Tanzania Draws Regulatory Line in Growing Kilimanjaro Tourism Dispute
By Adonis Byemelwa
Dodoma—Tanzania has moved to draw a clearer line between government regulation and private-sector advocacy in the Mount Kilimanjaro trekking industry, ordering the Kilimanjaro Responsible Trekking Organisation (KRTO) to stop activities the Government says exceed its legal mandate.
The Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism issued the directive on August 13, warning KRTO that it cannot present itself as the authority that determines whether a mountain-tourism company or agent is legally entitled to operate in Tanzania.
The intervention places a longstanding dispute over porter welfare, responsible tourism and competition among tour operators on a more formal regulatory footing.
At its centre is a fundamental question: who has the legal authority to decide whether a tourism operator is legitimate, and what role can a private organisation play in assessing whether that operator meets ethical standards?
Under the Tourism Act, Chapter 65, the Director of Tourism is established as the officer responsible for the administration of the Act, while the Tourism Division is responsible for functions including registration, classification and grading of tourism facilities and the implementation of licensing and regulation of tourism service providers.
The Ministry’s latest directive therefore seeks to reinforce the distinction between statutory licensing and voluntary private-sector standards.
The Government specifically ordered KRTO to stop presenting itself as having the power to verify, approve or declare mountain-tourism companies legally authorised to operate.
It also objected to communications that could create the impression, particularly among international travel agents and tourists, that KRTO’s “responsible tour operator” status is the final test of whether a company is legally recognised in Tanzania.
That distinction matters because KRTO’s own published material shows that its Partner for Responsible Travel programme does not function in the same way as a government licence.
KRTO says it is a legally registered Tanzanian non-governmental organisation whose mission is to improve working conditions for porters by promoting socially responsible climbing. It explicitly describes itself as neither a porter membership organisation nor a tour-operating business.
Its responsible-travel programme is based on voluntary participation. Companies that join are monitored on issues including porter wages, tipping, food, accommodation, equipment and the weight of loads carried by porters.
KRTO says participating companies are assessed through the Kilimanjaro Porters Assistance Project (KPAP), and those that achieve at least an 85 per cent performance level can qualify as partners.
KRTO’s standards also require participating companies to comply with local and national Government laws and regulations. That provision is important because it indicates that, at least in its published framework, KRTO does not describe its own assessment as a replacement for Government licensing.
Nonetheless, the distinction becomes less straightforward once a voluntary ethical label begins to influence commercial decisions.
KRTO itself says that becoming a Partner for Responsible Travel can provide a company with a marketing advantage and greater market exposure because some clients specifically seek ethical and responsible travel companies. A company’s name is then placed on the partner list after it meets the programme’s requirements.
This is where the Government’s concern intersects with complaints from some Tanzanian tour operators. In 2024, local operators accused KRTO and KPAP of using responsible-tourism messaging in ways that disadvantaged companies outside the programme.
They argued that foreign travel agents were increasingly favouring KPAP-partner companies, turning a voluntary welfare programme into an important commercial filter for access to international customers.
KRTO rejected those allegations. Its then chief executive, Kelvin Salla, said the organisation supported companies that voluntarily sought responsible-tourism certification and maintained that its focus was improving conditions for porters rather than controlling the tourism market.
The dispute was not merely theoretical. The Citizen reported in August 2024 that KPAP’s list contained 150 companies, of which 105 were foreign and 45 were local.
Local operators argued that this imbalance, combined with international promotion of the listed companies, could weaken the position of Tanzanian businesses in their own market. KRTO disputed the allegations of unfair trade practices.
The issue also prompted Government scrutiny in 2024. The Guardian reported at the time that the Ministry was reviewing KRTO’s activities following complaints from local mountain-climbing operators, including concerns about the promotion of foreign-affiliated companies.
The latest directive therefore represents a continuation of a dispute that has been developing for several years rather than an entirely new confrontation.
Thus far, there is another side to the controversy that cannot be ignored: porter welfare. KRTO’s published programme contains detailed requirements on wages, transparent tipping, meals, accommodation, medical assistance, equipment and porter load limits.
Its current materials state that partner companies must ensure that porters carry no more than 20 kilograms of company gear and provide three meals a day, appropriate accommodation and assistance where a porter becomes ill.
KRTO also says its monitoring data on porter treatment is reported annually to Tanzanian Government authorities, tour-operator associations and participating companies.
The organisation reports that its programme has supported thousands of porters and that its monitoring has produced improvements in areas such as transparent tipping, nutrition, accommodation and load management.
Those figures and assessments are, however, primarily reported by KRTO itself and should therefore be distinguished from independently verified Government statistics.
This creates a policy dilemma for Tanzania. The Government has a legitimate regulatory interest in ensuring that private organisations do not assume statutory powers.
At the same time, the trekking industry needs credible mechanisms for addressing working conditions that may not be adequately captured by a tourism operating licence alone.
The question is therefore not simply whether KRTO should be allowed to promote responsible tourism. The more difficult question is whether a voluntary private standard can become so influential in international markets that it effectively operates as a second licensing system without having been created by law.
That concern is particularly important in an industry where international travel agents and tourists can make purchasing decisions based on ethical credentials.
If a foreign travel agent chooses only companies appearing on a private responsible-tourism list, a company can remain fully licensed by the Tanzanian Government but still find itself commercially disadvantaged because it lacks the private certification.
That does not automatically mean the certification is unlawful. It does, however, explain why the Government is concerned about how such standards are presented and used.
The Government has now specifically ordered KRTO to stop interfering with licensed operators, threatening or warning tourism businesses using powers it has not been granted, and assuming responsibility for matters concerning mountain porters without a statutory mandate.
The Ministry has also warned that continued activity outside KRTO’s legal authority, including statements it considers misleading about the legality of tourism companies, will result in appropriate action without further notice.
The statement does not, however, publicly identify in detail which specific KRTO publication, communication or intervention triggered each part of the warning. Nor does it set out the precise enforcement action that would follow if the organisation fails to comply.
Those gaps matter. The dispute raises unresolved questions over KRTO’s legal mandate, foreign-affiliated operators and the commercial influence of voluntary certification. Local operators have previously argued that KPAP’s standards could affect competition, market access and local participation, while KRTO has defended its focus on porter welfare.
Kilimanjaro’s tourism economy also involves tour operators, international travellers, porters, conservation authorities and local communities, making the dispute broader than a disagreement between KRTO and the Government.
The Ministry says licensed operators must follow national laws, licence conditions and conservation rules, while recognising the role of NGOs and private stakeholders. The central issue is now where responsible tourism ends, and statutory regulatory authority begins.
