positioned objectors as lacking knowledge or direct experience of Tanzania, with

IN7 stating “people should come and see by themselves, and realise…how important […]

then they might understand”, and IN11 claiming that “Someone who is away from Mara

[region] and have never been to Mara, he will always oppose the road. But once you get a

chance to come to Mara, and see what is happening in Mara, he will actually, he will actually

appreciate”. Road supporters identified objectors in the international community as making

assumptions about the road based on the limited information available to them (IN11, “the

32

information that they are given is the road is passing there. And the environment of

Serengeti. And they are thinking ah, the road can pass and stop the ecosystem”; IN9,

“people are misconceived. They think that we are putting tarmac road all around the

Serengeti, no!”), or in travel books (IN13, “They look at the travel books, and in the travel

books you have these beautiful pictures with the annual circle of the wildebeest, and they

stick to this”). IN9 highlighted the fact that there is already a major road “basically crossing

the whole Serengeti” (see Figure 1), some 160km in length, on which overcrowded public

buses must traverse the national park in order to make the Arusha-Musoma journey as it

stands. What is more, this current route passes through the “very very sensitive” (IN9)

Ngorongoro Conservation Area on a dangerous road where accidents are common. As IN9

succinctly states: “nobody is ever talking about this”.

Figure 4 – Facebook timeline photo, 19th August 2012, ‘ Explanation of these problems should be given to all

people, from schools to villages about the importance of protecting environment’ (STSH 2012)

Meanwhile, road objectors projected lack of knowledge onto local people, suggesting that

their (presumed) support for the road was based on a lack of appreciation for the

importance of conservation. IN1 stated that “majority of people don’t understand the

importance of ecology” and “appreciation of conservation is also a problem”; for him,

33

conservation was very much a question of attitude, and if only people would come to

understand conservation and how they could benefit from it, then they would surely never

support a road through the Serengeti. Similarly, IN5 made reference to “lots of diverse

interests which for ordinary people to understand it may take some time”, whilst IN6 opined

that “if they will be able to know the importance of the animals, of the wildlife, especially

the migration, which of the wildebeest and the zebras, I think they will understand the

importance of not constructing that road”.

Figure 5 – Facebook timeline photo, 30th July 2015 – Julius Nyerere and The Arusha Manifesto (STSH 2015e)

This is consistent with one of the narratives emerging from STSH’s social media campaign,

which broadcasts to followers how “explanations” about the importance of conservation

must be spread to “villages” through STSH’s Serengeti Teachers’ Environmental Programme

(STEP) (see Figure 4). STSH positions STEP as a move towards “the long term protection of

the Serengeti/Mara ecosystem through education of the next generation of leaders” (STSH

2011b), and identifies as a central goal “to educate children and youth about the

34

environment and the importance of protecting our wildlife and wild areas for generations to

come” (STSH 2011a). This is certainly redolent of the immediate post-colonial era in

Tanzania, when former administrators recognised a need to ‘educate’ the African masses on

the virtues of conservation, having identified them as ‘natural conservationists’ (Neumann

1998, p141). STSH also portrays Julius Nyerere, the first president of an independent

Tanzania, as someone who ‘understood’ the importance of conservation, the implication

being that contemporary Tanzanian politicians do not (see Figure 5). Here, the power of a

simple conservation message has been too tempting to resist, with the fact that the Arusha

Manifesto was written for Nyerere by international conservationists duly ignored (Neumann

1998, p140).

4.1.2 SUSPICION AND THE STATE

It is curious that, behind such strong conviction in the rectitude of respondents’ standpoints

on the road, there exists a maelstrom of confusion over logistical information on the road –

where funding would come from, whether the road would be tarmacked or not, how long

the road would be, whether road plans had been indefinitely shelved or not, whether a

different government would pursue the same plans etc. Some anti-road respondents

expressed suspicion of the government’s motives for wanting to build the road, hinting that

they went beyond putative developmental needs. IN1, IN4, IN8 and IN12, all objectors to

the road, alluded to ulterior motives for the road’s construction, questioning why the

government was so keen on building a road through these particular regions and not others

with equally poor infrastructure (IN12), suggesting mining might be the real motive (IN8,

“Maybe they are taking something else from the ground”), and proffering vague invitations

for me to “read in between and see” (IN4). IN1, looking at a map of the area, simply stated

“There must be something around there”. Other respondents, when asked about the

government’s motives, actions and intentions, simply told me they did not know –

unsurprising as desktop research reveals that official documentation and media statements

on the road from the government are extremely difficult to come by. This, along with my

lack of success in securing an audience with government officials, is demonstrative of a

general reticence from the government that appears to be engendering a climate of

uncertainty and suspicion around the road not just in western media but also ‘on the

ground’.

35

In the context of government reticence on the subject of the road, and general confusion

over current plans, one must consider the particularly interesting position occupied by IN1.

IN1 portrayed TANAPA’s position as a parastatal as problematic, stating that “The

government is our father”, and thus TANAPA was unable to openly express their opposition

to the road. In an attempt to circumvent this issue TANAPA, according to IN1, had been

looking to external conservation organisations like FZS to help them “make noise” amongst

the “international community”. This is demonstrative of how the government is perceived

by its own employees, as well as an awareness amongst TANAPA staff of the potential

power of international organisations in influencing state activities in Tanzania.

Suspicion was also levelled at Kenya, Tanzania’s neighbour and tourism competitor. IN3,

IN7 and IN13 all believed that Kenya was fanning the flames of controversy surrounding the

road, not because of concerns over impact on wildlife (which was the basis of ANAW’s case

in the EACJ), but because an improved road to Serengeti would increase tourism business in

Tanzania – “It’s not about animals. It’s about business (IN7).

4.2 THE ROLE OF NATURE

4.2.1 TIMELESS NATURE

Examining the reasons people provided in support of their stance on the road (the what of

interview data), the notion of ‘nature’ played an interesting role. Unsurprisingly, amongst

those who were against the road, their reasons were constructed in terms of the road being

somehow against nature, unnatural, or interfering with natural processes. IN2 expressed

concern that a new road in the Serengeti would “spoil the environment” and that “They

should surely have to leave that for the nature to take place”. To support his viewpoint, he

made reference to how, elsewhere in Tanzania, cultivation and construction of houses

between two national parks had served to “block the natural way of the elephants”

(emphasis added). IN8 spoke of how “within the Serengeti ecosystem, we are not only

talking about the migration, wildebeest migration, the annual migration. We are talking of

the entire ecosystem. And the Serengeti has been there naturally”, and stated “I should tell

them that they should let Serengeti be as it is”. IN12 hinted at some ineffable quality of

natural immutability within the Serengeti, stating “this thing has been a hundred years ago

(sic), so if we are going to start changing we are going to destroy everything”. For these

36

respondents, Serengeti is nature and nature is Serengeti, and human-induced change is

definitively negative. Human activity is firmly placed outside of the natural, and a discursive

silence swells around the fact that human activity was very much a part of the Serengeti

ecosystem until relatively recently, when people were expelled from the national park when

it was gazetted by colonial administrators a mere 65 years ago.

Amongst some pro-road respondents, nature played quite a different role, with dominant

nature discourses entirely subverted. IN7, IN9 and IN13 all mentioned the Mara River,

questioning the level of concern over a ≈50km stretch of road when this river, “filled with a

raging torrent and 18-foot crocodiles” (IN13), did not prevent the herds’ migratory

movements each year . IN7 even wondered why, if conservationists were so concerned

about wildebeests making it north to Maasai Mara each year, they did not build a bridge for

them to cross the river safely! This irreverent remark serves to highlight just how

important the notion of ‘nature’ is in shaping peoples’ attitudes. For IN7, the reason why a

road is unacceptable has less to do with potential wildebeest deaths than it does to do with

a value judgement on what is deemed acceptable; a river is a ‘natural’ hazard and thus

tolerable, and a road is manmade and thus must be rejected. As IN8 informed me, “Halipo

na miti, hapana wajenzi” – where there are trees, there are no builders.

Aesthetics played an important role, with IN1 expressing that he felt visitors to SENAPA

would find it difficult to appreciate the Serengeti as a natural area if it gained a road and

thereby lost what he referred to as its “pristine quality”. For him, keeping the national park

“beautiful and prime” was a priority, and could be achieved by either concentrating

‘development’ in very few areas, or, preferably, by having none at all. IN7, meanwhile, a

staunchly pro-road respondent, stated that tourists would be unaffected by the Serengeti

road as it would be possible to simply leave this 50km-stretch untarmacked, and therefore

“this won’t affect the feeling that people are in nature, you know? In the nature” (emphasis

added). Here, both IN1 and IN7, objector and supporter respectively, have alluded to how

there are certain visual cues that give one the feeling one is ‘in nature’. This is

acknowledged by Ghimire and Pimbert who state that “[what] many conservationists still

refer to as ‘pristine’ landscapes…are, in fact, mostly human cultural artefacts” (Ghimire and

Pimbert 1997, p6).

37

4.2.2 THE HUMAN HAND

In most interviews, however, there was a lack of acknowledgement of the role of the

‘human’ in shaping that which we now understand to be ‘natural’ in Tanzania. Two notable

exceptions were IN9 and IN13. IN9, when probed over concerns that the road would block

the migratory paths of wildebeest herds, stated that people believed this because they were

unaware, or wilfully ignoring, that SENAPA itself is a human creation: “the fact that

Serengeti narrows, in the far northern part, where it bordered Maasai Mara, it’s the result

of long negotiations between nature protectors, wildlife protectors and several

governments of Tanzania”. She highlighted how the borders had changed several times

since SENAPA’s inception, and that the reason the entire region had not been declared a

national park was because of the people living there. For IN9, those in the global north who

objected to the road were influenced by a desire to keep Tanzania as it is, or at least as they

believe it to be: “Here everything must always be the same. When it rains, it rains. In the

travel books it’s written in March to May is rainy season, from October to December it’s

rainy season. So it must rain during these months. And the wildebeest they must follow the

arrows in the pictures in the travel books” (emphasis from respondent). IN13 subverted the

concept of the ‘natural’ and conflated it with rights and ownership, stating that “the people

who are living on the outside of [SENAPA] are also naturally occurring. And it’s their right.

It’s their place”.

4.3 OWNERSHIP AND AUTONOMY

4.3.1 SERENGETI AS A GLOBAL ASSET

Amongst respondents there was a recognition of the Serengeti being somehow different

from other national parks in Tanzania, or indeed the rest of the world. Whilst for IN1

southern Tanzania’s Mikumi National Park, through which the tarmacked two-lane A-7

highway passes, is “just a national park”, SENAPA has world heritage status and as such has

stakeholders the world over. This sense of responsibility over a precious global resource is

echoed by IN5, who states “these animals we have are entrusted to us by the rest of the

world. So, we are stewards, we are not owners” (IN5). This corresponds with Büscher’s

‘inverted commons’, in which nature and natural resources in Africa constitute a “special

commons that belongs to the entire globe, but for which only Africans pay the real price in

38

terms of their conservation” (2012, p31). The notion of futurity also played a central role

for anti-road respondents, who made references to the importance of “[preserving] for the

future generations” (IN2), conservation as necessary “not only for the wildlife of today, but

also, for the benefit of the coming generation” (IN8), and how “it is expected that our grand-

grandchildren (sic) should be able also to enjoy from these wild animals” (IN5).

Figure 6 – Facebook timeline photos, 16th January 2015 – Jane Goodall and “the essense of the Africa of my

childhood dreams” (STSH 2015a)

The elevated status afforded to SENAPA in interviews corresponds with its elevated status in

both tourism and conservation discourse. STSH positions the Serengeti as somewhere

wholly unique as well as emblematic of wild, pristine, human-free ‘natural’ Africa (see Figure

6). The Serengeti forms a central aspect of Tanzania’s tourism imaginary and “global

conservation imaginations” (Salazar 2010; Büscher 2012, p32). The Serengeti is a symbol of

wild Africa that people of the global north have come to ‘know’; this is the Serengeti they

want to save.

