Tanzania’s
Wildlife Management Areas
A 2012 Status Report
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 1
Tanzania’s
Wildlife Management Areas
A 2012 Status Report
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The compilation of this report was a collaborative effort initiated by ERR-Consulting Group and
facilitated by WWF with the input of numerous people and organizations. Contributing writers
and editors were Prof. Hussein Sosovele, Asukile R. Kajuni, Judith Balint, Erica Rieder, Angela
Amlin, Eliezer Sungusia, Gerald Mushi, Schuyler Olsson, Rodney Ngalamba, Phillip Paul and
Caroline Cook. Report design was by Donna Sicklesmith-Anderson. Special thanks should go
to all our partners (including WCS, WCST, FZS, GTZ, JBG, AWF, DHA, and Africare) who have
been facilitating and guiding the WMA implementation process in the field and who contributed
immensely during the workshop held in Bagamoyo from July 17 to 18, 2013. Also we thank
the reviewers who made useful comments to improve the presentation of this report, including
Neil Burgess, Mikala Lauridsen and Robert Layng. We are very grateful to many other individuals
and organizations not listed here but who provided valuable data, information and feedback for
this document.
This report was made possible through a partnership between the Government of the United
Republic of Tanzania, WWF-Tanzania, WWF-US, and the generous support of the American
people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents
of this report are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of
USAID or the United States Government or WWF.
Published by: WWF Tanzania Country Office | Plot 350 Regent Estate Mikocheni | P.O. Box 63117 |
Dar es Salaam | Telephone: +255 22 277 5346; +255 22 270 1675 | Fax: +255 22 277 5535 | www.panda.org
Copyright: WWF Tanzania Country Office for text, maps and graphs; photographs with individual
photographers as listed below.
Printed by: PEN plus | P.O. Box 8233 | Dar es Salaam; First Published: March 2014
Suggested citation:
WWF (2014). Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas: A 2012 Status Report. WWF, Dar es Salaam.
ACRONYMS
AA
Authorized Association
AAC
Authorized Association Consortium
AWF
African Wildlife Foundation
CBNRM
Community-Based Natural Resource Management
CBO
Community-Based Organization
CFW
Cash-for-Work Project
DNRAB
District Natural Resources Advisory Board
FZS Frankfurt Zoological Society
GMP
General Management Plan
GTZ Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (German Agency for Technical Cooperation)
NCAA
Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority
NGO
Non-Governmental Organization
TANAPA
Tanzania National Parks
USAID United States Agency for International Development
VGS Village Game Scouts
WCS
Wildlife Conservation Society
WMA Wildlife Management Area
WWF World Wide Fund for Nature
PHOTOGRAPHY
Front Cover, Page 15 © Caroline Cook/WWF-US; Title Page, Acknowledgements, Contents, Page 35
© WWF-US/Dan Forman; Introduction © Gary Tognoni/istock.com; Page 1, Page 32 © ERR Consulting;
Page 3 © Kjetil Kolbjornsrud/istock.com; Page 10 © Lee Snow/istock.com; Page 12, 18, 33 (bottom), 39
© WWF-US; Page 13 © WWF-US/Steve Morello; Page 14 © Erica Rieder/WWF-US; Page 16 © BlueOrange
Studio/istock.com; Page 17, 25 © WWF; Page 26 © Martin Harvey/WWF-Canon; Page 27 © Tom Gilks/
WWF-Canon/naturepl.com; Page 28, 29, 31, 33, 37 (top) © Eliezer Sungusia/WWF-Tanzania; Page 34,
42 and Back Cover © Ryan Faas/istock.com; Page 36, 38, 41 © Allard Blom/WWF-US; Page 60 © S. Burel/
istock.com.
