The Utilisation Of Wildlife In Tanzania: Key Issues And Experiences

THE UTILISATION OF WILDLIFE IN TANZANIA: KEY ISSUESAND EXPERIENCES Martin Walsh Cambridge,October 2006 paper prepared for BEES Consulting Group (BCG), Johannesburg (input to A Comparative Study of Commercial Consumptive and Non-Consumptive Utilization Options for Wildlife Consemation Strategies in Kenya, commissioned by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), East Africa)

Introduction This is not a literature review, but an outline of key issuesand experiencesrelating to different forms of wildlife utilisation in mainland Tanzania (semi-autonomous Zanzibar has its own wildlife policies and legislation, and will not be discussed further here). The paper focuses on two critical subjects: ongoing debate about the developmentof community wildlife management(CWM) in Tanzania,and increasing concern about the organisationand practice of tourist and other kinds of hunting in the country. It is illustrated with referenceto both academic and project-basedresearch about the SelousGame Reserveand other well-studied cases. First some background information. Tanzania is famed for its natural landscapesand wildlife, and protectedareas(PAs) of different kinds are estimatedto cover more than a quarter of its land surface(Severre2000). Tourism contributesdirectly to more than l5Yo of GDP and is the country's secondmost important source of foreign exchange earnings after agriculture. Game viewing or photographic tourism is by far the most important kind of non-consumptive wildlife utilisation in Tanzania; hunting is the only economically significant form of consumptive utilisation. Two principal kinds of hunting are permitted under license: tourist hunting and resident hunting, the latter being restricted to Tanzaniancitizens and resident foreigners. Subsistenceand illegal hunting also occur widely, as does commercial poaching, though this is often said to be less of a problem than it was in the 1970s and 1980s before the nationwide antipoaching campaign (Operation Uhai) that took place in 1989 (cf. Gordon 1991). Table I below provides basic information on the different categoriesof PA that are set aside for the conservation and utilisation of wildlife (excluding forest and marine reserves). Ngorongoro Conservation Area forms a special category with its own legislation and governing authority. The 14 National Parks (NPs) ile managed by a government parastatal, TanzaniaNational Parks (TANAPA); all the other areasshown come under the authority of the Wildlife Division $fD) in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT). The NPs are designed exclusively for nonconsumptive tourism, and the Game Reserves(GRs) for tourist hunting. Different kinds of utilisation and hunting can be authorised in the Game Controlled Areas (GCAs), which are gazettedon village lands. Open Areas (OAs) are village lands which have no conservation stafus, but have been designatedfor tourist or resident hunting by the WD. Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) are a newly-introduced category of community-managed PA that are expected to take the place of many existing GCAs and OAs.

Martin Walsh - The Utilisation of lltildlife in Taraania

Table 1: Protected Areas and Hunting in Tanzania (basedon Severre20001'2003) Category of Protected (or other) Area

Legal mandate / government authoritv

Villages?

Tourist Resident hunting? hunting?

Ngorongoro ConservationArea (NCA) n:l

Ngorongoro ConservationArea Ordinance, 1959 / Ngorongoro ConservationAuthoritv Authoritv (NCAA)

yes

no

no

National Parks (NPs) n:14

National Parks Ordinance,1959 I T anzaniaNational Parks (TANAPA)

no

no

no

GameReserves (GRs) n:33 GameControlled Areas(GCAs) n:43

Act 1974I Wildlife Conservation Wildlife Division (WD)

no

yes

no

Wildlife ConservationAct, 1974 / Wildlife Division (WD)

yes

yes

yes

Act, 1974I OpenAreas(OAs) Wildlife Conservation n:? Wildlife Division (WD)

yes

yes

yes

Wildlife Management Areas(WMAs) n:0 (only pilot projects)

yes

yes

yes

Wildlife ConservationAct 1974 & Wildlife Conservation(Wildlife ManagementAreas) Regulations, 2002 /Wildlife Division (WD)

Problems with Community Wildtife Management in Tanzania For more than a decade,debate about wildlife utilisation in Tanzania has focused on the pros and cons of CWM as an alternative or supplementto "fortress conservation", the traditional approach to conservationbased on the creation of parks and reserves designedin part to protect wildlife and game resourcesfrom their unauthoriseduse by local people. Colonial Tanganyika was one of the first African countries to experiment with a form of community-friendly conservation:the NCA was intended to provide for the coexistenceof Maasai pastoralistsand wildlife in the wider region including Ngorongoro Crater. Recent research, however, has highlighted the progressiveerosion of Maasai rights in the conservationarea(Shivji & Kapinga 1998; Lissu 2000). Meanwhile, a study of the exclusion of Maasai and other local people from Mkomazi Game Reserve in north-east Tanzania has become one of the most widely read sourcesfor the academiccritique of "fortress conservation" (Brockington 2002). Despite its claim to a long history of actively promoting community-based wildlife management,Tatuarriais held up as an example of the very opposite.

