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 anti-
poaching 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 non-
consumptive 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 Legal mandate / government Villages? Tourist Resident

Protected (or authoritv hunting? hunting?
other) Area

Ngorongoro Ngorongoro ConservationArea yes no no

ConservationArea Ordinance, 1959 / Ngorongoro
(NCA) ConservationAuthoritv Authoritv
n:l (NCAA)

National Parks National Parks Ordinance,1959 I no no no

(NPs) T anzaniaNational Parks
n:14 (TANAPA)

GameReserves Wildlife ConservationAct 1974I no yes no

(GRs) Wildlife Division (WD)
n:33
GameControlled Wildlife ConservationAct, 1974 / yes yes yes
Areas(GCAs) Wildlife Division (WD)
n:43

OpenAreas(OAs) Wildlife ConservationAct, 1974I yes yes yes

n:? Wildlife Division (WD)

Wildlife Wildlife ConservationAct 1974 & yes yes yes

Management Wildlife Conservation(Wildlife
Areas(WMAs) ManagementAreas) Regulations,
n:0 (only pilot 2002 /Wildlife Division (WD)
projects)

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 benefit-
sharing 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
conservation"(Section2.2)whichare createdaccordingto decisionsby the VillageAssembly
and VillageCouncil.The WMA Guidelines statethat the purposeof WMAsis "to enablethe
localcommunitieslivingin villagesto participatein the protectionand utilizationof wildlife
resources on villageland."

TheWMA Regulations providedetailedprovisionsfor 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
organisation (CBO),and registerit as suchwiththe Ministryof HomeAffairsaccording
to the provisionsof the SocietiesOrdinance.
3. The villagesprepareland use planswhich providefor the proposedWMA on their
lands. These land use plans are to be subjectedto basic environmentalimpact
assessments.
4. The CBOpreparesa generalmanagement planfor theWMA,or as an interimmeasure
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[...].

Additionalprocedures applyfor the AA to enterintoinvestment

agreementsin the WMAsas
may be desirablein order for the communityto generatebenefitsfrom wildlifethrough
commercial activitiessuchas tourismor hunting.lnvestmentagreements also are subjectto
Environmental lmpactAssessments and all investments
in WMAsmust be approvedby the
Directorof Wildlife.

The WMA Regulations representa majorlegalreformin the wildlifesector.The questionis:

do the WMA Regulations fulfil the goal of the WildlifePolicyof Tanzaniato enablelocal
communities"to managewildlifeon their land for their own benefit."There are a numberof
problemswith the WMA Regulationsin terms of their realizingthis aim. The procedural
requirementsof the Regulations for communities to formWMAsare dauntingand complexas
has beenreportedby localrepresentatives in manyseminarsandworkshopsduringthe past
two years.Somerequirements, suchas formationof CBOsand development of participatory
land use planssubjectedto Environmental lmpactAssessments, may take severalyearsto
complete.Moreproblematic are thoseprocedural hurdles,particularly
the transferof reserved
landin GameControlled Areasto villagelands,for whichtheway forwardis notaddressedby
the Regulations./f is partly becauseof the complexityof theseproceduresfhaf as of January,
2005,two years afterthe launchingby the Ministryof the WMA Regulations, none of the pilot
WMAshaveyet beengazefted.

Second,even if communities are able to completeall the procedures and form WMAs,the
degreeof authoritythey receivefor management of theseareasis limited.All investments in
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
communities WMAsdo not knowwhat proportionof the revenuein the WMAs
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 of forminga WMA in the first place."(Stolla2005:
to evaluatethe sensibility
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
discussionof a "transferof management" of WMAsto localcommunities, "theStatewill retain
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
properlymanagenaturalresources."" (Goldman 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
are no exception. International agencieshave provided the main impetus for
Tat:..z:ania
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 littleinformationis 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
on whoseland huntingtakesplace.Outfittersare
touristhuntingwith the localcommunities
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 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.
r Someconcessions showextremelyhighlevelsof utilisation that are not sustainable,
butofftakesarewithinquotaset bythe WildlifeDivision.
o Initiativesto effectivelycomputerisethe control of hunting and bring greater
transparency have twice been disregardedand a cumbersomemanualsystemof