CONTENTS
1. Introduction and Background........................................................................... 1
2. Overview of Wildlife Management Areas......................................................5
3. Wildlife and Natural Resource Conservation.................................................11
4. WMA Revenue..................................................................................................17
5. Community Benefits........................................................................................29
6. Challenges and Vision for the Future............................................................35
WMA Profiles.......................................................................................................43
WMA Support Organizations. ............................................................................. 61
List of Figures
1. Steps to WMA Establishment............................................................................6
2. WMA Institutional Structure.............................................................................9
3. Cumulative Area under 17 WMAs.....................................................................11
4. WMA Revenue in Nominal US$......................................................................23
5. Annual Gross Revenue from Game Viewing Tourism.......................................24
6. Community Development Projects Supported by WMAs. ................................29
7. CFW Infrastructure Projects in WMAs............................................................ 31
List of Tables
1. Registered WMAs of Tanzania........................................................................... 7
2. Monetary and Nonmonetary Benefits...............................................................17
3. WMA Hunting Blocks and Categories..............................................................20
4. Government and WMA Sharing of Gross Hunting Revenue.............................22
5. Lodging in WMAs with Photographic Tourism Ventures. ................................ 23
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Tanzania is home to extraordinary wildlife migrations set against iconic African
landscapes. Its natural wealth ranges from the open grasslands of the Serengeti
in the north to granite inselbergs and thick woodlands in the south. At the same
time, Tanzania remains economically one of the poorest countries in the world,
with widespread poverty, particularly in the rural areas. This juxtaposition of
human poverty and a wealth of biodiversity and habitats creates significant
challenges in trying to resolve the trade-offs between conservation and basic
human survival. The natural resource base contributes over 30% of the national
gross domestic product,1 primarily through agriculture and tourism, and over
75% of Tanzanians depend directly on natural resources for their livelihoods.2
The tourism sector holds a promising future for sustainable development.
Tourists come to Tanzania to see pristine landscapes and view wildlife, which
incentivizes the preservation of those natural resources as potential sources of
income. However, inadequate resource management capacity, poor governance,
and inequitable access and sharing of income from resource utilization are some
of the problems that negatively impact natural resources and the rural poor who
depend on them.
Until about 15 years ago, wildlife management in Tanzania was an exclusively
state-controlled affair, dating back to 1891 when laws controlling hunting were
first enacted by the German colonial administration. The laws, which restricted
local use of wildlife by making traditional hunting a criminal offense and
regulated trophy hunting by Europeans, were continued through the period of
British control from 1920 to 1961. After World War II, the British put particular
emphasis on the preservation of wildlife and the establishment of protected areas.
As a result, at Tanzania’s independence in 1961, there were three major national
parks and nine game reserves. Even after Tanzania’s independence, wildlife
management practices continued largely unchanged and focused on creating
exclusive zones for wildlife and on keeping wildlife management under central
government control.
Control and management of wildlife have been the responsibility of multiple state
agencies in Tanzania since the passing of the Wildlife Conservation Act in 1974.
The Wildlife Division of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism controls
wildlife outside national parks, in game reserves and in game controlled areas.
The Tanzania National Parks and the Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority
manage wildlife in national parks and in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area,
respectively. Currently, Tanzania has 16 national parks, which, together with
lands under other protected area status, account for approximately 36% of the
country.3 Many of the protected areas were created where human population
was low, but in some instances it was accomplished through land seizure and
involuntary resettlement of local communities. This process generated substantial
resentment among rural populations and heightened negative sentiments towards
conservation efforts.
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 1
Introduction and Background
The wildlife sector crisis of the 1980s, in which Tanzania lost half of its elephant
population and almost its entire black rhino population through poaching,
spawned actions on the part of the Government of Tanzania to critically
examine the current state of wildlife policy and management. The Government’s
realization that sustainable resource conservation and rural development
are closely linked emerged from the perceived failure of past, traditionally
centralized, wildlife management policies and practices in Tanzania. With support
from development partners such as the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID), the Government of Tanzania began pursuing a new
model of conservation based on the principles of community-based natural
resource management (CBNRM) being pioneered in other countries in eastern
and southern Africa. This approach is intended to empower local communities
and allow them to have greater involvement and authority in the management
of natural resources, and it slowly became a critical complementary strategy to
the traditional centralized command-and-control approach as a way to promote
sustainable biodiversity conservation together with rural economic development.