Martin Walsh - The Utilisation of lltildlife in Tanzania

Contemporary community-based approachesin Tanzania date from the late 1980s. Important milestones include the start of donor-funded projects in and around SerengetiNP (in 1986) and SelousGR (1988), the beginningof TANAPA's benefitsharing progftunme (1988), and preparation of the first draft. Policy on Wildlife Conservation and Utilisation (1988). The resulting Wildlife Policy of Tanzania was eventually published ten years later, in March 1998 (URT 1998). While calling for the maintenanceof the core PAs - NPs and GRs - the new policy also advocatedthe establishmentof community-run WMAs, to be managedby Authorised Associations (AAs) representingthe communities concerned. This proposal was based on local project experiences as well as lessons learned from the development of CWM in Zatrb:Joia. Zimbabwe and Botswana. It became law at the end of 2002 when the WD published its WMA Regulations, supportedby explanatory Guidelines (URT 2002a; 2002b). Following a workshop in 2001, work was also begun on the preparation of new legislation to replace the Wildlife ConservationAct of 1974 (for more details of this history seeHartley 1997; Walsh 2000;2001;2003; Goldman 2001;2003; Siege 2001; Gardneret a|.2004; Stolla 2005). Sixteen areaswere selected for piloting the new WMA Regulations; these included CWM initiatives around the Selous and elsewhere in the country that were already being supported by donor-funded projects (cf. the list in Baldus et a|.2004). The three-yearpilot period has passed,however, without any of the pilot WMAs satisffing the new legal procedures and receiving user rights over wildlife resources. The development of CWM in Tanzarria through the establishment of community-run WMAs is generally perceived to have stalled, and one donor (USAID) is currently funding a study (by WWF Tanzania) of the WMA pilot process and its problems. Observershave already highlighted a seriesof difficulties with this process(Goldman 2001;2003; Walsh 2003; Baldus et a|.2004; Gardneret aL.2004; Stolla 2004). Here is one account: "The WMA Regulationsdefine what WMAs are: "village land set aside for wildlife (Section2.2)whichare createdaccordingto decisionsby the VillageAssembly conservation" and VillageCouncil.The WMA Guidelines statethat the purposeof WMAsis "to enablethe localcommunitieslivingin villagesto participatein the protectionand utilizationof wildlife resources on villageland." providedetailedprovisions TheWMA Regulations for establishment of theWMAs, whichare roughlyas follows: 1. The VillageAssemblydecidesto form a WMA basedon the recommendations of the VillageCouncil. 2. The villagesformingthe WMA on parts of their lands form a community-based (CBO),and registerit as suchwiththe Ministryof HomeAffairsaccording organisation to the provisions of the SocietiesOrdinance. 3. The villagesprepareland use planswhich providefor the proposedWMA on their lands. These land use plans are to be subjectedto basic environmentalimpact assessments. planfor theWMA,or as an interimmeasure 4. The CBOpreparesa generalmanagement for up to five years, a more basic resourcemanagementzone plan showingthe designation of differentresourceusesin theWMA 5. The CBOcanthen,followingthe completion of the abovesteps,applyto the Directorof Wildlifeto becomean AuthorizedAssociation(AA), meaningthe CBO has been granteduserrightsfor wildlifein theWMA. lf the CBO is granteduser rightsby the Director(meaningthe Directorapprovesthe CBOs application) and becomesan AuthorizedAssociation, thenthe WMA is gazettedand comes

Martin llalsh - The Utilisation of ltildlife

in Taraania

intoexistence.A numberof the pilotWMAs,however,havea very importantcaveatemptor which must be added to the above procedures. Accordingto the WMA Regulations, for villagessituatedin GameControlledAreas,the GameControlled Areasmustbe transferred to villagelandstatusbeforetheWMAcan be created[...]. agreements in the WMAsas Additionalprocedures applyfor the AA to enterintoinvestment may be desirablein order for the communityto generatebenefitsfrom wildlifethrough commercial activitiessuchas tourismor hunting.lnvestmentagreements also are subjectto in WMAsmust be approvedby the Environmental lmpactAssessments and all investments Directorof Wildlife. The WMA Regulations representa majorlegalreformin the wildlifesector.The questionis: fulfil the goal of the WildlifePolicyof Tanzaniato enablelocal do the WMA Regulations communities"to managewildlifeon their land for their own benefit."There are a numberof problemswith the WMA Regulationsin terms of their realizingthis aim. The procedural for communities requirements of the Regulations to formWMAsare dauntingand complexas in manyseminarsandworkshopsduringthe past has beenreportedby localrepresentatives of participatory two years.Somerequirements, suchas formationof CBOsand development land use planssubjectedto Environmental lmpactAssessments, may take severalyearsto are thoseprocedural hurdles,particularly the transferof reserved complete.Moreproblematic landin GameControlled Areasto villagelands,for whichtheway forwardis notaddressedby the Regulations./f is partly becauseof the complexityof theseproceduresfhaf as of January, none of the pilot 2005,two years afterthe launchingby the Ministryof the WMA Regulations, WMAshaveyet beengazefted. Second,even if communities are able to completeall the procedures and form WMAs,the in degreeof authoritythey receivefor management of theseareasis limited.All investments WMAs must be approvedby the Directorof Wildlife,and liftle influenceon huntingblock allocationis grantedto localpeopleand insteadremainswiththe Directorof Wildlife.Section 73.1 ot the WMA Regulations is a problembecauseit statesthat benefitsharingwill be determinedby circularsissued by the Ministryfrom time to time. This means that the WMAsdo not knowwhat proportionof the revenuein the WMAs communities establishing they will keep and what proportionwill go to the Government. This is a seriousproblem becauseit undermines the potentialfor WMAsto competewith otherformsof landuse and for communities to evaluatethe sensibility of forminga WMA in the first place."(Stolla2005: 6-8,spellingand punctuation corrected) The processlaid down for establishinga WMA is far too complex and costly, and is proving difficult for communities to complete even with the help of funds and technical assistanceprovided by bilateral donors and NGOs. To make matters worse, some donors (including DFID) have withdrawn their support from CWM projects in Tanzaria following changesin their funding priorities (now brought in line with the Millennium Development Goals and Tanzania's Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, which has led to reduced assistanceto the environment and natural resourcessector). It is difficult to see how remote rural communities can satisff the legal requirements for registering an AA and gazettinga WMA without this kind of help. When the WMA process was being developed, critics in Tanzania pointed out that rather than straightforwardly empowering communities to manage their own wildlife resources,the balanceof power remained with govemment, and in particular with the WD and its Director. User rights could have been devolved to communities using existing legislation and without all the complications that the new legal framework has brought (Shauri 1999; Goldman 2001; 2003; Shivji 2001). But the current progess,which has taken so long to develop, falls way short of the original ideals of the proponentsof CWM in Tanzania:

