LEARN MORE BELOW
Legal Case Against the Highway
Serengeti Highway Legal Defense. Important New Precedent Set
In 2010, the African Network for Animal Welfare brought a legal case in the East African Court of Justice against a proposed highway that would cross the Serengeti National Park. Serengeti Watch supported it with funding and research.
In June 2014, the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) issued an injunction against a paved highway. The government of Tanzania appealed that decision, challenging the authority of the Court itself by saying it no jurisdiction or power to issue injunctions.
The key points of the Court’s decision are:
The Court affirmed its jurisdiction under the environmental terms of the East African Treaty, including the right to issue injunctions.
The Court said that an action to build a Serengeti highway had not been established. It ruled that no injunction against it could be granted for this reason.
Should action be taken to start a highway, clearly it will contravene the terms of the East African Community Treaty.
Significance of the Case
Note: Although we say Tanzania, it is shorthand for “the Tanzanian administration under President Kikwete.” The East African Court of Justice established a historic precedent for the East African Community’s right to regulate environmental issues.
Although we have no specific highway ban, the Court reaffirmed the dangers of the highway and established the basis for a future ban should construction begin, saying there was an
“…imminent risk of irreversible damage inherent in any attempt to implement the ‘initial plan.’ … In this regard, it is quite evident that were the authorities of [Tanzania] to take any measures to activate their “initial plan” to construct the Super Highway through the Serengeti, as originally conceived, they would have, without a doubt, fallen foul of Tanzania’s above-mentioned undertakings of [The East African Treaty].
and,
“The point here is that all parties now agree that if the initial proposal is implemented, then the adverse effects would not be mitigated by all the good that the road was intended to bring…”
The judges praised the African Network for Animal Welfare (ANAW) for bringing the first ever environmental case before the Court. It appears that the Court is ready to entertain more such cases:
“The Applicants have, against all formidable odds, partially triumphed in their quest (in this, the first Environmental Case of its kind to be brought before this Court). They brought the Reference and have prosecuted it not out of any wish for personal, corporate, or private gain; but out of the public spirited interest of the noblest kind – namely conservation, preservation and protection of a natural resource which (in this particular case), is truly a gem of a heritage, one-of-a-kind for all mankind.”
Tanzania’s intentions were clearly to undermine the authority of the East African Community and its judicial system. It sought to deny the Court any jurisdiction or power. The Court forcefully upheld its power calling Tanzania’s tactics “an attempt to derail and to divert the Court” and “a calculated abuse” of the process.
Tanzania could have dropped the highway legal case earlier and walked away. But it didn’t. It filed an appeal, causing speculation that it intends to someday build such a highway.
It is doubly important to be vigilant, because a future case will have to be brought when specific actions bring the highway into the realm of possibility. A highway or upgraded road, or any roads that would interfere with the migration and the ecosystem could be started quickly.
Finally, rather than outside pressure, this case was initiated by an East African NGO in an East African legal system, under a treaty that was designed to protect member states. It is exactly the kind of local initiative that is needed if conservation is to succeed.
Questions Remain: Although the decision bars the paved highway originally proposed by the Tanzanian government, many important issues are left open:
Upgraded road still planned: Although the case sought to prevent any upgrading, the court has not specifically barred this.The government of Tanzania said that it had abandoned plans for a paved road and will instead upgrade to an all-weather gravel road. This road would replace a seasonal dirt track currently used by four wheel drive vehicles. The track is in a zone designated as a Wilderness Area that is reserved for park vehicles and walking safaris.
Roads for public use not addressed: Although the court document mentioned that roads in the Serengeti should be “reserved for tourists and park personnel and not the general public, “ it’s injunction did not mention this. Tanzania still has the ability to open roads for the public, including commercial use.
Roads outside of the park not addressed: The Serengeti ecosystem includes areas within the Serengeti National Park and areas outside. Wildlife migration takes place in both areas, often well outside park boundaries. There are plans for paved roads in migration areas in the north that will impact the migration. The court case did not address this. An uncertain future: Many observers believe that the gravel road will inevitably become a highway carrying more commercial traffic. There will be increased traffic and continued pressure to connect the paved roads with a commercial link through the park. Richard Leakey, for one, says that the highway is “inevitable.”
The Southern Route
Alternative to Serengeti Highway Best for Socio-Economic Development
An alternate route around the Serengeti clearly makes the most sense for Tanzania’s economy and people as shown in this impressive analysis.
The study was led by Dr Grant Hopcraft, who said:Researchers at the University of Glasgow have published a study showing that a road around the Serengeti (rather than through it) would bring substantially larger social, economic and health benefits to the Tanzanian people. At the same time, a road circumnavigating the Serengeti would allay widespread fears that the highway would be ecologically damaging and could significantly disrupt the annual migration of 1.3 million wildebeest (the largest such migration on the planet).
“It is important to remain objective about issues of national development especially in relation to wildlife conservation. The central question is: Which route would provide the greatest returns to Tanzania’s economy and social well-being without compromising the ecological integrity and services provided by the Serengeti?
The research conclude that routes going around the Serengeti National Park access twice as many people as the route through it. In particular, the Mbulu route connects the most number of unemployed people to regional economic hubs, and the largest labour force to the most entrepreneurial businesses. It also offers the best agricultural access, has the largest potential for future agricultural developments and links several regional supply chains which would improve national food security. This route also connects the most schools and hospitals and makes the largest contribution towards improving social welfare.