Considered alongside notions of timeless nature that anti-road respondents associated with

the Serengeti ecosystem, we can tentatively conclude that the sense of responsibility they

feel is for preserving what has become the status quo in Serengeti – namely a sense of

39

rugged and pristine wilderness, engendered outside of Tanzania and by non-Tanzanians,

which obscures the social and political history in which the national park is steeped. Such

notions are validated by expressed by international organisations such as UNESCO and the

World Conservation Union which, for Salazar (2006), have largely replaced those colonial

bodies in determining what is worth preserving and how.

IN7, IN9, IN11 and IN13, as supporters of the road, expressed various levels of ire at the

reaction of the international community to the road, ranging from bemused irritation to

exasperated, impotent fury. IN7 and IN9 believed that the negative reaction from the global

north was a result of misinformation, and that it would alter if they really understood the

situation in northern Tanzania the way they do (as discussed in section 4.1). IN11 and IN13,

however, both expatriates, were more visibly angered. IN9 questioned the prerogative of

those in the global north to level accusations of conservational irresponsibility at Tanzania:

“I mean with which right the western world wants to control the road system in East

Africa?”, and, with specific reference to Americans who she deemed to be the most vocal

protesters, “I mean they live in a country with the highest density of traffic infrastructure.

And who are they to point their fingers at an East African country, to blame them that they

want to build a road?”.

IN13, meanwhile, held a highly cynical view of conservationists’ response to the Arusha-

Musoma road. He stated “It’s very important to them to be seen to be getting involved with

it. To be seen to be getting involved with it” (emphasis from respondent), and that

“environmental organisations are all alms-takers. And the more emotive or high-profile, er,

an item is, the more they can attract donations”. Cynical as this perspective may be, it does

resonate with Klein’s (2007) contention that, in an increasingly neoliberalised world,

environmental crises whether real or imagined present opportunities for capital

accumulation and thus become commodities themselves.

4.3.2 “IT’S ALL ABOUT MONEY”: SELLING THE SERENGETI, SAVING THE

SERENGETI?

IN5, although engaging with some ideas of eternal and immutable nature, spoke of the

Serengeti in quite prosaic terms when discussing fiscal issues. He stated that it was simple a

question of working out whether industry or tourism was more beneficial to the Tanzanian

40

economy: “So for us it’s just to weigh out: do we need tourism, or we need industry or

whatever. That’s all we need to balance. If we don’t need tourism it’s OK, they can decide

and say OK, now we have more resources, let’s finish with the animals, it’s as simple as

that”. Ultimately, though, IN5 firmly placed tourism as preferable, considering it a non-

consumptive and highly lucrative industry; he stated that tourism in Tanzania is “very in

harmony with nature” and that “we can even sell sun in Serengeti for free. It’s just there.

Naturally”. These statements demonstrate that IN5, representing TATO, was working firmly

within a blue-green environmentalism, centring on the premise that it is not only possible

but also preferable to limit environmental degradation by working within the existing

market mechanisms, and without any fundamental change in contemporary levels and

patterns of consumption (Dobson 2012; Duffy 2002). This is largely in line with dominant

conservation discourses discussed in section 2.3.2. Declaring that Tanzania has “more

competitive advantage in tourism industry than any country in the world”, IN5 made clear

his faith in Tanzania’s comparative advantage in ‘naturally’ occurring tourism endowments

demonstrates an implicit faith in market mechanisms as a means for environmental

protection.

For IN10, an FZS researcher, tourism acted as a means of ‘justification’ for the conservation

work carried out in Serengeti, by FZS and others: “another way to look at it is, if tourism

disappeared tomorrow, I mean, they’re saying it’s struggling now but you know, if there was

an event and there was no tourism left for Serengeti it would be very difficult to justify…I

mean the conservation I think would really suffer as well, because tourism does allow a

voice to do…[trails off]”. IN10 talked of how TANAPA is currently able to function fairly

independently, using revenue generated from national park fees paid by tourists. For IN10,

any activity which could impact on the Serengeti ecosystem as it functions now could

potentially damage tourism in Tanzania, “which is a challenge then because on the other

hand if TANAPA isn’t capable of managing and conserving those resources, um, then all the

revenue that they’re getting will disappear. And kind of the whole column crumbles, right?”

IN10 saw tourism as performing a dual function of generating revenue and giving the

international community a legitimate ‘voice’ with which to raise their concerns over the

functioning of the Serengeti ecosystem. Both functions serve as a means of ‘justifying’ the

conservation of the Serengeti, which is costly both in terms of money and in terms of

41

impeding the development and mobility of those people who live close to, or are hemmed

in by, the national park. Moreover, as McAfee (1999) reminded us, under a neoliberal

economic paradigm, it is those with the most money who ultimately wield the most

influence – in this case, western tourists with strong ideas of how the Serengeti ‘ought’ to

be.

Figure 7 – Facebook timeline photo, 26th June 2015 – ‘Tourism is a $1.8 billion a year industry” (STSH 2015b)

IN5 and IN10’s perspectives are consistent with another central message of STSH’s

campaign, in which the ‘Serengeti Highway’ is presented as the certain death knell of

tourism in the Serengeti, with this impending loss of tourism equated to the loss of many

millions of tourism dollars. The message is presented in the simplest terms possible; for

example a recent Facebook post stated, “0 LIONS + 0 ELEPHANTS + 0 WILDEBEEST

MIGRATION = $0 TOURISM DOLLARS” (STSH 2015c; see also Figure 7). STSH portrays

tourists as not only harmless observers of nature, but potentially even active contributors to

conservation and development, the inference being that they bring much-needed money

into a poor country, paying to shoot animals with a camera only. Another discursive chasm

opens up, into which fall pertinent questions about the impact tourists have on the ‘natural’

behaviour of Tanzania’s wildlife, doubts over the proportion of tourism revenue that stays

42

within Tanzania, statistics on the impact of leisure travel on the environment, and myriad

other misgivings. Simplistic messages abstracted from context, such as those conveyed by

STSH, widen the rhetoric-reality gap, precluding measured and open discussion of what is

ultimately a set of highly complex interrelated issues.

Figure 8 – Facebook timeline photo, 10th July 2015 – ‘Aren’t we worth one hour?’ (STSH 2015d)

STSH presents a similarly simplistic message in Figure 8. This image presents the only

objection to adopting the ‘southern route’ as one additional driving hour . The ‘southern

route’ was considered favourably by anti-road respondents, viewing it as an alternative

which would preserve the sanctity of Serengeti’s nature, as well as providing more returns

on developmental investment due to reaching more people (IN5, IN10). For pro-road

respondents, however, this was no solution at all, since the alternative route would not pass

through one of the regions the Arusha-Musoma road was intended to help – as IN6 so

pithily put it, “that one doesn’t assist the Mara region” (IN6).

43

5. CONCLUSION

Anti-road respondents all engaged in the discourses of mainstream conservation and

timeless nature as justification for their stance, deeming any road through the Serengeti as

damaging. Pro-road respondents, meanwhile, believe that another road in the national park

need not necessarily be damaging to the Serengeti ecosystem provided certain mitigating

measures are taken, such as speed control and traffic policing. Although these two groups

were entirely opposed in their position on the road, both groups did in fact work on the

premise that it is not necessary to compromise development in the name of conservation or

vice versa. Both offered ‘solutions’ to the problems presented by the road as they

perceived them: supporters advocated the use of mitigating controls to minimise

environmental impact and prevent interruption to animal movement; opponents simply

proposed abandoning the Serengeti Highway in favour of the so-called ‘southern route’.

Perhaps the key finding of this paper, then, is that there is a distinct lack of language that

can bridge the gap between pro- and anti-road respondents, who project lack of knowledge

onto each other, and offer ‘solutions’ to sets of problems that are perceived entirely

differently by the opposing groups . Could it be, sadly, that it is simply not possible to satisfy

both conservational and developmental needs as we understand them now?

Discourse is “language as a form of practice that is embedded in the social conditions of

production and consumption and the cultural processes of meaning-making”, and as such

knowledge and understanding of the world is rooted firmly in those discursive

representations we use to ‘make’ that world (Salazar 2006, p835). In the wake of the

Serengeti road proposal, a body of anti-road discourse has mushroomed, within which

timeless nature and neoliberal nature make awkward bedfellows. The discourses are so

dominant now that those people who could benefit from the Arusha-Musoma road are

discursively swept aside, either through silence or in the offer of an alternative road which is

presented as a win-win but which, in fact, brings no benefit to the long-marginalised Mara

region. The lack of consideration for the human in reaction to the Serengeti road was

lamented by Homewood et al (2010) in published correspondence to Nature, Homewood

having, very interestingly, withdrawn her co-authorship from Dobson et al’s ‘Road will ruin

Serengeti’ piece, published in the same journal a month earlier. Unfortunately, there now

exists climate of suspicion and confusion, engendered by reticence from the state, which

44

has left a gaping hole where transparent, measured discussion ought to be. A discursive

blur has rushed to fill this gap, fuelled in part by organisations such as STSH, expressing the

value of the Serengeti in abstractions such as GDP contribution, and trading on eternal and

immutable nature which are ultimately falsehoods and hangovers from a chequered

colonial past. As such my interview respondents, passionate and determined people who

were convinced not only that their viewpoint was right, but also right for Tanzanians, were

left not only without any forum to “come together”, but also inadequate language to “bring

good ideas”, as IN6 expressed a wish for.

As stated in the introduction to this paper, my aim here was to unravel a discursive knot. It

was not an attempt to judge whether the Serengeti road was ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Throughout

the research process, however, I have found myself constantly swaying between opposition

and support, whether traversing the existing Serengeti road, 100+ km of tough terrain on a

sweltering and crowded public bus, or interviewing at the FZS research post, from where the

migratory herds were both visible and audible. The assertion that it is not possible to satisfy

contemporary development and conservation needs in the Serengeti as we understand

them now might sound unduly pessimistic. If we accept the possibility that our

understandings are flawed, however, it could be taken as a radical new starting point for

discussions of a set of highly complex problems which, at this time, are at an awkward

discursive impasse. And if we accept Cronon’s assertion that “[we] must always encounter

[the natural] world through the lens of our own ideas and imaginings” (1996a, p25), then

looking to the language we use create our world(s) and understanding(s) is a crucial first

step.

45

APPENDIX A – ETHICS SCREENING FORM

46

APPENDIX B – ETHICS APPROVAL NOTIFICATION

47

APPENDIX C – RISK ASSESSMENT FORM

Geography Individual Research and Fieldwork (This form is available electronically via http://www.kcl.ac.uk/geography → “For Current Students” → “Student Forms”

→ “Universal Forms”)

1 COMPLETING THE DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY RISK ASSESSMENT FORM

This process is now a digital process. These forms do not need to be printed and signed. The new procedure is as follows.

STUDENTS: Read and complete this form carefully and email to your research supervisor as a word document (if you are unsure about any of the questions discuss them first with your supervisor). Save the document using the filename RiskAssessmentForm_YourName_KCLStudentCard#.docx replacing YourName and KCLStudentCard# with the appropriate details. Also submit the web-based TRAVEL NOTIFICATION AND INSURANCE FORM (at http://bit.ly/kclgeotravel). Your typed name and student number and the sending of this from your email account is accepted as your signature.

STAFF: Read and check this assessment carefully. If you consider the student has identified, understands and is managing the key risks and that this work will be safe, “sign” the signature page and forward the received email message from the student (and attach this signed document) to [email protected] with a cc to the student who completed it (they will need your signed off copy to attach as an appendix to their dissertation) . Your typed name and staff number and the forwarding of this from your email account is accepted as your signature. Responsibility for assessing whether this assessment is appropriate lies with you, as supervisor. Until the risk assessment has been accepted by the supervisor, the research activity is not permitted.