Martin Walsh - The Utilisation of lVildlife in Taraania

"Ratherthan embracingactiveparticipation, WMAspresentnewways in whichcommunities can be acted upon.Communities are clearlynot to be trustedto completelytake over the managementof a resourceas valuablewildlife,and thereforein the end, despitethe "theStatewill retain discussion of a "transferof management" of WMAsto localcommunities, the overallownershipof wildlife."As one of the manystakeholders, the communityis entitled to receive"user rights"to wildlife,providedtheyfollowpolicyguidelinesoutlinedby the state (the WildlifeDivision,within the Ministryof NaturalResourcesand Tourism).While this provisionof use rightsto wildlifeis a radicalbreakfrom pastwiHlifeconservation policiesin Tanzaniaand a definitepositivestep towardsembracingthe community,it falls short of constitutingactive participation. The allocationof use rights by the Minister(who also maintainsthe right to revokesuch rights)reflectsa top-downdistributionof privilegesto communitymembers,ratherthan acflyeparticipation. Evenwhere managementrightsare transferred, localcommunities are not recognized as capabledecision-makers. Rather,they are seen as "subjectsof the state,"or tools of conservation, that rteedto be "educated, informedand guided"throughstandardized training,technicalassistanceand supervision to properly (Goldman managenaturalresources."" 2001:56) The developmentof wildlife policy and institutions are everywheresubject to political pressures(cf. Gibson 1999), and the evolution of CWM and the WMA process in Tat:..z:ania are no exception. International agencieshave provided the main impetus for the promotion of CWM in Tanzania over the past two decades;the resulting changes to policy and practice continue to meet with considerableresistanceboth within and outside of government, especially from conservative game officers and resident hunters who are unwilling to pay the extra costs that community ownership of wildlife entails. Many WD staff remain openly sceptical of CWM, argurng that it is the donors' and not an indigenous Tanzanianagenda. These argumentshave spilled over into public debate among wildlife professionalsand academicsin Tanzania, and can be followed in articles published over the years in the quarterly magazineKakalarcna lTanzania Wildlife, published by the Tanzania Wildlife Protection Fund (TWPF) in WD headquarters(Walsh 2003). Lack of support for CWM and especially its more radical political consequencesplayed a large part in the creation of a WMA process that was more complex than it neededto be, and has also undoubtedly contributed to the subsequentstalling of the process. The intemational community, meanwhile, has also lost some of its initial enthusiasm for CWM. Critics include both conservationists who doubt that it can provide effective protectioq for wildlife, and economistswho doubt that it can provide all of the social and ecoqomip benefits that are claimed (for these debatessee, for example, Barrow et a\.2000;F.:oeet at.2000; Hulme & Murphree 2001; Elliott 2002; Walpole & Thouless2005). Relatively liule information is available on the impacts of existing CWM initiatives in Tanzani4 and most evaluationshave been written by project staff or researcherswith a pro-CWM or related agenda. It has also proved difficult to assessimpacts given the relative youth of most initiatives and the extent to which they have been supportedand subsidisedwith donor funding. The most detailed work to date has been undprtakenin villages in Morogoro District that have bee4 affiliated to the GTZ-funded Selous ConservationProject (Gillingham 1999; Hahn & Kaggi 2001; Ashley et aL.2002). These and other studies suggestthat there is considerablescope for increasing revenues and livelihood impacts in many pilot WMAs, and that in favoured locations wildlife tourism may provide much better revenues than in less accessibleareas,where income from tourist and resident hunting has been important in sustaining CWM (Emerton & Mfunda 1999; Holmern et al. 2002;2004; Walsh 2003; Gardner et a|.2004).