Read more about the southern route around the Serengeti. Download here:
Petition Against the Highway
World Scientists Petition for Alternate Highway – Warn of Dangers
Serengeti Watch asked experts around the world to sign a petition asking the government of Tanzania to abandon plans for a northern route through the Serengeti and build an alternate route. In addition a survey was included asking scientists to evaluate the likelihood of various impacts, and add their own information.
302 Scientists from 32 countries responded.
SUMMARY
• The petition states… “the road will result in severe, negative, irreversible impacts, with little mitigation possible.”
• It agrees with warnings by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee and adds… “The type of road surface matters little. The migration itself could easily collapse, with a devastating effect on all wildlife, the grasslands, and the entire ecosystem.”
• The petition concludes by asking that an alternative route be found.
• Included in the petition is a survey of likely negative impacts. Most scientists conclude that the collapse of the migration would be likely to inevitable.
• Scientists also give background information on their own experience and reasons for believing that the Serengeti ecosystem would be in danger.
SURVEY ON IMPACTS
Results indicate that scientists believe these to be extremely serious. Many, in fact, concluded that the impacts, including the collapse of the wildebeest migration, would be inevitable. The impacts listed
are:
Combined % Saying Inevitable, Extremely Likely, Very Likely
Disruption and obstruction of migration routes: 85%
57% said it would be inevitable. 28% said extremely likely.
Introduction of invasive plants, animals, and disease: 91%
35% said inevitable. 67% said very likely or extremely likely.
Increased mortality due to wildlife-vehicle collisions: 98%
67% said inevitable. 21% said extremely likely.
Intensive, organized poaching, especially reintroduced rhino: 88%
32% said inevitable. 38% said extremely likely.
Loss of habitat from human settlement and agriculture: 87%
40% said inevitable. 32% said extremely likely.
_________________________________
Eventual collapse of migration:
54% said very or extremely likely. 17% said inevitable. 71%
- Results of Survey Showing Likely Impacts
Samples of Comments on Impacts
John Sidle, Wildlife Biologist
US Forest Service, USA
I must assume that the government of Tanzania and its consultants have reviewed the large body of literature on this subject. In the United States almost all of the highways were constructed before we knew about the blocking effect that highways have on wildlife. We have a network of roads in the U.S. that has had the unintended consequence of slaughtering wildlife and curtailing seasonal movements. We now try to mitigate through overpasses and underpasses for wildlife on existing roads. But it is an expensive and problematic retrofit. I think that Tanzania should take advantage of the lessons learned in the U.S. and find a solution that avoids concentrations of wildlife such as in the Serengeti.
Dr. Richard Estes
IUCN Species Survival Commission, USA
For 47 years the wildebeest of the Serengeti ecosystem has been the focus of my studies of African mammals. In addition to observations of the 1.2 million wildebeest that live on the Serengeti short-grass plains during the rains between November and May, I have followed their movements at the end of the rains, which coincide with the annual rut. In recent years, increasing numbers of wildebeest have headed north instead of west and northwest; the new road would cut straight across the route of these “armies”.
The Serengeti population is the last and greatest of all wildebeest populations. The proposed road is a classic example of a development project that puts short-term human interests above the conservation of natural ecosystems, completely ignoring the 1979 UNEP Convention on Migratory Species, which Tanzania ratified in 1999.
Fencing the road through SNP could lead to a 90% reduction in the population, as occurred following fencing of Kruger and Etosha National Parks, not to mention the mortality that accompanied construction of veterinary cordon fences in Botswana.
Professor Norman Owen-Smith
University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa
A truck highway will not be compatible with the seasonal movements of around a million wildebeest and numerous other ungulates back and forth across this route, and will ultimately lead to the blocking of this northward migration into the dry season range in northern Serengeti and Masai Mara. This will have substantial consequences for the numbers of wildebeest and other species that can be supported within Serengeti National Park, and reduce its supreme international status as a wildlife heritage.
Professor E.J. Milner-Gulland
Imperial College London, UK
Based on the many years of research that has been carried out into the dynamics of the ecosystem, it is very clear that the proposed road could do permanent and irreversible damage to this area, which is of critical global importance both for biodiversity and for humanity. I hope the Tanzanian government will reconsider this proposal.
Traci Birge, Researcher
ARONIA R & D, Finland
The government has an obligation to serve all citizens, and rural residents are a group in need of infrastructural improvements to help them improve their economies and opportunities and help move rural goods to urban centres. However, the proposed highway route would be devastating for the ecology of the Serengeti, and would have long-term negative effects on local residents, wildlife and ecology and would be a terrible blow for global biodiversity. The highway will both fragment habitats and lead to human encroachment into the Serengeti. Please find a more sustainable and less environmentally costly alternative to the proposed highway route.
Anna Estes
University of Virginia, USA
In Mikumi [National Park], ecological concerns lost out to economic ones. TANAPA was at first allowed to have checkpoints at either end of this road, but was made to remove them when the transportation industry complained about delays. Likewise, TANAPA initially had a higher frequency of speed bumps on the road, and was forced to remove some. There is no reason to suspect that the situation will differ at all in Serengeti, considering the potentially much higher volume of commercial traffic. A study that exists as a government document reported a frequency of one