The central idea of CBNRM is that when local communities have ownership
of natural resources and they derive significant benefits from the use of those
resources, then those resources will be sustainably managed. This involves
shifting control of natural resources from the state to the community and
the development of opportunities for local residents to earn income from the
resources newly under their control. With significant wildlife resources in eastern
and southern Africa, the focus of CBNRM is on maximizing the value of wildliferich lands to outcompete other land uses. When local residents experience
economic gains from wildlife enterprises, their standard of living improves,
and this gives them incentive to support conservation efforts.
The 1998 Wildlife Policy of Tanzania4 (revised in 2007 5) exemplified this
new vision as it opened doors for local community participation in wildlife
conservation. This new policy led to the establishment of Wildlife Management
Areas (WMAs) on village lands, Tanzania’s approach to CBNRM in the
wildlife sector. A set of WMA Regulations was developed in 2002, and formal
implementation began in 2003. Parallel initiatives, including the 2002 Forest
Act, focused on devolution of natural resource management to communities.
While progress has been steady, complete devolution of decision making by
the government to communities has not yet taken place.
This report presents the 2012 status of Tanzania’s 17 registered WMAs. The
information serves as an initial foundation for future assessments. Our vision is
that this report will be updated every two years, providing a valuable up-to-date
reference for the growth and development of WMAs over time.
Chapter 2 provides an overview of the WMA approach and discusses the main
objectives, the establishment process, and the governance institutions and
structure as well as the enabling legislation. In Chapter 3, we provide details of
how WMAs provide benefits to wildlife conservation efforts. Chapters 4 and 5
describe the ways in which communities are benefiting from WMAs. In Chapter
6, we discuss key challenges facing the WMAs and the vision for the future.
Individual profiles of the 17 WMAs and information on WMA support
organizations conclude the report.
2 | Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas
U GAN DA
K E N YA
TAN ZAN IA
▲
MAP KEY
N
WMAs
Protected Areas
Cities and Towns
0 100200
km
400
ZAMBIA
MALAWI
MO ZAM B IQ UE
2. OVERVIEW OF WILDLIFE
MANAGEMENT AREAS
WMA Objectives
The main objectives of
the WMA process are to:
• increase the
participation of local
communities in the
management of wildlife
resources;
• enable local
communities to derive
benefits from wildlife
resources; and
• enhance the
conservation of wildlife
resources.
A Wildlife Management Area (WMA) is an area of communal land set aside
exclusively as habitat for wildlife by member villages. Following the principles of
community-based natural resource management (CBNRM), the key underlying
assumption of the WMA concept is that providing local communities with
economic benefits and involving them in management will promote both
long-term health of wildlife and habitat and rural economic development.
Communities will thus have a vested interest in the conservation of natural
resources because they benefit directly from their sustainable management. In
2003, the Government of Tanzania launched a pilot phase of WMA development.
Following evaluation of the pilot phase, WMAs were formally adopted as an
approach for involving communities in wildlife management.
WMAs can provide local residents with benefits through associated enterprises
that use either wildlife or other natural resources in the WMA. Before the
introduction of the WMA approach, there were no legal frameworks for
communities to participate in wildlife management, although individual villages
could, on a small scale and in an ad hoc manner, enter into business contracts
with the private sector. Without fences controlling movement of large iconic
African mammals such as elephants, zebras and lions, multiple villages preserving
large tracts of land together are able to collectively capitalize on potential tourism
opportunities and more effectively protect wildlife in the area. Such ventures had
few safeguards to ensure economic or environmental sustainability. WMAs allow
communities to secure user rights to the wildlife resources on their land, and
the legal framework allows communities to benefit directly from any enterprise
that is based on wildlife.
Enabling Legislation
The 1998 Wildlife Policy (revised in 2007) is the statutory foundation for
CBNRM in Tanzania. The Government of Tanzania enacted the first WMA
Regulations in 2002 (revised in 2005), which detailed the process for
establishing a WMA, the requirements for the management of wildlife and a
basic framework for sharing benefits among stakeholders. This was replaced
by the 2012 WMA Regulations.