Martin llalsh - The Utilisation of llildlife

in Tanzania

Problems with Hunting in Tanzania While most debateabout wildlife conservationand utilisation in Tanzaniahas focused on the pros and cons of CWM, the spotlight has recently been turned on hunting (Nshala 1999; Majamba 2001). Although CWM is compatible with different kinds of utilisation, it has been strongly resistedby some sectionsof the hunting community in Tat:r;aria, unwilling to cede control and share the benefits of hunting with local communities. This resistanceand the many problems that beset the towist hunting industry in Tanzania are examined in a recent report (Baldus & Cauldwell 2004), which I will quote from at length. The following paragraphs are taken from its executive swnmary: "Touristhuntingin Tanzaniahas developedovera longperiodand is nowa well established industryand a principlesourceof incomefor vast areasof the country.The industryhas demonstrated an impressivegrowthin recentyearsand is an importantsourceof foreign exchangeto Tanzania.Howeververy littleinformation is availableon the industryand many aspectsare shroudedin secrecy. The WildlifeDivisionof the Ministryof NaturalResourcesand Tourismhas developeda commandsystemof controlthat favoursa selectgroupof huntingoutfitterswith reduced incomegenerationand the exclusionof communities who are the legitimateholdersof the land uponwhich huntingtakes places.Concessions are leasedat ratesfar belowthe true marketvalue,which representsa massiveloss of incometo the WildlifeDivision(possibly US$ 7 millionor more).Mostof the concessions are leasedto localcompaniesthat do not have the capacityto markettheir huntingopportunities. A systemof subleasingmostlyto foreignerswithout any residencestatus in Tanzaniahas thus developed.Hunting is subleasedat low ratesand as a resultmuchof the incomethat is now generatedby the industryneverentersTanzaniaand the TanzaniaRevenueAuthorities are unableto access much of the funds that shouldbe due for taxation.Outfittersare billedfor their hunting activitiesin a mannerthattheyare shieldedfromfinancialriskby theWildlifeDivision,and are able to accruesignificantamountsof interest(estimatedin excessof US$ 1 million)that shouldbe goingto the Government. The WildlifePolicyformulatedin 1998describesthe development of WildlifeManagement Areas (WMAs)that are managedby the localcommunities. Touristhuntingis the landuse optionthat will providethe majorsourceof fundsfor WMAs.Howeverthe development of WMAsis seriouslydelayedandthereis stillno effectiveschedulefor sharingof benefitsfrom touristhuntingwith the localcommunities on whoseland huntingtakesplace.Outfittersare required to contributetowards protectionand support local communities,but these requirements are vaguelyset in a mannerthat they cannotbe effectivelyevaluated.As a result most companiesdo mere windowdressing.There is a generalhesitationamong outfittersto accept the WMA conceptand effectivelyempowerlocal communities.lt is possiblethat muchof the delayin development of WMAsis the resultof negativehigh-level influenceby somehuntingoutfltters. There is a generallack of will to improvethe touristhuntingindustry,and one can only speculateon the reasonswhy.The lackof will is demonstrated in the following: o

r o

Thereis a poor levelof control.Huntingconcessionboundariesare not respected and huntingtakes place in areasspecificallydesignatedfor nonhuntingpurposes, and huntingis frequentlylistedas takingplacein areasotherthan whereit actually happens,despitedirectsupervision by WildlifeDivisionstaff. Someconcessions showextremelyhighlevelsof utilisation that are not sustainable, butofftakesarewithinquotaset bythe WildlifeDivision. Initiativesto effectivelycomputerisethe control of hunting and bring greater have twice been disregardedand a cumbersomemanualsystemof transparency

6

Martin lYalsh - The Utilisation of lVildlife in Taraania

o

o o

permitsis continued. issuingandchecking The numberandvarietyof animalshunted annuallyis far greaterthan can be manuallyevaluated.As a result,huntingquota utilisationis not clear and effectivemanagement of quota is not possiblewith the currentsystem. Ecosystemmonitoringhas fallen into disarray,and once reliabletrends in wildlife populationsare no longer available,yet the WildlifeDivisionhas requestedan increasedleopardquotafrom CITESand announcedthat it intendsto increasethe elephantquota. Distrustfrom the internationalcommunityis bound to increase ng ecological withouteffectivesupporti data. and there Thereis a lackof standardsin the privatesector.Ethicsare not maintained is no internalcontrolor trainingof professional hunters.Manyyounginexperienced huntersare nevertheless as professionals to guideforeignclients. authorised A policyand managementplan for touristhuntingwas developedby the Wildlife Divisionin 1995.This was signedand acceptedby the Directorof Wildlifebut has possiblybecauseit showsthe way for comprehensive never been implemented, reformof the touristhuntingindustrywhich includesintroducingcompetitionand with access to significantfunds incorporatingcommunitiesas decision-makers generated fromhunting.