6
 Martin lYalsh - The Utilisation of lVildlife in Taraania

issuingandchecking permitsis continued.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.
o 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
withouteffectivesupporti ng ecologicaldata.
o Thereis a lackof standardsin the privatesector.Ethicsare not maintained and there
is no internalcontrolor trainingof professionalhunters.Manyyounginexperienced
huntersare nevertheless authorisedas professionals
to guideforeignclients.
o A policyand managementplan for touristhuntingwas developedby the Wildlife
Divisionin 1995.This was signedand acceptedby the Directorof Wildlifebut has
never been implemented, possiblybecauseit showsthe way for comprehensive
reformof the touristhuntingindustrywhich includesintroducingcompetitionand
incorporatingcommunitiesas decision-makers with access to significantfunds
generated fromhunting.

The currentsystemof controlling touristhuntingcannotcontinuemuchlonger.lnternational

pressures will growandwill forcechangewhereit is needed.Pressures fromwithinTanzania
will alsodemandchange.Pressures fromaboveare alreadycomingfromtheVice President's
Office,whilewidespread demandsamongthe numerousgrassroots communities are building.
To retaincontrol,the WildlifeDivisionneedsto be proactivethroughimplementing effective
reformof thetouristhuntingindustry,butthis is onlypossibleif:
1. Effectivemarket-based competitionbetweenoutfittersis introduced,i.e. outfittersbid
competitivelyagainsteachotherfor concessions;
2. Controlof subleasingis implemented, which may come naturallythrougheffective
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
Hunting." (Baldus& Cauldwell 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

corruptionappearsto 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

experienceand manyprofessionalhunterslackthe necessary
skills.Eventhe besthunters
losewoundedanimals,and somethingis certainlyfishy if outfittersdeclare
occasionally
lessthan 10%woundedanimalslost.Statisticsfrom the Seloushuntingdatabasereveal
thata woundingrateof only1.5%is declared.

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 ignoranceof relevantTanzanianlaw.The problemoccurs
becausethere is no certification of competence for professionalhuntersin Tanzania.A
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
experienced professional huntersare mauled/killed by the animalsthey hunt.The Wildlife
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
experience in Tanzania,yet are provisionally authorisedas professionals
fromthe start.
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
huntedmistakenly, particularly
withleopard,topi,hartebeest and zebra.

Under-sizedtrophies are Iegali sed

. Elephanttrophiesthatdo not meetthe minimumstandardare providedwiththe necessary

CITESexportdocumentation.
. A promotionalpamphletproducedby the WildlifeDivisionin 2002showsa hunterposing
withan under-sizedelephanttrophy.
. Many other under-sizedanimalsare also being huntedwhich are detrimentalto the
dynamicsof populations,
particularly
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.
Commercial photography feesare due butsuchvideosare notdeclaredandfeesare thus
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 Environmentalstandardsfor 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
widespread.Cuttingtreesfor campclearingandconstruction getsexcessive. Manycamps
are locatedin ecologicallysensitivesites but with little concernto the environmental
impact.

Zanzibarnot signatoryfo C/IES

. Zanzibarwildlifeauthorities
do not considerthemselvessignatoryto 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

leasingconcessionsare subleasing thesein variousways.Sub-lessees possiblyaccount
for approximately
40o/oof the industry'sincome,yet thereare no specifictaxationcontrols
on the sub-lesseeswho are gaininghuge profitsat the expenseof the industry.Many
foreignPHsare bringingclientsto subletconcessions, amongtheseare PHs enteringas
undeclared payingneitherobserverfeesnor PH licenses.
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 developmentof othersourcesof income
o Therehasneverbeenan inventory of thetruevalueof the huntingconcessions.

Lackof desireto improvethe industry

. A policyand management plan for touristhunting[...] was compiledby the Wildlife

Divisionand acceptedin 1995 but has never been implemented. This plan is well
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
simplywrongandonecan onlyspeculate aboutthe underlying reasons.Experience shows
that the worse the players,the greateris the level of over-utilisation.
To improvethe
system,the badplayersmustbe removed!" (Baldus& Cauldwell 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 Community-
based 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