The government also enacted several WMA-enabling statutes, including the
2004 Environmental Management Act—a comprehensive legal framework
for national environmental management, which became operational in 2005.
The government reaffirmed its WMA policies and regulations in the Wildlife
Conservation Act of 2009. Other laws governing WMA activities include
the 2008 Wildlife Conservation (Non-Consumptive Wildlife Utilization)
Regulations and the 2010 Wildlife Conservation (Tourist Hunting)
Regulations.
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 5
Overview of Wildlife Management Areas
FIGURE 1. Steps to
WMA Establishment
Community
Organization
• Village Assembly
agrees to form a WMA
based on Village Council
recommendations on
what land to donate.
• Villages form a representative communitybased organization (CBO);
undertake to make a
constitution and bylaws,
and register it with the
Ministry of Home Affairs.
• The CBO prepares
a strategic plan for the
proposed WMA.
t
Land Use Planning
• Villages prepare land
use plans, including the
future WMA, which must
be surveyed, mapped
and registered.
• Villages prepare bylaws
to support the land use
plans, which are then
subjected to Environmental Impact Assessments.
• The CBO prepares an
interim five-year Resource
Zone Management Plan
or a 10-year (or longer)
General Management Plan
that zones resource use
in the WMA.
t
Authorized
Association and
WMA Formation
• The CBO applies to the
Wildlife Director (WD) for
Authorized Association
(AA) status and is gazetted.
• The AA applies to the
WD for user rights to the
wildlife inside the WMA
and applies for a hunting
block, if desired.
• AA enters investment
agreements.
Creation of a WMA
To form a WMA, an interested village (or group of villages) must follow a 12-step
process. Villages must agree to set aside part of their land for wildlife (the WMA
land itself) and elect village members to represent them through a community
organization responsible for future WMA management. Through these steps, land
use plans are developed, bylaws and regulations put in place, and a Resource Zone
Management Plan or General Management Plan written that together form the
basic framework for the WMA. The Director of the Wildlife Division is responsible
for ultimate authorization and designation of a WMA. This 12-step process is
simplified in Figure 1 to show the essential components of WMA establishment.
In 2003, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), with support from USAID
and GTZ, produced a user-friendly reference manual titled Guidelines for the
Designation and Management of WMAs. The manual provides a systematic guide
on how to deal with issues pertaining to identification, establishment, initiation
and management of WMAs.
The establishment process requires significant financial resources and technical
capacities that are not readily available in the villages. Consequently, from its
inception in 2003 to date, donors have been providing substantial funding for
WMAs. USAID, for example, has awarded grants totaling approximately US$27
million to aid WMAs in a variety of ways, from supporting establishment of
WMAs to building WMA infrastructure while generating income for community
members via temporary employment. Much of the funding, channeled through
the Wildlife Division and various facilitating NGOs such as Africare, African
Wildlife Foundation (AWF), Frankfurt Zoological Society (FZS), Wildlife
Conservation Society (WCS) and WWF, is used to support outreach, project
development and capacity building in the communities.
WMAs Today
The WMA approach began in 2003 with 16 pilot WMAs. Four of these pilot
WMAs became the first formally registered WMAs in 2006. As of the end of 2012,
17 WMAs have been gazetted, with 21 more moving toward formal registration
(Table 1). From 2006 to 2012, the area under WMA management nationwide
grew from about 6,700 km2 to about 27,430km2 (>3% of the country’s land area).
There are currently 148 villages with a population of more than 440,000 people
participating in WMAs.
Institutional Structures
Local communities form the foundation of any WMA. However, the WMA itself is
managed through a range of institutions beginning at the village level and feeding
up through district and national levels. WMA administration at the village level
involves the Authorized Association (AA), Village Council and Village Assembly.