The currentsystemof controlling touristhuntingcannotcontinuemuchlonger.lnternational pressures fromwithinTanzania will growandwill forcechangewhereit is needed.Pressures fromaboveare alreadycomingfromtheVice President's will alsodemandchange.Pressures Office,whilewidespread demandsamongthe numerousgrassroots communities are building. To retaincontrol,the WildlifeDivisionneedsto be proactivethroughimplementing effective reformof thetouristhuntingindustry,butthis is onlypossibleif: 1. Effectivemarket-based competition betweenoutfittersis introduced,i.e. outfittersbid competitively againsteachotherfor concessions; which may come naturallythrougheffective 2. Controlof subleasingis implemented, market-based competition; 3. Localcommunities are the principaldecisionmakersfor allocationof concessions and quota settingfor huntingon their land, and they receiveand managethe funds generated on theirland. All this will be achievedby implementing the Policyand ManagementPlan for Tourist (Baldus& Cauldwell Hunting." 2004:4-5) In the main text of their report, Baldus and Cauldwell elaborate further on the problems mentioned above: "A numberof problemsare knownto existwithinthe touristhuntingindustry.Manyof these are explainedbelow.Problemsare listedwith the intentionof encouraging discussionand developingsolutions.Responsibility of findingsolutionshowever,rests with the Wildlife Division. lnadequatecontrol Thereare inadequatecontrolmechanisms appliedby the WildlifeDivisionand as a result corruption appearsto havebecomeingrainedintothe primarymeansof controlof hunting,i.e. game scoutssupervisingthe actualhunt.The differencesbetweenthe governmentgame scout salariesand the fees paid by foreignhuntingclientsis tremendousresultingin a situationwherethe gamescoutis easilybribed. . There is little effectivecontrolfrom the game reserveoffices.Seniorwildlifeofficials seldomgo on field visits and many huntingpersonsdo not reportto the local wildlife offices,andtotalcontrolin mostcasesis reliantupona gamescout. . Manyoutfitterstolerateand evenencouragea corruptpracticeof clientstippingthe game scoutat the startof a huntingsafariin returnfor 'no problemsafaris'. . Overshooting of permitsdoesoccurand trophiesare discardedin the field,in suchcases onlythe bettertrophiesbeingdeclaredandexported. o Huntingpermitsdo not list the presenceof observersand not all outfittersare honestly declaringthe presenceof observersin theirhuntingcamps.

Martin llalsh - The Utilisation of l4rildlife in Tanzania

. Very few woundedanimalsare declared.Very few huntingclientshave properhunting hunterslackthe necessary experience and manyprofessional skills.Eventhe besthunters losewoundedanimals,and somethingis certainlyfishy if outfittersdeclare occasionally lessthan 10%woundedanimalslost.Statisticsfrom the Seloushuntingdatabasereveal rateof only1.5%is declared. thata wounding Professional hu nters nof professional o Too manyprofessional huntersare simplynot competentto hunt big game in Tanzania. This lack of competencerangesfrom inadequatehandlingof large calibrefirearms, inadequate fieldexperience and ignorance of relevantTanzanianlaw.The problemoccurs for professional huntersin Tanzania.A becausethere is no certification of competence writtenexamination is requiredat present,but the standardof this exam is disgracefully lowanddoesnotdojusticeto the industry. . A fundamentalproblemis that there is nobodyor organisationin Tanzaniawho could certify their competence.As a result the Wildlife Division issues only provisional professionalhunterslicenses.Legallythere are no licensedprofessionalhunters in Tanzania.Huntingis a dangeroussport and accidentsfrequentlyoccur where even professional huntersare mauled/killed by the animalsthey hunt.The Wildlife experienced Divisionis placingitself in a risky legal situationprovisionally authorisingpersonsof unknown abilityto guidehighpayingforeigntourists. . Many young South African"professionalhunters"are huntingin Tanzania.There is minimalbig game huntingin SouthAfricaand thesepeoplethereforehaveto gain their in Tanzania,yet are provisionally fromthe start. experience authorised as professionals o Professional huntersthatare disqualified for bad huntingpracticeselsewherein Africaare allowedto guidehuntingclientsin Tanzania,evenwith the WildlifeAuthoritieshavingfull knowledge of the digressions of suchprofessional hunterselsewhere. . Some professionalhunters have a disregardfor the hunting regulationsand are disrespectful to wildlifeofficials.Evidencefor this statementis the corruptionof game scoutsand under-sized elephanttrophiesbeingshot.lssuesare reportedand the rogue elementsin the industryare known, but appropriateaction is seldom taken. Even professional huntersthatwerebarredat somestagefrom huntingin Tanzaniaare ableto renewtheirlicenseswithoutdifficulty. o lnabilityof huntersto recognisesexualdifferences resultsin manyfemaleanimalsbeing particularly huntedmistakenly, withleopard,topi,hartebeest and zebra. Under-sizedtrophies are Iegali sed .

Elephanttrophiesthatdo not meetthe minimumstandardare providedwiththe necessary CITESexportdocumentation. . A promotional pamphletproducedby the WildlifeDivisionin 2002showsa hunterposing withan under-sized elephanttrophy. . Many other under-sizedanimalsare also being huntedwhich are detrimentalto the particularly dynamicsof populations, lion,leopardand buffalo. Ethicalstandardsnot maintained r A numberof huntingoutfittersare not adheringto any codeof ethics.Examplesof ethical contraventions are: - Huntingfromvehiclesanda reluctance to walk - Woundedanimalsare frequently notfollowed - Commercial videosthat are detrimental to the huntingindustryare produced,in which animals are incited to charge and there is a blatant disregardof hunting ethics. photography feesare due butsuchvideosare notdeclaredandfeesare thus Commercial notpaid. - Charginganimalsare sometimesshotabovepermitand/orquotarequirements underthe guiseof 'selfprotection' - Huntingcatsat nightwithartificiallightsandcallingof lionsusingtapesandotherartificial means

Martin lilalsh - The Utilisation of llildlife

in Taraania

- Smallaircraftare beingusedto easilylocatetrophyanimals,particularly in areaswhere wildlifepopulations are lowanddecenttrophiesaredifficultto find. Quotaadjustments o The WildlifeDivisionissuesadditional quotasto outfittersuponrequestduringthe hunting season. . There are allegationsthat quota are adjustedfor some companiesafter the hunting seasonhasended. Environmental standardsnot maintained o Environmental standardsfor huntingcampsare inadequate, and the existingstandards are notenforcedat all. o In some campsthere is an excessiveaccumulation of litteraroundhuntingcampsover manyyears. e Permanentconstructions are not permittedbut the use of cementin huntingcamps is getsexcessive. widespread. Cuttingtreesfor campclearingandconstruction Manycamps are locatedin ecologicallysensitivesites but with little concernto the environmental impact. Zanzibarnot signatoryfo C/IES .