PROCESS: This form will be further reviewed departmentally. In the rare cases that risks are deemed to be unacceptable, despite supervisor sign-off, the form will be returned by e-mail to the student (cc to supervisor) with feedback on any further clarification needed. If you do not hear from Katharine within a few working days of submission you may assume that there are no issues arising..

WHY DO I NEED TO DO THIS?

You are ultimately responsible for your own safety and that of those working for you but the Department of Geography has a duty of care to ensure that you have thought carefully about the risks involved in the field or laboratory work, and that you have done the utmost to manage and reduce them. We will not sanction fieldwork that we consider to be unsafe. Fortunately serious accidents and deaths in the field are rare but they do happen. Think through the risks and how you will manage them and ensure you have outlined a plan of action in case something does go wrong.

2 GENERAL GUIDANCE ON RISK ASSESSMENT: MANAGING HEALTH AND SAFETY

In most countries, national legislation provides the legal framework for health and safety management. For example, in the UK, universities abide by the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (http://www.hse.gov.uk/legislation/hswa.htm) and associated regulations. The Act places a duty upon employers to take steps to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of their employees and any other people affected by their activities including, in the case of universities, all students and members of the public.

Additional guidelines may also exist at the local or national scale. For example, there is a British standard concerning Specification for the provision of visits, fieldwork, expeditions, and adventurous activities, outside the UK (BS8848). These laws and guidelines typically require that ‘risk assessments’ are undertaken to identify what should be done in order to manage safety. Assessments of risk are usually focused around ‘risk’ and ‘hazard’. Put simply:

48

Hazards result from working in potentially dangerous environments and refer to environmental conditions, agents (including strangers) or substances that can cause harm.

Risk is the chance that a person (you or someone else) might be harmed by the hazard.

During individual research (e.g., fieldwork), hazards and risks can change rapidly, for example, as a result of changing weather conditions or political actions, and should be continually reassessed.

A risk assessment should be completed for:

All individual research and fieldwork taking place OUTSIDE the Department of Geography conducted as part of your degree,

All laboratory work INSIDE the College premises

All student dissertation work, whether human or physical, and whether undergraduate, postgraduate taught or postgraduate research.

The extent of your involvement in actually assessing the risks will vary according to the way in which the individual research and fieldwork is organised, but you have a responsibility to follow any precautions or safety measures laid down in the risk assessment.

49

3 RISK ASSESSMENT FORM AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTATION

After reading through ALL risk categories, please select RISK TYPE A or B below.

RISK TYPE A

You are only eligible for RISK TYPE A if all of the following are true:

Your work takes place within: college premises or home or within organizations/premises that have their own clear risk assessment in place.

Your work involves ONLY library/archival data or existing on-line/other data.

Your work WILL NOT expose you to risks greater than in everyday life.

DECLARATION: I have considered ALL categories in this form (see page 4 onwards) and I declare that I am undertaking a student project/dissertation where: a) NONE of my research will be outside of college premises or home or organizations/premises that have their own clear risk assessment in place; and b) it does not involve ANY of the risks identified in ANY of the categories of this risk assessment form. Should my research project change, such that there are now risks involved, then it is my responsibility to resubmit this form after completing an assessment for Risk Type B.

SIGNATURES OF PERSON FILLING IN A RISK ASSESSMENT AND COUNTERSIGNATURE.

A. Person filling in this risk assessment

Signature (TYPE YOUR NAME AND STAFF OR STUDENT ID IN PLACE OF A SIGNATURE):

n/a

Date:

B. Countersignature and date. I sign to indicate that I have read this and consider it an appropriate assessment.

(Students – Research Supervisor; Research Staff – Project Leader; Academic Staff – Head of Department)


n/a

Date:

RISK TYPE B

Fill out THIS PAGE and ALL OTHER PAGES in this form.

DECLARATION: I have considered ALL categories in this form and have indicated which risks apply to me that are greater than in everyday life and normal activities (writing yes/no for every section). Where I have answered ‘yes’ then I have also indicated the degree of risk from 1–5 (1=low, 5=high) and, where appropriate, added notes or comments relating to the level of risk. I have identified and added any additional risks not explicitly covered by this form in the final section.

SIGNATURES OF PERSON FILLING IN A RISK ASSESSMENT AND COUNTERSIGNATURE.

A. Person filling in this risk assessment


Annette Green 0403335

50

Date:22nd May 2015

B. Countersignature and date. I sign to indicate that I have read this and consider it an appropriate assessment.

(Students – Research Supervisor; Research Staff – Project Leader; Academic Staff – Head of Department)


Dr Mirela Barbu

Date: 3rd June 2015

51

PROJECT DETAILS

Please ensure you complete the TRAVEL NOTIFICATION AND INSURANCE FORM (available at http://bit.ly/kclgeotravel) at least two weeks before leaving. For work outside of the UK, please do not forget to obtain insurance in accordance with College regulations.

A. The project title. ‘Serengeti Shall Not Die’: Conservation and development in northern Tanzania, using the Serengeti Highway as a case study

B. The overall aim of the project.

To determine the ‘conservation’ versus the ‘development’ issues associated with the proposed highway to be built running east-west in northern Tanzania, which will go through Serengeti National Park. This will be explored through interview with those potentially affected in some way by the construction of the highway.

C. Can you identify any risk to others of the activity that you propose? (If yes, please elaborate.)

No risk to others

D. Can you identify any reputational or business risk to the college of the activity that you propose? (If yes, please elaborate.)

No risk to reputation or business of college

E. The location(s) where the data will be collected.

Tanzania (Arusha/Kilimanjaro area, Serengeti area)

F. Are you planning to work alone? (If yes, please justify this decision and detail the crisis management measures in place if something goes wrong in the field. How will you summon help? Who will know where you are and raise the alert if you are not back when planned and what are their contact details? If no, please provide name and contact numbers of colleague(s) who will be assisting you with the fieldwork if applicable, and/or named contact who will be provided with information on the timings and locations of your work.)

No, I will not conduct any fieldwork unaccompanied by a friend or ex-colleague in Tanzania, and/or an assistant/driver.

G. Do you have permission to do this work from the landowner or person responsible for the site you are working in? Please elaborate.

Work will either take place in office premises of a former colleague in Tanzania, for which I have full permission, OR in public places (for example Serengeti village visits)

H. Are you leaving any equipment on site? If so, do you have permission to do so and who is overseeing the equipment locally when you are not there? Please elaborate.

No equipment to be taken or left on site

I. Please briefly list the methods or techniques that will be employed for data collection during the project.

Semi-structured Interviews, ethnographic observation

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1niQi8DJ1NwV_64wVqE0plyQqkh25TXE2NKw3pytxxbw/viewform

52

J. Please elaborate on other relevant Project Details not mentioned above or in the Personal Details (below).

I will be working in locations with which I am already fairly familiar, and accompanied either by an ex-colleague, or employees or contacts of ex-colleagues.

PERSONAL DETAILS

Data Protection: This information will remain confidential and will only be used by the Department in the

event of an emergency or urgent need to contact you.

Please note that, other than for very low risk environments, we do not sanction lone field working. In all

cases, you must have a nominated contact who should know where you are, be in potentially immediate

contact with you (by phone) and who should have the timings of your departure and return from work, so

that an alarm might be raised.

Your Name: Annette Green

Next of Kin (name): Jeanette Green (mother)

Next of Kin contact details: 9A Willow Hey, Maghull, Merseyside, L31 3DL. Mobile: 07764 197 094 Work:

0151 520 2717

Any relevant medical information which might impact upon your study or safety: none

Address of nearest local hospital(s) to project or fieldwork site(s):

Mount Meru Regional Hospital, East African Community Boulevard, Arusha

Name of local contact person(s) if applicable: Corina Wiedermann, corina@tanzania-

adventure.com, +255 773 306 154

Tanzania Adventure, Sekei District (opposite Big Y), Arusha

Gibson Blasius, [email protected], +255784 448813 and +255767448812, Tanzania

Adventure, Sekei District (opposite Big Y), Arusha

PO Box address for postal contact of both above: P.O.B 10370, Arusha. Tanzania

mailto:[email protected]



53

You now need to demonstrate that you have considered each listed risk by indicating with either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ whether the risk applies to your fieldwork. ALL risks must be answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’ even if they do not apply to you. If the answer is to any particular risk is ‘yes’ then you must also indicate the degree of risk from 1–5 (1=low, 5=high) and complete the relevant comments. At the end of the form you should add any further relevant risks for your fieldwork that have not been listed. This form is meant to be a formative process of considering risk — not just a form-filling ‘bureaucratic exercise’ — and for you to actively consider risks involved in your research/project that might be greater than everyday life and your normal activities. You should consider a five-step approach to risk assessment.

1. Identify the hazards: during the field work, what could cause harm, for example, slippery ground, high altitude, weather conditions, civil or political unrest.

2. Identify who might be harmed and how: this includes all the field workers and members of the public.

3. Evaluate and minimise the risks: once suitable precautions have been taken, for example, wearing appropriate protective clothing, how likely is it that someone will be harmed?

4. Record the findings: write down the identified hazards and precautions to be taken.

5. Review the assessment periodically: situations change and so do the potential hazards and risks, so risk assessment is not an isolated task but an ongoing evaluation to be updated and revised as often as necessary.

54

CATEGOR

Y CATEGORY RISKS

DOES RISK APPLY? (Y/N)

DEGREE OF RISK

(1 = LOW,

5 = HIGH)

ASSOCIATED CONTROL

MEASURES NOTES OR COMMENTS

1.0 LONE / OUT OF HOURS WORKING in the FIELD

1.1 Difficulties in summoning help when required; risk of abuse/attack

n n/a Where possible work, as a minimum,

in pairs.

Where possible carry a radio or mobile phone.

Leave details of the field site and a work plan (include contact name and address) with colleagues in the department or at home prior to any trip.

Specify dates and times of departure and return

If your plans change, inform someone as soon as possible.

Do not carry valuables or large sums of money unless you need to.

Carry a personal alarm (This advice is directed to males as well as females—all are equally vulnerable when alone!)

Instigate a “check-in” system with a colleague or supervisor—Phone in at regular intervals. If you do not phone or return at a certain time arrange for suitable action to be taken.

Trust your intuition—If you feel scared or uneasy, do not ignore it.

I will not be carrying out fieldwork alone. I will be accompanied at all ties at least by a driver/assistant who will be an employee of my former employer and therefore trustworthy. Otherwise work will be carried out in my former office where I know several members of staff and will not be left alone in the premises.

2.0 ENVIRONMENT: HAZARDOUS WEATHER/CLIMATE [where potential extreme conditions are anticipated]

2.1 General

Y 1 Consult a daily weather forecast

before setting out. Check Met Office forecast, http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/.

Wear clothing suitable for expected weather conditions. However, be prepared for sudden changes and where possible take a change of clothes.

Strong winds and cold weather reduce energy levels; take adequate food and drink supplies.

Arusha is generally temperate especially in June/July, but I will check forecast for particularly hot days where sunburn could be a risk, or for inclement weather

2.2 Hypothermia—This results from dangerous loss of body heat. The main land based cause is wind chill, through inadequate clothing. Immersion in cold water can rapidly lead to hypothermia

N n/a Ensure clothing is appropriate and

use a survival suit in extremely cold weather.

Wear a woollen hat—this significantly reduces heat loss.

Wear lots of layered clothing—remove layers to reduce sweating.

Wear woollen gloves under waterproof gloves.

Eat plenty of food and drink plenty of fluids.

2.3 Frostbite—This results from lack of circulation in the extremities caused by severe cold. It is most common when hands or feet are wet. High altitude can exaggerate the problem as circulation tends to be less efficient in these environments

N n/a Wear woollen gloves under

waterproof gloves.