The AA, monitored by the Village Council, is the key organization responsible for
policy and strategic matters relating to WMA management, including acquisition
Adapted from WMA Regulations
(2012) and Sulle et al (2011)
6 | Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas
TABLE 1. Registered WMAs of Tanzania
WMA
Name
Ngarambe-Tapika­
Year
Started
2003
Villages
Year
Gazetted
District
NGO
Facilitator i
2006
Rufiji
GTZ , WWF2
iii
iv
Area
(km2) ii
Population
(2002)
731 2,514
Mbarang’andu­
2003
2006
Namtumbo
GTZ, WCST ,7
v
JBG , WWF
2,318 75,170
Uyumbu
20032006 Urambo
Africare, WWF4
870
Burunge
20032006 Babati
AWF
28019,989
Ipole
2003
Sikonge
Africare, WWF4
2,540 8,884
Mvomero,
Bagamoyo and
Morogor Rural
Danish
Hunters Assn,
WWF
24
4,00065,935
AWF
9
1,28247,103
WWF
21
77356,724
FZS
5
24221,067
Tunduru
20032007 Tunduru
GTZ, JBG/
WCST, WWF
9
1,3918,941
Liwale
20032009 Liwale
WWF
9
3,44215,688
Makao
20032009 Meatu
FZS
7
7692,928
Makame
20032009 Kiteto
AWF
4
3,71910,664
Ukutu
2008
GTZ, WWF21
640 58,020
GTZ, JBG/4
WCST, WWF
938No Data
2006
Wami-­Mbiki
2003
2007
Enduimet
20032007 Longido
Idodi-­Pawaga
2003
2007
Ikona
Iringa
Rural
20032007 Serengeti
2010
Morogoro Rural
Chingoli
20082012 Tunduru
10
17,075
Kimbanda
20082012 Namtumbo JBG/WCS
WWF
5
2,15022,185
Kisungule
20082012 Namtumbo JBG/WCS
WWF
3
1,34511,813
TOTALS 17 WMAs
148
27,430444,700
i
NGOs in bold are former facilitators.
ii Land area as discussed at stakeholders’ workshop in Bagamoyo, October 2013
iii Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (German Organization for Technical Cooperation)
iv Wildlife Conservation Society of Tanzania
v Gauff Engineering
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 7
Overview of Wildlife Management Areas
WMA IN FOCUS: Enduimet
Enduimet WMA is located in the West Kilimanjaro Basin of Longido District.
It shares a border with Kilimanjaro National Park to the southeast, Ngasuri
Open Area to the west and the Kenyan border to the north. Enduimet was
established in 2003 with land allocated by nine villages. Today Enduimet
consists of 1,282 km2.
Enduimet is an important WMA with significant potential to generate
revenue from tourism activities for the development of the local villages.
A significant amount of research on elephant and lion dynamics in Tanzania
has been conducted within Enduimet, and it is the only WMA with a
permanent research camp and a long-term monitoring program. Enduimet
has a very unique and extensive plains ecosystem that is home to an
abundance of wildlife and is the only WMA that protects a transboundary
corridor between Kilimanjaro and Amboseli National Parks.
Purpose: To conserve Enduimet WMA as a part of the Kilimanjaro-Amboseli
Ecosystem to preserve biodiversity, encourage tourism, and build the
economy of Enduimet WMA and adjacent areas.
of user rights, development of benefit-sharing mechanisms, budgeting and
recordkeeping, communication of policies, and private sector engagement. At
the district level, the District Council and the District Natural Resources Advisory
Board (DNRAB) are the responsible agents. The District Council is a local
government organization mandated to provide key administrative support to the
AAs, including assistance in establishing WMAs, guidance on village land use
plans and bylaws, assistance in negotiating private sector contracts, and issuance
of residence hunting licenses to the AAs. The DNRAB acts as an arbitrating
body for conflict resolution and provides critical legal and technical advice to
the AAs in WMA management and contract negotiations. WMAs are comanaged
by the Wildlife Division at the national level through the WMA Support Unit.