Zanzibarwildlifeauthorities do not considerthemselves signatoryto CITESand makeno attemptto controlthe exportof CITES restrictedwildlifeproductsoriginatingfrom the mainland.Manycountriesare of the opinionthat if a productis legallyexported,then it may be legallyimported.Thereis a substantialloopholefor the exportof manywildlife productswithoutthe full set of legal documentation, in particularto countrieswith lax importregulations.

Declining wildlife popuIations o Wildlifepopulationsare decliningin many parts of Tanzaniaand there is an effective shrinkageof manyhuntingareasas a resultof increasinghumansettlementand due to the bushmeattrade. Sub/easlngand /ossof revenue o Subleasingof concessionsis widespread.lt is estimatedthat up to 7oo/oof companies leasingconcessions possiblyaccount are subleasing thesein variousways.Sub-lessees for approximately 40o/o of the industry'sincome,yet thereare no specifictaxationcontrols on the sub-lessees who are gaininghuge profitsat the expenseof the industry.Many foreignPHsare bringingclientsto subletconcessions, amongtheseare PHs enteringas payingneitherobserverfeesnor PH licenses. undeclared observers, Outfittersshieldedfrom the competitivemarket o TheWildlifeDivisionis shieldingits selectedgroupof outfittersfrom naturalmarketforces resultingin a lossof incometo theTanzanian economy. Outfittersare influentialand manipulateseniorgovernment .

Somehuntingoutfittersare highlyinfluential withthe Government and influencethe block allocationprocessesand are partlyresponsible for delaysin developing and implementing the WMAconcepts.

Sysfemof administration '.

TheWildlifeDivisionimposesan inflexible approachto marketinghuntingin Tanzania

Martin l7'alsh - The Utilisation of lltildlife in Taraania

o Rigid game fee schedulesand a strongemphasison trophyfees leavesthe Wildlife Divisionwithno optionotherthanto increasequotaofftaketo generateincreasedrevenue r lncome generationfrom the concessionsis dependantsolely on huntingand is not conducive to the development of othersourcesof income o Therehasneverbeenan inventory of thetruevalueof the huntingconcessions. Lackof desireto improvethe industry . A policyand management plan for touristhunting[...] was compiledby the Wildlife This plan is well Divisionand acceptedin 1995 but has never been implemented. formulated andoutlinesthe wayfor extensivereformin the industry.Manyof the problems listedabovewouldbe addressed throughimplementing this plan. . Supporthas twice been providedfor computerisation of the issuingof touristhunting permitsby the PAWMprojectandthroughthe SelousConservation Programme. Neitherof theseinitiatives has beenmaintained and insteadan outdatedand non-transparent system of issuingpermitsis continued. o The huntingoperatorsassociation(TAHOA)argue stronglyagainstreform.Influential membersof thisassociation wereableto convinceeventhe Ministerthat higherpricesfor the operatorswould force them to over hunt the wildliferesourceto survive,which is aboutthe underlying reasons.Experience shows simplywrongandonecan onlyspeculate that the worse the players,the greateris the level of over-utilisation. To improvethe (Baldus& Cauldwell system,the badplayersmustbe removed!" 2004:33-36) This is a serious indictment. The full report provides detailed statistics on tourist hunting in the SelousGR" together with summary information on hunting concessions elsewhere in Tanzania. It is estimated that in 2001 gross income from hunting in Taruaria amounted to around US$ 27.6 million, compared to US$ 22 million in Zimbabwe, US$ 15 million in Botswana, and US$ 5 million in Namibia. This figure could clearly have been higher (by US$ 7 million or more according to Baldus and Cauldwell). At the same time this representsonly a fraction of the income from tourism, which earnedTatuaria around US$ 725 million in foreign crrrency in 2001. This suggeststhat even if the hurrting industry in Tanzaniais put on a sounderfooting, it will only ever provide a small portion of total revenue from different kinds of wildlife utilisation. At present,though, hunting seemsto be causing as much harm (to wildlife and prospectsfor community benefrt) as good, despite the presenceof some "ethical" hunting operationsin the country. In the May 2005 issue of ly'ican Indabc, which describesitself as a newsletter "for hunter-conservationists and all people who are interested in the conservation, managementand the sustainableuse of Africa's wild natural resources", Baldus and Cauldwell used their Tatrzarian experience to call for "a Debate on the Reform of Safari Hunting". This elicited a number of responses from around the region, including two from Taruaniahighlighting the ways in which community rights to land and wildlife continue to be usurped despite the stated intentions of the Wildlife Policy and the new WMA Regulations (Nelson et al. 2005; Rodgers 2006). Baldus and Cauldwell's report and the debatethey have initiated does not extend to consideration of resident hunting in Tanzania"which is effectively subsidisedby the state (fees are much are much lower than for tourist hunting) but suffers from many of the same problems of inadequate control, lack of professionalism, and often downright comrption. Resident hunters have also resistedthe introduction of CWM in different parts of Tanzania,though in some casesproject intervention has forced them to accept the new dispensation (for the struggle that took place before the start of the MBOMIPA Project in Iringa seeHartley 1997).