Make sure shoes/boots are loose enough to allow room for two pairs of warm socks and still not be tight. Restricting circulation with tight shoes will make you more prone to frostbite.

Be aware that the altitude you will be working at will affect your susceptibility to frostbite.

Ensure that footwear is waterproof.

55

CATEGOR

Y CATEGORY RISKS


DEGREE OF RISK

(1 = LOW,

5 = HIGH)

ASSOCIATED CONTROL


2.4 Poor Visibility—This can be due to driving rain, snow, etc. or fog. Working at dawn or dusk can also lead to visibility problems.

N n/a If problems are due to adverse

weather conditions, seek shelter and wait for weather to clear.

If working at dawn or dusk, ensure a torch is carried.

Wear high visibility clothing so you can be seen easily.

2.5 Sunburn—This can occur even in cold conditions, especially where there is reflected light—e.g. close to or on water, at high altitude, in snowy conditions. Any exposed area of the skin is susceptible (face and hands).

Y 1 Use a high factor Sun block

If working in full sun, do not expose skin unnecessarily!

Make sure back of neck is covered.

Wear sunglasses to protect eyes.

I have fair skin and am very aware of how to protect myself. Moreover I have lived in Tanzania for extended periods of time and have managed to avoid sunburn (use sun block, hat, stay covered/in shade)

2.6 Dehydration—This can occur in hot or cold weather—wind can be a contributing factor.

Y 1 Drink plenty of fluids—more than 3

litres per person per day is recommended in hot weather.

Do not drink alcohol or caffeinated drinks.

See above – weather usually temperate in June/July. Also I am familiar with weather in Tanzania and am aware of importance of keeping hydrated

2.7 Heat stroke/heat exhaustion—These are due to the body over-heating and are often accompanied by dehydration.

Y 1 Avoid working in full sun.

Drink plenty of fluids.

Always wear a sun hat.

Keep back of neck covered.

If feeling particularly hot, find some shade and rest.

See above – 2.5 and 2.6

3.0 ENVIRONMENT: HAZARDOUS TERRAIN

3.1 General:

Slips, trips and falls—Due to “wrong footing” on uneven or wet/slippery ground.

Y 1 Wear footwear suitable for the

conditions.

Plan route carefully to avoid most uneven ground.

Ensure you can see where you are putting your feet before walking.

Avoid working in poor light conditions.

I will take care when in Arusha which is high altitude and quite hilly, and out on the road where is it quite dusty. I will wear appropriate footwear and protect my eyes

3.2 General:

Back and neck injuries- Due to jarring spine, etc. This can also lead to skull fractures.

N n/aa Do not jump over or off anything. If

there is a drop or ditch that has to be negotiated, lower yourself slowly or use existing bridges, steps, etc.

Be aware that landing “heavily”, thus jarring the spine, can lead to basal fractures of the skull or concussion. In the event of such an injury, medical attention must be sought immediately.

3.3 Agricultural Land:

Slips, trips and falls Y 1

Be aware that agricultural land is often ploughed and therefore deeply rutted.

There is a chance some interviews with villagers will be carried out near agricultural land but I will probably not have to walk across it. If so I will take care.

3.4 Agricultural Land:

Breaks and sprains Y 1

Do not jump over drainage ditches. Always use existing bridges, etc.

Ensure appropriate footwear is worn to protect ankles.

See 3.3

3.5 Agricultural Land: Risk of personal injury caused by boundary fences—electric fences, Barbed wire, hedges, etc.

Y 1 If working close to fences, etc. avoid

working with your back to the fence, in case you back into it.

Do not climb over fences—use gates or stiles

See 3.3

56

CATEGOR

Y CATEGORY RISKS


DEGREE OF RISK

(1 = LOW,

5 = HIGH)

ASSOCIATED CONTROL


3.6 Heathland, Moorland and Mountains: Slips, trips and falls

N n/a Rocky outcrops are extremely

slippery when wet, avoid walking on them whenever possible.

Wear strong gloves to protect hands against cuts and grazes.

When walking down hill, walk across the slope and not down the steepest path, keeping your weight on the back foot as much as possible—if you slip you should try to fall backwards, not forwards!

Wherever possible follow existing paths.

No intention of going anywhere mountainous – Arusha itself is quite ‘hilly’ but see 3.1

3.7 Heathland, Moorland and Mountains: Breaks and sprains

N n/a Do not jump off ledges, etc.

Ensure appropriate footwear is worn to protect ankles.

3.8 Heathland, Moorland and Mountains: Altitude sickness, low oxygen levels

N n/a Do not try to do too much at once.

There is a higher risk of sunburn at high altitude—use a higher factor sunblock.

If you are feeling tired or yawning this may be due to lack of oxygen, not sleep!

3.9 Beaches and Cliffs: Falls N n/a

Be aware of high winds on cliff tops—do not stand closer to the edge than is necessary.

Check for soft or crumbling ground near cliff edges.

Where necessary approach cliff edges on all fours to spread the body weight.

Do not stand and peer over the edge of cliffs.

3.10 Beaches and Cliffs: Slips and trips N n/a

Take special care on slippery rocks. Always look ahead at ground when walking around the water's edge.

3.11 Beaches and Cliffs: Drowning/cut off by tide

N n/a Be aware of incoming tides. Check

tide tables before commencing work and ensure your escape route is not blocked.

3.12 Mudflats and Estuaries:

Slips, trips and falls

N n/a Avoid wearing waders if possible—

Wellingtons are preferable. Waders are cumbersome and may encourage you to go deeper into water than is safe.

If waders are necessary, use a pole to probe ahead to assess the stability of shoreline terrain.

When wearing chest waders, you should always wear a buoyancy aid too.

Take special care on slippery rocks. Always look ahead at ground when walking around the water's edge.

When sampling in flowing water environments, be careful of slippery or steep banks and fast currents. If the current is fast or the water looks deeper than knee height, do not enter the water. If you must enter the water, a rope should be tied around your waist and secured to the bank

57

CATEGOR

Y CATEGORY RISKS


DEGREE OF RISK

(1 = LOW,

5 = HIGH)

ASSOCIATED CONTROL


3.13 Mudflats and Estuaries: Sinking/drowning

N n/a If stuck in mud, do not struggle as

this causes deeper sinking. Roll on back and spread weight evenly whilst attempting to “sledge” to firmer ground.

Be aware of incoming tides. Check tide tables before commencing work and ensure your escape route is not blocked.

4.0 ENVIRONMENT: LOCATION

4.1 Risk of causing offence which may lead to personal attack/abuse.

Y 1 Respect must be paid to local

customs and problems, and advice taken from local contacts, embassies, etc.

Dress appropriately.

Consult Foreign Office for advice.

I am very familiar with local customs having lived and worked in Tanzania for extended periods (in Arusha specifically). I always dress appropriately and will take cues and advice from friends living in Tanzania and from Foreign Office.

4.2 Working within other establishments, businesses, laboratories, etc.

Y 1 Ensure establishment has their own

safety guidelines in place.

Whilst on the premises follow their guidelines.

I will be working in office premises where I used to work – I am very familiar with the premises. The entrance is often busy with cars and mechanics/maintenance so I will be careful when entering and leaving.

4.3 Working beside major roads N n/a

Wear brightly coloured, conspicuous clothing.

Avoid having your back towards the traffic flow.

I do not intend to work beside major roads but roads in Arusha are very busy. I will take extra care when moving around as I always did.

4.4 Risk of attack/abuse and personal injury

Y 2 Avoid areas known to be

“unpleasant”

Seek information on areas before setting out.

Consult Local Community groups, Local Authorities, Police, etc. for information and possible contact names before setting out.

Do not enter unfamiliar neighbourhoods alone.

Walk with confidence and purpose—try not to look as if you are not sure of where you are going.

Do not carry more money than you need to.

Dress appropriately—try to fit in without attracting attention.

Arusha is a major city in Sub-Saharan Africa and thus does have some safety issues as expected. However I do not plan to go anywhere unescorted after dark, and during the day I will only be walking between my old home and my old office – a walk of some 5 minutes. This will only be undertaken during daylight hours and the route is busy with people. I will not go anywhere I don’t know without being accompanied by one of my former colleagues who are either Tanzanian or have lived in Tanzania for many years.

4.5 Risk of getting lost—this may lead to straying into high risk areas.

Y 1 Study maps of the area before

setting out.

Plan your route carefully. Ensure you know of a second route should the first be impassable.

Ensure you have a means of raising alarm if you are lost

See above 4.4 – to reiterate I will not set off alone anywhere I am not fully familiar with and never alone after dark.

5.0 ENVIRONMENT: ANIMALS

5.1 Personal injury and attack by Livestock or “Domesticated” animals, i.e. dogs

Y 1 If necessary to do so, pass through

fields with animals quickly or limit your working time in that area to return later.

Try to avoid walking near to the animals.

Be especially aware of pregnant animals or those with young.

Many premises in Tanzania have guard dogs and I will be careful of this. The house where I will be staying (my former boss’s house) does have small dogs that are friendly (she has assured me). The office premises where I will be working has guard dogs that live in a compound at the back during the day. I will not be visiting the office at night when they are out.

58

CATEGOR

Y CATEGORY RISKS


DEGREE OF RISK

(1 = LOW,

5 = HIGH)

ASSOCIATED CONTROL


5.2 Snakes, scorpions, spiders—risks of bites from venomous animals

Y 2 Wear protective footwear.

Look carefully where you are treading or putting your hands.

If appropriate, check shoes and shake out clothing before putting them on.

Ensure you know where to go or what to do in case of injury—Seek local information before you go into the field

Although the chances of being bitten are small I put the risk at 2 as this can increase when working near to national parks like Serengeti. Moreover there are some quite poisonous snakes in Tanzania. However to reiterate the chances of being bitten are small and I will take every precaution to ensure I am not – appropriate footwear, taking care of where I tread, and making sure I know who to contact should I have a problem.

5.3 Biting and stinging insects can cause discomfort and infection e.g. allergic reactions and malaria; ticks may be found on bushes where cattle are or have recently passed and on the cattle themselves.

Y 2 Use insect repellent particularly in

the evenings or when near standing water.

If appropriate, Anti -malaria tablets should be taken.

Carry anti-histamine tablets in case of bites. Be aware that some forms of anti-histamine can cause drowsiness. If affected do not continue with fieldwork.

Clean and cover any bites to reduce risk of infection.

Do not attempt to pull ticks off skin, as the mouth parts can be left imbedded. A small amount of paraffin poured onto the tick may cause them to release their grip. Ideally medical attention should be sought.

Mosquitoes are usually not a problem in Arusha due to altitude. However I will take repellent and antihistamines with me just in case, especially for out in Serengeti where the risk of being bitten is slightly higher. I will also taken the informed decision to not use malaria prophylaxis as I have experienced bad side effects from this in the past and, as stated above, mosquitoes are generally not a problem in higher altitudes and cooler climes like Arusha. I lived in Tanzania for 18 months and did not use malaria prophylaxis for about 15 months of this time, and I did not know anyone living out in Tanzania permanently who used malaria prophylaxis. I understand that King’s cannot endorse this decision but it is one I have made with the best of information, and using malaria prophylaxis is not a requirement for entering the country.

Tsatse flies can be an issue in national parks like Serengeti and so carry sleeping sickness. There is no immunisation or medication one can take to prevent this – the best prevention is to avoid the bites which are (I have heard) very painful. Tsetse flies only live in certain parts of the national parks where one would only pass through and not stay for any length of time. I will stay covered to prevent getting bit if I pass through such areas. This kind of risk is no greater than the risk to any tourist travelling through Tanzanian national parks.

5.4 Other People's “Pets”

risk of injury, allergy, etc.

