ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF FOREIGN INVESTMENT PROJECTS

A Study in the Law, Policy and Governmental Decision-making in Tanzania

bulletIntroduction
bulletList of Statutes, Cases and Acronyms
bulletPart I. EIA in Tanzania's Environmental Law and Policy
bulletExpansive Policy Rhetoric
bullet...and Legislative Foot-dragging
bulletThe Section Proposes...
bulletEIA Regime under the Mining Act, 1998
bullet...and the Proviso Disposes
bulletNEMC's EIA Guidelines and Procedures
bulletPublic Participation under the Guidelines and Procedures
bulletAccess to Information
bulletPart II. Power Politics and EIA in Practice
bulletCase Study 1: Lessons from Rufiji Delta
you are hereThe Rufiji Delta Prawn Farming Project
bulletControversy Over EIA
bulletContradictory Advice
bulletArms for What?
bulletThe Cabinet Decision
bulletGovernment Intransigence
bulletThe Government and the Investor
bulletPicking Winners...and Counting Losers
bulletCase Study 2: EIA in National Parks
bulletConclusions
bulletRecommendations
bulletBibliography

Printable versions of this document:
Single HTML document
Microsoft Word format
Adobe Acrobat format

Get Acrobat MS-Word Viewer
The Rufiji Delta Prawn Farming Project1

Full details of the project came into the public domain for the first time in May 1996, when the AFC submitted an environmental impact statement (EIS) report for discussion at a seminar held at Sheraton Hotel in Dar es Salaam. The report was prepared by Professor Clive E. Boyd, an American aquaculture expert who also works for WWF US. Those invited included Government institutions such as NEMC, environmental groups, academics and the chairmen of several villages in the Rufiji Delta, whose travel expenses were met by the AFC.

The seminar was fiercely critical of the EIS, which was quickly revealed to be seriously flawed. For example, whereas the EIS had claimed that there would not be displacement of people as a result of implementation of the project, a counter study prepared by two Norwegian academics working for the Rufiji Delta Mangrove Management Project showed that on the contrary, up to six thousand people would be displaced as a result of implementation of the project (Fottland and Sorensen, passim.) The latter study also revealed that considerable amounts of mangroves will have to be cleared to make room for the project, contrary to claims made in Professor Boyd's EIS. AFC was thus required to undertake a more thorough environmental impact assessment, a report of which was submitted to the Government in April 1997.


  1. This part is derived from Lissu (1998, ibid.)