10

Martin Walsh - The Utilisation of l{ildlife

in Taruania

Conclusion This brings us back to our earlier discussionabout CWM and the stalling of the WMA process. Despite considerable backing over the years from the intemational community, it has taken Tarzaria two decadesto reach a somewhatuncertain point in the development of CWM. The basic problem is both political and economic: govemment has lacked the will to upset those with a vested interest in the status quo, among them its own officers and hunters who are reluctant to give up their control over wildlife and the proceedsthereof. This is regrettable,becausealthough CWM may not be the only solution to the problems of conservation and development in wildlife-rich areas,it is surely people's right to exercisea greaterdegreeof ownership over these resourcesand their products than has been the case in the colonial and postcolonial past. Resistanceto CWM and related reforms is undoubtedly strongest among groups who benefit from the misuse of these resources,to the detriment of the nation's wildlife, the people who sharetheir village lands with these animals, and the wider economic good. The Tanzanianexperiencesuggeststhat similar difhculties are likely to occur whenever hunting is introduced in a country with comparablelevels of comrption and problems of governance. While other kinds of wildlife utilisation, tourism included, can also be exploitative, the evidence indicates that hunting is especially problematic and will prove diffrcult to reform.

References Ashley, C., Mdoe, N. & Reynolds, L. 2002. Rethinking Wildlife for Livelihoods and Diversification in Rural Tanzania: A Case Study from Northern Selous (LADDER Working Paper No.15). Norwich: Overseas Development Group, School of Development Studies,University of East Anglia. Baldus, R. D. & Cauldwell, A. E. 2004. Tourist Hunting and its Role in [theJ Development of Wildlife Management Areas in Tanzania. Dar es Salaam: Intemational Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation(CIC). Baldus, R. D. & Cauldwell, A. E. 2005. Introducing a Debate on the Reform of Safari Hunting. African Indaba e-Newsletter,3 (3): 2-3. Baldus, R. D., Kaggi, D. T. & Ngoti, P. M. 2004. CBC: Where Are We Now - Where Are We Going? Miombo: The Newsletter of the Wildlife Conservation Society of Tanzania,27, July. Barrow, E., Gichohi, H. & Infield, M. 2000. Rhetoric or Reality? A Review of Community ConservationPolicy and Practice in East Africa (Evaluating Eden Series No.5). London: International Institute for Environment and Development QIED). Brockingtofl, D. 2002. Fortress Conservation: The Preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve,Tanzania.Oxford: JamesCurrey.

1l

Martin ,Yalsh - The Utilisation of llildlife

in Tanzania

Elliott, J. (ed.) 2002. Wildlife and Poverty Study. London: DFID Livestock and Wildlife Advisory Group, Departmentfor Intemational Development (DFID). Emerton, L. & Mfunda, I. 1999. Making Wildlife Economically Viable for CommunitiesLiving Around the WesternSerengeti,Tanzania (Evaluating Eden Series Working Paper No.l). London: International Institute for Environment and Development QIED) Gardner, B., Nelson, F. & Williams, A.20A4. Conflicting Visions and Local Contexts: A Comparative Assessment of Community Wildlife Management in Tarrzania. Paper presented to a workshop on Taking Stock of Community-based Natural ResourceManagementin East Africa, Arush4 4-7 October. Gibson, C. C. 1999. Politicians and Poachers: The Political Economy of Wildlife Policy in Africa. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. Gillingham, S. & Lee, P. C. 1999. The Impact of Wildlife-related Benefits on the ConservationAttitudes of Local People Around the Selous Game Reserve,Tanzaria. Environmental Conservation,26 (3): 218-228. Goldman, G. 2001. Partitioned Nature, Privileged Knowledge: Community Based Conservation in the Maasai Ecosystem, Tanzania (Papers in Environmental Governance in Africa, Working Paper No.3). Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Goldman, G. 2003. Partitioned Nature, Privileged Knowledge: Community-based Conservationin Tanzaria.Developmentand Change,3a (5): 833-862. Gordon, N. 1991.Ivory Knights: Man, Magic and Elephants. London: Chapmans. Hahn, R. & Kaggi, D. 2001. Selous Game Reserve: Development of Community Based Conservationin the Buffer Zone, Facts and Figures. In R. D. Baldus & L. Siege (eds.) Experiences with Community Based Wildlife Conservation in Tanzania (Tanzania Wildlife Discussion Paper No.29). Dar es Salaam: Wildlife Division & Deutsche Gesellschaftftir TechnischeZusammenarbeit.GTZ Wildlife Prosramme in Tanzania.44-60.