Y 1 Be aware that not all pets are

“friendly”

If entering a house with a dog or cat, ask that the animal be put in another room if you feel uncomfortable.

If you are “wary” of a dog, do not enter the house unless the owner is prepared to remove the animal from the room you are going to be in. (Be polite and tactful when asking!)

See also allergies

See above

59

CATEGOR

Y CATEGORY RISKS


DEGREE OF RISK

(1 = LOW,

5 = HIGH)

ASSOCIATED CONTROL


5.5 Phobias N n/a

Individuals who have phobias relating to e.g. wasps and bees, should be “buddied” with others who do not. The buddy should help to calm the individual and frighten off the insect if necessary.

Try to avoid situations which may bring you into contact with the object of your phobia.

Ensure at least one other member of the group is aware of the problem.

5.6 Health Y 1

Animals carry diseases. Consult your medical advisor to ensure that you have the appropriate protection. Be aware of the symptoms and precautions .

See 5.3 for information on mosquitoes and Tsetse flies.

I have been inoculated against rabies and will take every measure to avoid being bitten by wild or domestic animals.

6.0 ENVIRONMENT: POLLUTION

6.1 Working near power stations/smelting works/chemical plants: Risk of long term damage to lungs.

N n/a Do not enter the area unless

absolutely necessary

Do not spend longer than necessary in the area.

Wear a face mask with a filter suitable for the category of pollutant.

6.2 Working near power stations/smelting works/chemical plants: Risk of absorption through skin: some toxins are accumulative and constant absorption or repeated exposure can lead to long term health effects.

N n/a Do not enter the area unless

absolutely necessary

Keep skin covered as much as possible

Wear gloves if handing plants, etc., growing near in the area

Wash/shower as soon as possible after finishing work

Be aware that clothing will also be contaminated—wash clothing after finishing work.

Be aware that toxins, etc., may be carried by rain from higher in the atmosphere.

Be cautious of any skin reaction that may occur—seek medical attention.

7.0 MANUAL HANDLING

Loading/unloading Vehicles

7.1 Unstable loads—if equipment is not stacked properly, there is a risk of it moving whilst the vehicle is in motion. This may injure the driver/passenger or may fall when the doors of the vehicle are opened for unloading.

N n/a Ensure that heavy equipment is on

the bottom of the pile.

Pack awkward shaped items into square boxes if possible.

Tie down any loose items.

Do not stack equipment higher than the seats.

7.2 Back Injury—due to incorrect lifting techniques

N n/a Stand close to object, with feet

apart.

Keep back straight.

Bend knees.

Keep head up.

Avoid twisting or bending or repetitive work.

Seek proper training in manual handling techniques

60

CATEGOR

Y CATEGORY RISKS


DEGREE OF RISK

(1 = LOW,

5 = HIGH)

ASSOCIATED CONTROL


8.0 MANUAL HANDLING: Moving Equipment to site

8.1 Back Injury—due to incorrect lifting techniques

N n/a Stand close to object, with feet

apart.

Keep back straight.

Bend knees.

Keep head up.

Avoid twisting or bending or repetitive work.

Seek training in proper manual handling techniques.

8.2 Back injury—due to incorrect carrying techniques

N n/a Where possible carry equipment in a

rucksack.

Do not overload rucksacks.

Do not carry equipment further than is necessary—get as close to site as possible by other means.

Do not single-handedly attempt to carry anything that is “too heavy”. This will vary from individual to individual—know your limits and do not be persuaded to over stretch that limit.

Be aware of awkward shaped loads and unevenly balanced loads.

Where possible dismantle large pieces of equipment into smaller, lighter components.

8.3 Injury to arms and hands—strains, sprains, breaks, cuts and grazes

N n/a Where possible carry equipment in a

rucksack.

Wear protective gloves.

Keep sleeves rolled down.

Be aware of sharp edges/corners.

Be aware of pieces of equipment which may pinch the skin—hinges, lids, etc.

9.0 WORKING NEAR WATER: GENERAL

9.1 Slips, trips and falls. N n/a

Waders are cumbersome and may encourage you to go deeper into water than is safe. Take care when wearing waders and ensure that you are not in water that is too deep.

Chest waders should only be worn if the person is also wearing a buoyancy aid.

Use a pole to probe ahead to assess the stability of shoreline terrain.

If stuck in mud, do not struggle as this causes deeper sinking. Roll on back and spread weight evenly whilst attempting to “sledge” to firmer ground.

Take special care on slippery rocks around lake shores and river banks. Always look ahead at ground when walking around the water's edge.

When sampling in flowing water environments, be careful of slippery or steep banks and fast currents. If the current is fast or the water looks deeper than knee height, do not enter the water. If you must enter the water, a rope should be tied around your waist and secured to the bank.

61

CATEGOR

Y CATEGORY RISKS


DEGREE OF RISK

(1 = LOW,

5 = HIGH)

ASSOCIATED CONTROL


9.2 Health N n/a

There are a number of water borne diseases or diseases associated with river margin habitats. You should consult your medical advisor to ensure that you have appropriate protection for the environments in which you are working.

Be aware of Hemlock Water Dropwort, which is a poisonous plant species common near rivers and other water bodies.

Be aware of the symptoms and precautions for Leptospirosis.

9.3 Associated Risks N n/a

See also chemical/biological hazards

See also Weather

10.0 WORKING NEAR WATER: BOAT HANDLING

Note: Boat Handling should ONLY be done where further training has been given, or where supervision is provided, or where a local risk assessment and mitigation procedure is in place

10.1 Equipment—failure to check or use correctly resulting in personal injury

N n/a The Helm is responsible for all

decisions within the boat.

Ensure the boat is fully inflated and that valves are sealed correctly.

Inflate the keel (where appropriate) in windy conditions for extra stability.

Wear survival suits in rough, cold conditions. Be aware that conditions in the middle of a lake may be much rougher than those at the launch site, which is often a sheltered bay.

A minimum of two people should be in the boat while in operation.

A tool kit including a knife, pliers, spare shear and split pins must be carried on board.

A set of oars must always be carried.

A boat pump, anchor and rope, a safety line and a bailer should be carried.

Check that the motor is securely attached to the transum and is also attached by a rope to the boat for additional security.

Ensure that there is sufficient fuel in the tank before setting out.

If using a battery to power an electric engine, treat the battery with care. Always place the battery in a water tight box, lift carefully and place in a stable position on board. Avoid skin contact with any leaked acid.

Keep ropes coiled and stowed neatly inside the boat.

Keep the bow rope inside the boat to avoid it tangling in the propeller.

10.2 Risks of Fire N n/a

Ensure fuel tank is horizontal and stable. Open pressure release valve when the motor is running.

No other fuel allowed on board.

Never smoke near inflatable boats or engines.

62

CATEGOR

Y CATEGORY RISKS


DEGREE OF RISK

(1 = LOW,

5 = HIGH)

ASSOCIATED CONTROL


10.3 Sinking/drowning N n/a

Buoyancy aids must be worn at all times. Non-swimmers should wear a life jacket.

Submersed obstacles can damage the propeller and the bottom of the boat. Always keep a look out, especially in shallow water and rocky areas.

In gusty winds, short steep localised waves of considerable size can develop. If the boat length exceeds the wave length, the boat cannot ride the waves. Shelter should be sought.

Ensure safe anchoring prior to cutting the engine.

11.0 HEALTH: ACCIDENTS AND ILLNESS

11.1 Risk of injury N n/a

Ensure that one of the fieldwork team is trained in First Aid.

Carry a First Aid kit

Medical Supplies or treatment—be aware of where these can be bought or received if there is an accident

Have plans of action and be aware of where help can be sought should an accident occur in a remote location.

Remember that it is essential to fill out an accident report and return it to the Departmental Safety Officer on return. It may help to make notes as soon after the incident as is possible.

11.2 Risk of illness whilst in the field Y 1

Ensure any necessary medication is carried at all times

Ensure someone else is aware of medical conditions and will recognise signs and symptoms. They should also be informed of the location of medication.

Diabetics should ensure sufficient food is carried in case there is a delay in returning.

Medical Supplies or treatment—be aware of where these can be bought or received if a medical condition or illness arises

Please see boxes 5.3 and 5.6.

I have had all necessary inoculations for entering Tanzania.

11.3 Risks of Dental problems—it is often difficult to get dental treatment in remote locations!

Remote locations only

N n/a Ensure that a full dental check up is

received before departure

Be aware of where Dental treatment can be received

Carry emergency dental treatment as First Aid.

11.4 Fatigue leading to lack of concentration, accidents and risk of injury

When strenuous work or driving is undertaken

Y 1 Do not try to do too much in one

day, especially if the work is to be followed by a long drive home

Be aware that working at high altitude can quickly lead to fatigue due to reduced oxygen intake.

Lack of sleep can lead to accidents—ensure sufficient rest is taken.

I won’t be driving and I will get plenty of sleep each night. Arusha is a city at quite high altitude but not high enough to risk any altitude related illness

11.5 Lack of Physical Fitness—leading to risk of personal injury/illness

Strenuous work or remote locations

Y 1 Know your limitations—do not be

forced to over-stretch your limit.

Do not be afraid to tell someone if you feel unwell or cannot carry on with a task.

Plan your work within your limits.

If you feel unwell—stop.

I will not overstretch myself in terms of physical fitness, and any long journeys will be taken by car (driven by a driver/assistant and not myself)

63

CATEGOR

Y CATEGORY RISKS


DEGREE OF RISK

(1 = LOW,

5 = HIGH)

ASSOCIATED CONTROL


12.0 HEALTH: ALLERGIES

12.1 Anaphylactic Shock—severe cases of allergic reaction can result in breathing difficulties

N n/a Seek medical attention immediately.

Be cautious of the first signs of allergic reaction and DO NOT ignore them.

No allergies

12.2 Some plant material may cause allergic reactions—Allergic reactions can cause discomfort and in severe cases anaphylactic shock.

N n/a If aware of an allergy, carry any

necessary medication. Be aware that some forms of anti-histamine can cause drowsiness. If affected do not continue with fieldwork.


No allergies

12.3 Insect Bites and stings N n/a

If aware of an allergy, carry any necessary medication. Be aware that some forms of anti-histamine can cause drowsiness. If affected do not continue with fieldwork.


As above no allergies but I will remain alert for the first signs of a reaction.

Please also see boxes 5.3 and 5.6 for more info on insects and bites.

13.0 HEALTH: FOOD AND DRINK

13.1 Lack of food and Drink—various risks including dehydration, fatigue, fainting, etc.

Y 1 Do not forget to stop for food breaks

Drink plenty of fluids, particularly in hot weather.

Always carry plenty of water.

Carry food supplies with you if necessary (Kendal Mint Cake!!)

Breakfast is particularly important before a day in the field.

I acknowledge that it might be difficult to get food or snacks when working out on the field in more remote places or when undertaking long journeys. However I will not find myself in these situations unexpectedly and thus will be able to prepare snacks and lunch boxes. I will make sure to bring bottles for water and plastic lunch boxes with me from the UK.

13.2 Alcohol—Risks of dehydration; inability to work efficiently due to hangover; in cold weather, alcohol consumption can lead to hypothermia

Y 1 Avoid drinking excessive amounts of

alcohol on the evening before going into the field.

Avoid drinking alcohol during fieldwork

Be aware that alcohol can impair judgement and will remain in the system for several hours after consumption.

I will not drink excessively at all during my time in Tanzania, and will ensure I remain well-hydrated in any case.

13.3 Miscellaneous Risks -Food poisoning, dehydration, allergies

Y 2 In remote/overseas locations—Be

wary of accepting ice in drinks.

In remote/overseas locations be careful of eating food prepared by other people—particularly meats or fish and salads.

Try not to drink contaminated water

Caffeinated drinks (coffee, Cola, etc.) can enhance dehydration—avoid drinking them in hot weather


There is reasonable risk that I will have stomach problems (upset stomach) at some point during my trip but this is unlikely to be anything more than diarrhoea. I will take medication with me for this including rehydration sachets.