Other actors at the national level are the Ministry of Natural Resources and
Tourism (MNRT), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the Authorized
Association Consortium (AAC). The AAC is the apex body for the AAs, serving
as a platform for the AA members to articulate their views and concerns and to
undertake collective planning. See Figure 2 for the institutional structure—solid
lines signify direct reporting and broken lines indicate consultation.
8 | Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas
FIGURE 2. WMA Institutional Structure (Adapted from 2012 WMA Regulations)
n National Level
n Regional and District Level
n Local Level
Ministry of Natural
Resources and Tourism
Tanzania National Parks
The Director of the Wildlife
Division consults with
Tanzania National Parks
(TANAPA) when facilitating
WMA establishment adjacent
to national parks.
Oversees tourism
development, national
parks development, game
reserves and game controlled
areas, tourism attractions
development, forests, and
antiquities and cultures.
Wildlife Division
(Director)
Ngorongoro
Conservation Area
Authority
The Director of the Wildlife
Division consults Ngorongoro
Conservation Area Authority
(NCAA) when facilitating
WMA establishment adjacent
to Ngorongoro Conservation
Area.
Responsible for facilitating
establishment of WMAs
and overseeing AA
performance and WMA
wildlife conservation. Makes
decisions regarding setting
and allocating wildlife
hunting quotas.
Authorized Association
Consortium
Civil society organization
created to represent the
interests of AAs at the
national level. Supports
AAs in marketing business
opportunities in sustainable
utilization of wildlife and
other natural resources.
District Council
Local government agency
responsible for approving
natural resource bylaws,
preparations of land use plans,
monitoring enforcement of
wildlife laws and supporting
the DNRAB.
District Natural
Resources Advisory
Board
Includes the District
Commissioner and the
executive director, district
officers, and three AA
representatives. Provides legal
and technical advice to the
AA, reviews proposed hunting
quotas from AA, and advises
on investments in the WMA.
Authorized Association
Village Council
Village Assembly
Community organization in
charge of managing the WMA
according to management
plans and regulations.
Individuals selected by village
(usually two), accountable
to Village Council.
Monitors activities of the
AA, provides land for the
establishment of the WMA and
participates in the preparation
of land use plans. Creates
and enforces natural resource
bylaws within their village.
Consists of all villagers.
Approves all WMA bylaws
and elects representatives
to Village Council and AA.
Also approves revenue
allocations proposed by the
Village Council, typically for
social service programs, land
use determination, and land
management issues.
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 9
3. WILDLIFE AND NATURAL RESOURCE
CONSERVATION
Wildlife and other natural resources are the foundation of all Wildlife
Management Areas (WMAs). Through this model, wildlife protection provides
revenue and other tangible benefits such as jobs and community improvement
projects. Therefore, long-term sustainability of natural resources is critically
important to WMAs. This chapter highlights the impact of WMAs on wildlife
conservation.
The 17 registered WMAs have added about 27,430 km2 to the total land area
under protection for wildlife in Tanzania—a contribution of more than 3% of the
country’s total land area (see Figure 3). Substantial additional habitat will be
added when the other 21 WMAs obtain full registration—adding another 4% of
Tanzania’s total land area and resulting in about 7% of the national territory being
reserved for wildlife conservation within WMAs.
FIGURE 3. Cumulative Area Under 17 WMAs
Cumulative Area (km2)
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
The land chosen by villagers for the WMAs is village land that borders existing
protected areas, such as national parks, game reserves and forest reserves.
The WMAs provide important buffer zones for 18 national protected areas
(eight national parks, one conservation area, eight game reserves and one
game controlled area) and 16 forest reserves. They also serve as critical wildlife
corridors and dispersal areas for wildlife in Tanzania’s Protected Areas System—
including the major well-known parks of the northern part of the country such
as Serengeti, Ngorongoro, Tarangire and Lake Manyara—thereby establishing
biological linkages among the nation’s protected areas.