Hartley, D. 1997. Community Wildlife Management: A Review of the ODA's Experience in Tanzqnia. Report to the Overseas Development Administration, London. Holmern, T., Rsskaft, E., Mbaruka, J., Mkama, S. Y. & Muya, J.2002. Uneconomical Game Cropping in a Community-based Conservation Project outside the Serengeti National Park, Tanzania.Oryx,36 @\364-372. Holmem, T., Johannesen,A. 8., Mbaruka, J., Mkama, S., Muya, J. & Rgskaft, E. 2004. Human-Wildlife Conflicts and Hunting in the Western Serengeti, Tanzania. Trondheim: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research(NINA).

t2

Martin Walsh - The Utilisation of lilildlife in Taraania

Hulme, D. & Murphree, M. (eds.) 2001. African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation.Oxford: JamesCurrey. Lissu, T. 2000. Policy and Legal Issues on Wildlife Management in Tanzania's Pastoral Lands: The Case Study of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area. Lsw, Social Justice& Global Development,l. Majamba, H. I. 2001. Regulating the Hunting Industry in Tanzania: Reflectionson the Legislative, Institutional and Policy-making Frameworls (Research Report No.4). Dar es Salaam:Lawyers' Environmental Action Team (LEAT). Nelson, F., Jones, M. & Williams, A. 2005. Hunting, Sustainability, and Property Rights in Eastand SouthernAfrica. African Indaba e-Newsletter,3(4):8-9,14. Nshala, R. 1999. Granting Hunting Blocks in Tanzania: The Needfor Reform (Policy Brief No.5).Dar es Salaam:Lawyers' Environmental Action Team (LEAT). Rodgers, A. 2006. Tourist Hunting in Tanzania: Issues Behind the Issues. African Indaba e-Newsletter,4(2): ll-I2. Roe, D., Mayers, J., Grieg-Gran,M., Kothari, A., Fabricius,C. & Hughes, R. 2000. Evaluating Eden: Exploring Myths and Realities of Community-based Wildlife Management.Series Overview (Evaluating Eden SeriesNo.8). London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IED). Severre,E. L. M. 2000. Conservationof Wildlife Outside Core ProtectedAreas in the New Millennium. Paper presentedto the conferenceon African Wildlife Management in the New Millennium, College of African Wildlife Management, Mweka, 13-15 December. Severre, E. L. M. 2003. [The] Community Tourism - Wildlife Interface. Paper presented to the Second International Institute for Peace Through Tourism Conferenceon Peace Through Tourism, Dar es Salaam,7-12 December. Shauri, V. 1999. The New Wildlife Policy in Tanzania: Old Wine in a New Bottle? (Policy Brief No.3). Dar es Salaam:Lawyers' Environmental Action Team (LEAT). Shivji, I. G. 2001. A Review of CPRs: A Country Report on Tanzania. Paper presentedto a workshop on Common Pool Resourcesand SustainableLivelihoods in Semi-arid Regionsof Tanzania,Dar es Salaam,14 December. Shivji, I. G. & Kapinga, W. B. 1998. Maasai Rights in Ngorongoro, Tanzania. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) & HAKIARDHI. Siege,L.2001. Community Based Conservation: 13 Years of Experiencein Tanzania. In R. D. Baldus & L. Siege (eds.) Experiences with Community Based Wildlife Conservation in Tanzania (Tarzania Wildlife Discussion Paper No.29). Dar es Salaam: Wildlife Division & Deutsche Gesellschaftfiir TechnischeZusammenarbeit, GTZ Wildlife Programmein Tanzania.17-25.

13

Martin Walsh - The Utilisation of llildlife

in Tanzania

Stolla, F. 2005. Wildlife Management Areas: A Legal Analysis (TNRF Occasional PaperNo.5). Arusha: TanzaniaNatural ResourceForum (TNRF). The United Republic of Tanzania (URT). 1974. The Wildlife ConservationAct, 1974 [No.12 of ]97aJ. Dar es Salaam:The Govemment Printer. The United Republic of Tanzania (URT). 1998. Wildlife Policy of Tanzania. Dar es Salaam:Ministry of Natural Resourcesand Tourism. The United Republic of Tanzania (URT). 2002a. The Wildlife ConservationAct, 1974 [No.l2 of ]974J. The Wildlife Conservation \trildlife Management Areas) Regulations,2002. Dar es Salaam:The GovernmentPrinter. The United Republic of Tanzania (URT). 2002b. Guidelines for Designation and Management of Wildlife Management Areas. Dar es Salaam: Ministry of Natural Resourcesand Tourism. Walpole, M. J. & Thouless, C. R. 2005.Increasing the Value of Wildlife Through Non-consumptive Use? Deconstructing the Myths of Ecotourism and Communitybased Tourism in the Tropics. In R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood & A. Rabinowitz (eds.) People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence? Carnbridge: Cambridge University Press.122-139. Walsh, M. T. 2000. The Development of Community Wildlife Management in Tanzania: Lessonsfrom the Ruaha Ecosystem.Paper presentedto the conferenceon African Wildlife Management in the New Millennium, College of African Wildlife Management,Mweka, 13-15December. Walsh, M. T. 2001. The Wildlife ConservationAct, 1974, and the Wildlife Policy of Tanzania: The Place of Local Communities. Paper commissioned by EPIQ/Tanzania and presentedto a Workshop to Review the Wildlife ConservationAct, 1974, Arusha, 2l-23 February. Walsh, M. T. 2003. MBOMIPA: From Project to Association andfrom Conservation to Poverty Reduction: Final Project Report.Iringa: MBOMIPA Project, Ministry of Natural Resourcesand Tourism.

t4