I will not drink tap water or take ice in my drinks.

64

CATEGOR

Y CATEGORY RISKS


DEGREE OF RISK

(1 = LOW,

5 = HIGH)

ASSOCIATED CONTROL


14.0 EQUIPMENT: USING EQUIPMENT and EQUIPMENT FAILURE

14.1 Risks of personal injury, damage to equipment

N n/a Read Risk Assessments associated

with each piece of equipment – note any precautions that need to be taken with potentially more dangerous equipment

Read the instruction manual—follow the instructions!

Read manufacturers safety information

Do not try to bypass or tamper with any safety device.

Seek instruction from trained personnel if required.

Do not use damaged or faulty equipment.

Ensure the equipment is suitable for the work—try not to improvise!

Do not use electrical equipment in wet/damp conditions or if you have wet hands.

14.2 Risk of personal injury/ injury to others N n/a

Do not use equipment found to be damaged or faulty.

Do not attempt to repair equipment if you are untrained.

Report any faults as soon as possible.

Label faulty equipment clearly so that no one else tries to use it. Try to write down the “symptoms” of the failure and any action taken.

15.0 EQUIPMENT: CHECKING EQUIPMENT

15.1Risks of personal injury/injury to others N n/a

Always check equipment before use—do not assume it has already been checked.

Check external appearance for signs of wear—electrical cables, ropes, cracks in casing, etc.

Ensure that any built in safety devices are operating correctly.

Check for sharp edges.

Do not use equipment that is damaged or found to be faulty.

Report any faults found to the relevant people.

16.0 PEOPLE: UNEXPECTED BEHAVIOUR

16.1 Risk of personal attack/abuse due to misunderstanding of nature of work

Y 1 Be aware of any delicate issues

involved with discussions or interviews e.g. before asking a farmer questions regarding his land management, explain why you need to know.

Ensure landowners and their employees know who you are and what you are doing.

I will take full precautions and behave sensitively and appropriately at all times. My interview topic will not be of a persona or sensitive nature but I will nonetheless be courteous and clear when approaching people.

I will take cues and advice from friends, drivers, assistants etc.

16.2 Risk of theft Y 2

Ensure you have copies of your passport, visa and Insurers emergency contact details

Keep valuables in a secure place wherever possible

I will ensure I have copies of all my important documents with me and I will not be taking any expensive or ostentatious equipment or large amounts of cash around with me – I won’t need to anyway.

65

CATEGOR

Y CATEGORY RISKS


DEGREE OF RISK

(1 = LOW,

5 = HIGH)

ASSOCIATED CONTROL


16.3 Aggressive Behaviour Y 2

Do not underestimate the importance of body language.

Talk yourself out of problems; placate rather than provoke.

Do not turn your back on someone who is behaving aggressively.

Stay calm, speak gently and slowly.

Do not be enticed into an argument.

Avoid an aggressive stance. Crossed arms, hands on hips or raised hands will challenge and confront.

Keep your distance.

Never try to touch someone who is angry—this will not calm the situation.

Keep your eye on potential escape routes

There is always a risk of such behaviour in any large city, especially one in Sub-Saharan Africa, however there is no reason to believe that the risk posed to my person will be any greater in Arusha than it would be in a major city in Europe, other than if people wanted to steal from me. I will protect myself from this by a) not taking any valuables around with me and b) avoiding going anywhere alone, and not at all after dark.

Violent crime is rare in more remote areas but I will still take the same precautions outlined above.

Throughout my trip I will ensure to follow the advice outlined in the control measures box to the left.

16.4 Physical attack Y 1

Try to get away as quickly as possible. Move towards a place where you know there will be other people.

Carry a personal alarm—set it off as close to the aggressor's ear as possible and then throw it out of reach.

Shout and scream—shout something practical like “call the police!” or “Fire!”—people rarely react to cries of “help!” or “rape!”

If grabbed and unable to break free—pretend to vomit. This will often have the desired effect!

See box 16.3 above – likelihood of physical attack is low if there is nothing to steal.

I will still take a personal alarm with me (I already have one) for use if I get into a bad situation, but as reiterated throughout form I do not intent to go anywhere alone unless under very specific (safe) circumstances.

17.0 WAR or MILITARY ZONES

17.0 War or Military Zones Y 2

Be aware of political, military or civil unrest through communicating with residents or buying local newspapers.

Consult Foreign Office for advice.

Inform nearest Embassy of your presence in the country when you arrive to enable them to keep you informed of any hazardous situations and advise you of what to do.

Know places of refuge, flight transfers and procedure in an emergency situation.

Historically Tanzania has been very stable but must acknowledge that there are elections in October. Tensions have been known to run high at such times but this is unlikely to be an issue at the time I am in Tanzania.

There are also some political issues in Burundi at the moment with reports of some people fleeing to Tanzania but this is unlikely to affect me and there is no reason to believe this will result in increased level of danger.

I will nonetheless have a route for return home panned if necessary, and will never be more than a few hours’ drive or plane ride from Kilimanjaro International Airport. I am in the uniquely privileged position of having ex-colleagues and friends who work in travel in Tanzania so I have a very good network in place to help me if I get into any difficulties throughout my trip.

66

CATEGOR

Y CATEGORY RISKS


DEGREE OF RISK

(1 = LOW,

5 = HIGH)

ASSOCIATED CONTROL


18.0 Additional Risks Related to your Specific Project (COMPLETE INFORMATION IN EACH COLUMN)

18.1 n/a

n/a

n/a

18.2

[Continue as needed] Hitting ‘tab’ in the last column of the last row will result in a new row being added.

18.3

67

APPENDIX D – RISK ASSESSMENT APPROVAL EMAIL

68

REFERENCE LIST

Anderson, D. and Grove, R., 1987. Introduction: The scramble for Eden: past, present and

future in African conservation. In: D. Anderson and R. Grove (eds.), 1987. Conservation in

Africa: People, policies and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Introduction

Arksey, H. and Knight, P., 1999. Interviewing for Social Scientists. London: SAGE

Arsel, M. and Büscher, B., 2012. Nature™ Inc.: Changes and Continuities in Neoliberal

Conservation and Market-based Environmental Policy. Development and Change, [e-journal]

43(1). Available through: http://onlinebly.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-

7660.2012.01752.x/full [Accessed 25/07/2015]

AWF, 2010. AWF Opposes Proposed Serengeti Highway [online] 16/06/2010. Available at:

https://www.awf.org/news/awf-opposes-proposed-serengeti-highway [Accessed

21/08/2015]

Beekwilder, J., 2015. Serengeti Voted the Best Safari Park of Africa. Safaribookings.com,

[blog] 22/06/2015. Available at: https://www.safaribookings.com/blog/260 [Accessed

21/08/2015]

Blaikie, P., 2001. Social Nature and Environmental Policy in the South: Views from Verandah

and Veld. In: N. Castree and B. Braun (eds.), 2001. Social Nature: Theory, Practice and

Politics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Ch. 5

Braun, B., 2009. Nature. In: D. Livermann, D. Demeritt, N. Castree and B. Rhoads (eds.),

2009. A companion to environmental geography [e-book] Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Available through: http://kcl.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=437424 [Accessed

07/07/2015] Ch. 2

Briggs, J., 2014. Indigenous knowledge and development. In: V. Desai and R. Potter (eds.),

2014. The Companion to Development Studies. 3rd ed. [e-book] Hoboken: Taylor and

Francis. Available through:

http://kcl.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1656758 [Accessed 11/08/2015] Ch. 2.0

Brockington, D., and Duffy, R., 2010. Capitalism and Conservation: The Production and

Reproduction of Biodiversity Conservation. Antipode, [e-journal] 42(3). Available through:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00760.x/pdf [Accessed

07/07/2015]

Brockington, D., Duffy, R., and Igoe, J., 2008. Nature Unbound: Conservation, Capitalism and

the Future of Protected Areas. London: Earthscan

Brohman, J., 1996. New Directions in Tourism for Third World Development. Annals of

Tourism Research, [e-journal] 23(1). Available through

http://onlinebly.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2012.01752.x/full

http://onlinebly.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2012.01752.x/full

https://www.awf.org/news/awf-opposes-proposed-serengeti-highway

https://www.safaribookings.com/blog/260

http://kcl.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=437424


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00760.x/pdf

69

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0160738395000437 [Accessed

24/07/2015]

Bruner, E., 2001. The Maasai and the Lion King: Authenticity, Nationalism, and Globalization

in African Tourism. American Ethnologist, [e-journal] 28(4). Available through:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/ae.2001.28.4.881/full [Accessed 24/07/2015]

Bruner, E., and Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B., 1994. Maasai on the Lawn: Tourist Realism in East

Africa. Cultural Anthropology, [e-journal] 9(4). Available through:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/656384 [Accessed 27/08/2015]

Bryman, A., 2012. Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Büscher, B. 2012. Inverted Commons: Africa’s Nature in the Global Imagination. ISS Staff

Group 4: Rural Development, Environment and Population. [pdf] Available through:

http://repub.eur.nl/pub/38414/ [Accessed 24/07/2015]

Büscher, B. and Dressler, W., 2007. Linking Neoprotectionism and Environmental

Governance: On the Rapidly Increasing Tensions between Actors in the Environment-

Development Nexus. Conservation and Society, [e-journal] 5(4). Available through:

http://www.conservationandsociety.org [Accessed 07/07/2015]

Caballero, P., 2014. Beyond the allure of the Serengeti: What can nature-based tourism do

for development? [blog] World Bank. Available through:

http://blogs.worldbank.org/voices/beyond-allure-serengeti-what-can-nature-based-

tourism-do-development [Accessed 26/07/2015]

Carrier, J. and Macleod, D., 2005. Bursting the Bubble: The Socio-Cultural Context of

Ecotourism. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, [e-journal] 11(2). Available

through: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3804212 [Accessed 22/08/2015]

Castree, N., 2001. Socializing Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics. In: N. Castree and B.

Braun (eds.), 2001. Social Nature: Theory, Practice and Politics. Oxford: Blackwell

Publishers.

Castree, N., 2005. Nature [e-book] Hoboken: Taylor & Francis Ltd. Available through:


Chok, S., Macbeth, J., Warren, C., 2007. Tourism as a Tool for Poverty Alleviation: A Critical

Analysis of ‘Pro-Poor Tourism’ and Implications for Sustainability. In: C. Hall (ed.), 2007.

Pro-poor Tourism: Who Benefits? Perspectives on Tourism and Poverty Reduction Clevedon:

Channel View Publications. Ch. 2

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0160738395000437

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/ae.2001.28.4.881/full

http://www.jstor.org/stable/656384

http://repub.eur.nl/pub/38414/

http://www.conservationandsociety.org/

http://blogs.worldbank.org/voices/beyond-allure-serengeti-what-can-nature-based-tourism-do-development

http://blogs.worldbank.org/voices/beyond-allure-serengeti-what-can-nature-based-tourism-do-development



70

Cloke, P., Cook, I., Crang, P., Goodwin, M., Painter, J. and Philo, C., 2004. Practising Human

Geography. London: SAGE

Craggs, R., 2014. Development in a global-historical context. In: V. Desai and R. Potter

(eds.), 2014. The Companion to Development Studies. 3rd ed. [e-book] Hoboken: Taylor and


http://kcl.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1656758 [Accessed 24/08/2015] Ch. 1.1.

Crang, M., 2003. Qualitative methods: touchy, feely, look-see? Progress in Human

Geography, [e-journal] 27(4). Available through:

http://phg.sagepub.com/content/27/4/494.full.pdf+html?hwshib2=authn%3A1418468901%

3A20141212%253Ad90b06ae-b0d7-4b10-8a86-

fb00f4c64f4b%3A0%3A0%3A0%3AQlZKNoMUjulqqZgTpstthw%3D%3D [Accessed 7th August

2015]

Cronon, W., 1996a. Introduction: In Search of Nature. In: W. Cronon (ed.), 1996.

Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. New York; London: W. W.

Norton & Co. Introduction

Cronon, W., 1996b. The Trouble with Wilderness: Or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature.

Environmental History, [e-journal] 1(1). Available through:


Damania, R., Scandizzo, P., and Glauber, A., 2014. Policy Research Working Paper 6890,

Ecosystems: Burden or Bounty? [pdf] The World Bank. Available at http://www-

wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2014/05/28/000158349

_20140528140522/Rendered/PDF/WPS6890.pdf [Accessed 21/08/2015]

Dann, G., 2002. Tourism and Development. In: V. Desai and R. Potter (eds.), 2002. The

Companion to Development Studies. London: Arnold. Ch. 4.11 Introduction

Dobson, A. 2012: Green political thought: an introduction. 3rd Edition. London: Unwin

Hyman http://lib.myilibrary.com/Open.aspx?id=32777 [Accessed 21/08/2015]

Dobson, A., Borner, M., Sinclair, A., Hudson, P., Anderson, T., Bigurube, G., Davenport, T.,

Deutsch, J., Durant, S., Estes, R., Estes, A., Fryxell, J., Foley, C., Gadd, M., Haydon, D., Holdo,

R., Holt, R., Grant, J., Hopcraft, C., Hilborn, R., Jambiya, G., Laurenson, M., Melamari, L.,

Morindat, A., Ogutu, J., Schaller, G., and Wolanski, E., 2010. Road will ruin Serengeti.

Nature, [e-journal] 467, pp272-273. Available through:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7313/full/467272a.html [Accessed

21/08/2015]

Duffy, R., 2002. A Trip Too Far: Ecotourism, Politics and Exploitation. London: Earthscan


http://phg.sagepub.com/content/27/4/494.full.pdf+html?hwshib2=authn%3A1418468901%3A20141212%253Ad90b06ae-b0d7-4b10-8a86-fb00f4c64f4b%3A0%3A0%3A0%3AQlZKNoMUjulqqZgTpstthw%3D%3D




http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2014/05/28/000158349_20140528140522/Rendered/PDF/WPS6890.pdf



http://lib.myilibrary.com/Open.aspx?id=32777

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7313/full/467272a.html

71

Dunn, K., 2010. Interviewing. In: I. Hay (ed.), 2010. Qualitative Research Methods in Human

Geography. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press. Ch. 6.

EACJ, 2014a. Court decides that construction of the road across Serengeti National Park is

unlawful and also grants application for withdraw of the matter on the removal of the EALA

Speaker. [online] Available through: http://eacj.org/?p=2221 [Accessed 21/08/2015]

EACJ, 2014b. Appeal No. 3 of 2014, between The Attorney General of the United Republic of

Tanzania (appellant) and African Network for Animal Welfare (respondent), 29th July, 2014

[pdf] Available through: http://eacj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/APPEAL-NO-3-OF-

2014-FINAL-31ST-JULY-205-Anwaw.pdf [Accessed 21/08/2015]

Edwards, S., 2012. Is Tanzania a Success Story? A Long Term Analysis. Working Paper 17764

[pdf] Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Available at

http://www.nber.org/papers/w17764 [27/07/2015]

Fletcher, R., 2010. Neoliberal environmentality: Towards a poststructuralist political ecology

of the conservation debate. Conservation and Society, [e-journal] 8(3). Available through:

http://www.conservationandsociety.org [Accessed 07/07/2015]

Friedman-Rudovsky, J., 2015. The Ecotourism Industry is Saving Tanzania’s Animals and

Threatening Its Indigenous People. Vice, [online] 12/05/2015. Available through:

http://www.vice.com/read/casualties-of-conservation-0000649-v22n5 [Accessed

21/08/2015]

Friend, A., 1992. Economics, Ecology and Sustainable Development: Are They Compatible?

Environmental Values, [e-journal] 1(2). Available through:


FZS, 2010. FZS Statement on the Proposed Serengeti Commercial Road. [press release]

15/06/2010 Available at: https://fzs.org/en/news/press-releases/fzs-statement-proposed-

serengeti-commercial-road/ [Accessed 21/08/2015]

Gardner, B., 2012. Tourism and the politics of the global land grab in Tanzania: markets,

appropriation and recognition. The Journal of Peasant Studies, [e-journal] 39(2). Available

through: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2012.666973 [Accessed 21/08/2015]

Gee, J., 1999. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London: Routledge

Geertz, C., 1973. Thick Description, Interpretation of Cultures, [pdf scan of chapter]

Available through:

http://keats.kcl.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/969724/mod_resource/content/1/Geertz%2C%20C%2

0%281973%29%20Thick%20description%2C%20Interpretation%20of%20Cultures.pdf

[Accessed 7th August 2015]

http://eacj.org/?p=2221

http://eacj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/APPEAL-NO-3-OF-2014-FINAL-31ST-JULY-205-Anwaw.pdf

http://eacj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/APPEAL-NO-3-OF-2014-FINAL-31ST-JULY-205-Anwaw.pdf

http://www.nber.org/papers/w17764

http://www.conservationandsociety.org/

http://www.vice.com/read/casualties-of-conservation-0000649-v22n5


https://fzs.org/en/news/press-releases/fzs-statement-proposed-serengeti-commercial-road/

https://fzs.org/en/news/press-releases/fzs-statement-proposed-serengeti-commercial-road/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2012.666973

http://keats.kcl.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/969724/mod_resource/content/1/Geertz%2C%20C%20%281973%29%20Thick%20description%2C%20Interpretation%20of%20Cultures.pdf

http://keats.kcl.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/969724/mod_resource/content/1/Geertz%2C%20C%20%281973%29%20Thick%20description%2C%20Interpretation%20of%20Cultures.pdf

72

Ghimire, K. and Pimbert, M., 1997. Social change and conservation: an overview of issues

and concepts. In: K. Ghimire and M. Pimbert (eds.), 1997. Social Change and Conservation.

London: Earthscan. Ch. 1

Gill, R., 2000. Discourse Analysis. In: M. Bauer and G. Gaskell (eds.), 2000. Qualitative

Researching with Text, Image and Sound: A Practical Handbook. London: SAGE Publications

Ltd. Ch. 10.

Goodson, L. and Phillimore, J., 2004. The inquiry paradigm in qualitative tourism research.

In: J. Phillimore and L. Goodson (eds.), 2004. Qualitative Research in Tourism: Ontologies,

epistemologies and methodologies. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Ch. 2.

Gregory, D., 2001. (Post)Colonialism and the Production of Nature. In: N. Castree and B.

Braun (eds.), 2001. Social Nature: Theory, Practice and Politics. Oxford: Blackwell

Publishers. Ch. 5

Gubrium, J. and Holstein, J., 2003. Postmodern Sensibilities. In: J. Gubrium and J. Holstein

(eds.), 2002. Postmodern Interviewing. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Ch. 1.

Harrison, D., 2008. Pro-poor Tourism: A critique. Third World Quarterly, [e-journal] 29(5)

Special Issue. Available at

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01436590802105983 [Accessed 09/08/2015]

Harvey, D., 1990. The condition of postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd

Hoggart, K., Lees, L. and Davies, A., 2002. Researching Human Geography. London: Arnold

Holden, A., 2005. Tourism and the Social Sciences. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge

Holstein, J. and Gubrium, J., 1995. The Active Interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Holstein, J. and Gubrium, J., 2003. Active Interviewing. In: J. Gubrium and J. Holstein (eds.),

2002. Postmodern Interviewing. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Ch. 4.

Homewood, K., Brockington, D., Sullivan, S., 2010. Alternative view of Serengeti road.

Nature, [e-journal] 467, pp788-789. Available through:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7317/full/467788e.html [Accessed

25/08/2015]

Honey, M., 2008. Ecotourism and sustainable development: who owns paradise?

Washington, D.C.: Island Press

Hyden, G. and Karlstrom, B., 1993. Structural adjustment as a policy process: The case of

Tanzania. World Development, [e-journal] 21(9). Available through:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0305750X9390120X [Accessed

27/07/2015]

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01436590802105983

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7317/full/467788e.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0305750X9390120X

73

Igoe, J., 2010. The spectacle of nature in the global economy of appearances:

Anthropological engagements with the spectacular mediations of transnational

conservation. Critique of Anthropology, [e-journal] 30(4). Available through:

http://coa.sagepub.com/content/30/4/375.short [Accessed 25/07/2015]

Igoe, J. and Brockington, D., 2007. Neoliberal Conservation: A Brief Introduction.

Conservation and Society, [e-journal] 5(4). Available through:

http://www.conservationandsociety.org/temp/ConservatSoc54432-4754269_131222.pdf

[Accessed 25/07/2015]

Igoe, J. and Croucher, B., 2007. Conservation, Commerce, and Communities: The Story of

Community-Based Wildlife Management Areas in Tanzania’s Northern Tourist Circuit.

Conservation and Society, [e-journal] 5(4). Available through:


Igoe, J., Neves, K., and Brockington, D., 2010. A Spectacular Eco-Tour around the Historic

Bloc: Theorising the Convergence of Biodiversity Conservation and Capitalist Expansion.

Antipode, [e-journal] 42(3). Available through:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00761.x/epdf [Accessed

07/07/2015]

Kitchin, R. and Tate, N., 2000. Conducting Research in Human Geography: Theory,

Methodology & Practice. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited

Klein, N., 2007. The shock doctrine: the rise of disaster capitalism. London: Penguin

Linton, N., 1987. Trends in tourism development: A ‘Third World’ perspective. Tourism

Management, [e-journal] 8(2). Available through

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02615177/8/2 [Accessed 24/07/2015]

Longhurst, R., 2010. Semi-structured Interviews and Focus Groups. In: N. Clifford, S. French

and G Valentine (eds.), 2010. Key Methods in Geography. London: SAGE Publications. Ch. 8.

Macnaghten, P. and Urry, J., 1998. Contested Natures. London: SAGE Publications Ltd

Marzano, M., 2012. Informed Consent. In J. Gubrium, J. Holstein, A. Marvasti and K.

McKinney, eds., 2012. The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the

Craft. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Ch. 30.

McAfee, K., 1999. Selling nature to save it? Biodiversity and green developmentalism.

Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, [e-journal] 17, pp133-154. Available

through: http://www.environment-and-planning.com/epd/fulltext/d17/d170133.pdf

[Accessed 07/07/2015]

McCarthy, J. and Prudham, S., 2004. Neoliberal nature and the nature of neoliberalism.

Geoforum, [e-journal] 35(3). Available through:

http://coa.sagepub.com/content/30/4/375.short



http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00761.x/epdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02615177/8/2

http://www.environment-and-planning.com/epd/fulltext/d17/d170133.pdf

74

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718503001118 [Accessed

07/07/2015]

Mels, T., 2009. Analysing Environmental Discourses and Representations. In: D. Livermann,

D. Demeritt, N. Castree and B. Rhoads (eds.), 2009. A companion to environmental

geography [e-book] Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Available through:

http://kcl.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=437424 [Accessed 24/07/2015] Ch. 23

Monbiot, G., 1994. Keepers of the Artificial Wilderness. Monbiot.com, [blog] 01/07/1994.

Available at: http://www.monbiot.com/1994/07/01/keepers-of-the-artificial-wilderness/

[Accessed 21/08/2015]

Mowforth M., and Munt I., 2003. Development and New Tourism in the Third World. 2nd Ed.

London: Routledge

Neumann, R., 1998. Imposing Wilderness: Struggles over Livelihood and Nature Preservation

in Africa. London: University of California Press

Ng’wanakilala, F., 2011. Tanzania’s road through Serengeti to be unpaved. Reuters, [online]

01/07/2011. Available through: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/01/us-tanzania-

serengeti-road-idUSTRE7601KK20110701 [Accessed 21/08/2015]

Ngowi, D., 2014. Tanzania: Arson Attack Costs Investor a Staggering 1.5 Billion/ - Loss.

allAfrica, [online] 28/12/2014. Available through:

http://allafrica.com/stories/201412291021.html [Accessed 21/08/2015]

Nordlund, S., 2015. Brief Report about How I Was Arrested in Loliondo. View from the

Termite Mound: A blog about threats against Maasai land in Loliondo – Thomson Safaris,

OBC and ruthless hypocrisy, [blog] 01/07/2015. Available at:

http://termitemoundview.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/brief-report-about-how-i-was-

arrested.html [Accessed 21/08/2015]

Norton, A., 1996. Experiencing Nature: The Reproduction of Environmental Discourse

Through Safari Tourism in East Africa. Geoforum, [e-journal] 27(3). Available through:


24/07/2015]

O’Reilly, K., 2005. Ethnographic methods. London: Routledge

Okello and Yerian, 2009. Tourist satisfaction in relation to attractions and implications for

conservation in the protected areas of the Northern Circuit, Tanzania. Journal of Sustainable

Tourism, [e-journal] 17(5). Available through:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669580902928450 [Accessed 21/08/2015]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718503001118


http://www.monbiot.com/1994/07/01/keepers-of-the-artificial-wilderness/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/01/us-tanzania-serengeti-road-idUSTRE7601KK20110701

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/01/us-tanzania-serengeti-road-idUSTRE7601KK20110701

http://allafrica.com/stories/201412291021.html

http://termitemoundview.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/brief-report-about-how-i-was-arrested.html

http://termitemoundview.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/brief-report-about-how-i-was-arrested.html


75

Pimm, S., 2010. The Serengeti road to disaster. National Geographic [online] Available

through: http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2010/06/18/serengeti_road/ [Accessed

21/08/2015]

Prudham, S., 2009. Commodification. In: D. Livermann, D. Demeritt, N. Castree and B.

Rhoads (eds.), 2009. A companion to environmental geography [e-book] Chichester, UK:

Wiley-Blackwell. Available through http://kcl.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=437424

[Accessed 07/07/2015] Ch. 9

Ramutsindela, M., 2004. Parks and People in Postcolonial Societies: Experiences in Southern

Africa. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers

Salazar, N., 2006. Touristifying Tanzania: Local Guides, Global Discourse. Annals of Tourism

Research, [e-journal] 33(3). Available through:


24/07/2015]

Salazar, N., 2010. Envisioning Eden: Mobilizing Imaginaries in Tourism and Beyond. New

York, Oxford: Berghahn Books

Scheyvens, R., 2007. Exploring the Tourism Poverty Nexus. In: C. Hall, (ed.), 2007. Pro-poor

Tourism: Who Benefits? Perspectives on Tourism and Poverty Reduction. Clevedon: Channel

View Publications. Ch. 6

Schuurman, F., 2014. The impasse in development studies. In: V. Desai and R. Potter (eds.),

2014. The Companion to Development Studies. 3rd ed. [e-book] Hoboken: Taylor and


http://kcl.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1656758 [Accessed 24/08/2015] Ch. 1.4.

Sharpley, R. and Telfer, D., 2002. Tourism and Development: Concepts and Issues. [e-book]

Channel View Publications. Available through:

http://lib.myilibrary.com/Open.aspx?id=62789 [Accessed 24/07/2015]

Sharpley, R. and Telfer, D., 2008. Tourism and Development in the Developing World. [e-

book] London; New York: Routledge. Available through:

http://www.kcl.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=325293 [Accessed 24/07/2015]

Simon, D., 2002. Neo-liberalism, structural adjustment and poverty reduction strategies. In: V. Desai and R. Potter (eds.), 2002. The Companion to Development Studies. London: Arnold. Ch. 2.6.

http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2010/06/18/serengeti_road/




http://lib.myilibrary.com/Open.aspx?id=62789

http://www.kcl.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=325293

76

Smith, D., 2014. Tanzania accused of backtracking over sale of Masai’s ancestral land. The

Guardian, [online] 16/11/2014. Available through:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/16/tanzania-government-accused-

serengeti-sale-maasai-lands [Accessed 21/08/2015]

Smith, N., 2007. Nature as accumulation strategy. [pdf] Socialist Register 43. Available

through King’s e-Learning and Teaching Service:

http://keats.kcl.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/971664/mod_resource/content/1/Neil%20Smith%20N

ature%20as%20accumulation%20strategy%20Socialist%20Register0.pdf [Accessed

09/08/2015]

STSH 2011a. (2011, 8 November) KEEPING WATCH TODAY – Taking a STEP Toward

Tomorrow Available through: https://www.facebook.com/notes/stop-the-serengeti-

highway/keeping-watch-today-taking-a-step-toward-tomorrow/291078497590019

[Accessed 24/08/2015]

STSH 2011b. (2011, 9 November) STEP project [Facebook status update] Available through:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/stop-the-serengeti-highway/step-

project/291599610871241 [Accessed 24/08/2015]

STSH, 2012. (2012, 19 August) EXPLANATIONS OF THESE PROBLEMS SHOULD BE GIVEN TO

ALL PEOPLE [Facebook timeline photo] Available through:

https://www.facebook.com/125601617471610/photos/pb.125601617471610.-

2207520000.1439484945./451814331517002/?type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-

lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-xaf1%2Ft31.0-

8%2F210138_451814331517002_1558278660_o.jpg&smallsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-

lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-xaf1%2Fv%2Ft1.0-

9%2F419872_451814331517002_1558278660_n.jpg%3Foh%3D467e4423805598ff1ff4d10ff

671d784%26oe%3D564A5575&size=2048%2C1365&fbid=451814331517002 [Accessed

21/08/2015]

STSH, 2015a. (2015, 26 January) WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO SAVE THE SERENGETI? JANE

GOODALL RESPONDS [Facebook timeline photo] Available through:

https://www.facebook.com/125601617471610/photos/a.125680667463705.14344.125601

617471610/898823606816070/?type=1&theater [Accessed 21/08/2015]

STSH, 2015b. (2015, 26 June) AFRICA MAY LOSE 3.8 MILLION JOBS IN NEXT DECADE DUE TO

POACHING [Facebook timeline photo] Available through:


617471610/983010691730694/?type=1 [Accessed 21/08/2015]

STSH, 2015c. (2015, 27 June) 0 LIONS + 0 ELEPHANTS + 0 WILDEBEEST MIGRATION = $0

TOURISM DOLLARS [Facebook status update]. Available through:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/16/tanzania-government-accused-serengeti-sale-maasai-lands

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/16/tanzania-government-accused-serengeti-sale-maasai-lands

http://keats.kcl.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/971664/mod_resource/content/1/Neil%20Smith%20Nature%20as%20accumulation%20strategy%20Socialist%20Register0.pdf

http://keats.kcl.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/971664/mod_resource/content/1/Neil%20Smith%20Nature%20as%20accumulation%20strategy%20Socialist%20Register0.pdf

https://www.facebook.com/notes/stop-the-serengeti-highway/keeping-watch-today-taking-a-step-toward-tomorrow/291078497590019

https://www.facebook.com/notes/stop-the-serengeti-highway/keeping-watch-today-taking-a-step-toward-tomorrow/291078497590019

https://www.facebook.com/notes/stop-the-serengeti-highway/step-project/291599610871241

https://www.facebook.com/notes/stop-the-serengeti-highway/step-project/291599610871241

https://www.facebook.com/125601617471610/photos/pb.125601617471610.-2207520000.1439484945./451814331517002/?type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-xaf1%2Ft31.0-8%2F210138_451814331517002_1558278660_o.jpg&smallsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-xaf1%2Fv%2Ft1.0-9%2F419872_451814331517002_1558278660_n.jpg%3Foh%3D467e4423805598ff1ff4d10ff671d784%26oe%3D564A5575&size=2048%2C1365&fbid=451814331517002







https://www.facebook.com/125601617471610/photos/a.125680667463705.14344.125601617471610/898823606816070/?type=1&theater


https://www.facebook.com/125601617471610/photos/a.125680667463705.14344.125601617471610/983010691730694/?type=1


77


617471610/983400655025031/?type=1&theater [Accessed 24/08/2015]

STSH, 2015d. (2015, 10 July) AREN’T WE WORTH ONE HOUR? [Facebook timeline photo]

Available through:

https://www.facebook.com/125601617471610/photos/pb.125601617471610.-

2207520000.1440619405./989440227754407/?type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-

lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-xfa1%2Fv%2Ft1.0-

9%2F11540828_989440227754407_659558767667488451_n.jpg%3Foh%3D5f55df8aea724

4795bd3b9eec6c80025%26oe%3D566F08DA&size=727%2C581&fbid=989440227754407

[Accessed 21/08/2015]

STSH, 2015e. (2015, 30 July) JULIUS NYERERE – FIRST PRESIDENT UNDERSTOOD THE

IMPORTANCE OF CONSERVATION [Facebook timeline photo] Available through:


617471610/998772276821202/?type=1 [Accessed 21/08/2015]

TANAPA, n.d.. Corporate Information. [online] Available through:

http://www.tanzaniaparks.com/corporate_information.html [Accessed 21/08/2015]

Tonkiss, F., 2012. Discourse Analysis. In: C. Seale (ed.), 2012. Researching Society and

Culture. 3rd ed. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Ch. 23.

UNDP 2014. Tanzania Human Development Report 2014 [pdf] Joint report with United

Republic of Tanzania. Dar Es Salaam: Economic and Social Research Foundation. Available

through: http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/thdr2014-main.pdf [Accessed 21/08/2015]

Urry, J. and Larsen, J., 2011. The Tourist Gaze 3.0. London: SAGE Publications Ltd

Wadhams, N., 2010. New Public Road to Split the Serengeti? National Geographic, [online]

19/08/2010. Available through:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/08/100817-science-environment-

wildebeest-migration-tanzania-road/ [Accessed 21/08/2015]

Waitt, G., 2010. Doing Foucauldian Discourse Analysis. In: I. Hay (ed.), 2010. Qualitative

Research Methods in Human Geography. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press. Ch. 11.

Williams, R., 1980. Problems in materialism and culture: selected essays. London: Verso

Williams, R., 1983. Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society. London: Fontana Press

World Bank, 2014. Poverty headcount ratio at $2 a day (PPP) (% of population). [online]

Available through: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.2DAY/countries [Accessed

21/08/2015]



https://www.facebook.com/125601617471610/photos/pb.125601617471610.-2207520000.1440619405./989440227754407/?type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-xfa1%2Fv%2Ft1.0-9%2F11540828_989440227754407_659558767667488451_n.jpg%3Foh%3D5f55df8aea7244795bd3b9eec6c80025%26oe%3D566F08DA&size=727%2C581&fbid=989440227754407







http://www.tanzaniaparks.com/corporate_information.html

http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/thdr2014-main.pdf

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/08/100817-science-environment-wildebeest-migration-tanzania-road/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/08/100817-science-environment-wildebeest-migration-tanzania-road/

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.2DAY/countries

78

WTTC 2014. Travel & Tourism Economic Impact 2014: Tanzania [pdf] London: WTTC.

Available through: http://www.wttc.org/-

/media/files/reports/economic%20impact%20research/country%20reports/tanzania2014.p

df [Accessed 21/08/2015]

http://www.wttc.org/-/media/files/reports/economic%20impact%20research/country%20reports/tanzania2014.pdf



“Where there are trees, there are no builders” - King's …€¦ · · 2017-06-22“Where...

Documents

Transcript of “Where there are trees, there are no builders” - King's …€¦ · · 2017-06-22“Where...