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 11
Wildlife and Natural Resource Conservation
WMA IN FOCUS: Wildlife in Enduimet
Enduimet is home to a variety of species, including elephant, buffalo, giraffe,
leopard, oryx, eland, wildebeest and hyena. Ecologically, the WMA provides
connectivity between the Mkomazi, Arusha and Kilimanjaro National Parks
and the Greater Tsavo Ecosystem in Kenya.
Enduimet WMA is divided into three zones: the Olkunonoi-Kitendeni
Wildlife Corridor Zone, the Engasurai Tourist Hunting Zone and the Sinya
Photographic Safari Zone. Enduimet comprises the northern portion of
the larger Kitendeni Wildlife Corridor, which is critical to the survival of
both Kilimanjaro and Amboseli National Parks. The corridor serves as an
important seasonal migration route and dispersal area for wildebeest,
zebras and elephants moving between the two national parks.
Some WMAs have also established their own village land forest reserves as further
buffers between both the WMA and other protected areas, putting villages and
crops farther from wildlife and improving the quality of the habitat around a
WMA—thereby improving the ecological and economic value of the area.
Communities depend on critical ecosystem services provided by WMAs, which
may include enhanced conservation of soil, protection of hydrologic systems and
traditional crop varieties; thus, protection of forested land is clearly linked to
the success of traditional agricultural systems. The forests conserved in WMAs
are also important globally for their carbon sequestration services. However, the
possibility of generating revenue through forest protection and/or enhancement
in WMAs has not yet been thoroughly explored. The achievements made through
improved WMA conservation also have important implications for stemming
the loss of genetic and biological diversity. Together with national parks and
game reserves, WMAs address and combat challenges associated with ecosystem
fragmentation and disjointed conservation areas, enhancing connectivity via
corridors between parks and reserves.
WMAs have increased the number of people working to conserve wildlife
nationally. For example, as of October 2012, there were 529 village game scouts
(VGS) across 17 WMAs working to protect local wildlife. The game scouts have
many roles, but their primary purpose is to monitor and protect wildlife within
the WMA boundary, prevent illegal encroachment into the WMAs and respond
to incidents of human-wildlife conflict.
Key Challenges and Opportunities
With wildlife populations expected to grow as a result of improved WMA
management, increasing conflict with human settlements can be anticipated.
In an environment without fences, growing wildlife and human populations may
interact with growing frequency. Human-wildlife conflict can also be aggravated
by habitat encroachment as villagers illegally extend their cultivation plots into
restricted WMA areas. In some cases, this is a result of residents from villages
outside the WMA and from other parts of the country encroaching on restricted
areas for livestock grazing and crop farming. Local strategies to alleviate this
conflict will be progressively important in the future, and the Authorized
Association Consortium and supporting NGOs can provide assistance with best
12 | Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas
practices specific to each problem species. Tanzania has experts on humanwildlife conflict mitigation, but their experiences are not yet maximized to guide
efforts across the country. The human-wildlife conflict problem is exacerbated
by the lack of a well used compensation/restitution mechanism. There is a
consolation scheme regulated by the government under the 2009 Wildlife
Conservation Act, which enables the Director of the Wildlife Division to issue
monetary payment as a consolation to an individual or group for loss of livestock
or up to five acres of crops. Consolation may also be issued for cases of injury or
death, provided the individual or group was not engaged in unlawful activity at
the time of injury. In addition to the government scheme, the WMAs could also
institute their own consolation/compensation scheme agreed upon by the WMA
members.
“Some animals have
decreased in number as
compared to the 1980s,
including giraffe, elands,
elephants, gerenuk, lions
and dik-dik. But with the
establishment of the WMA
we expect to restore the
population of these and
others.”
Elizabeth Ole Kisau
Makame WMA
Other WMA areas are experiencing increased poaching as a result of humanwildlife conflict, inadequate anti-poaching capacity of VGS, and increases in prices
of ivory and rhino horns in international markets (Southeast Asia and the Middle
East). Improvements in technology have exacerbated the situation by making
it much easier to communicate and move goods from the fields to markets. The
increased availability of military weapons, small arms and ammunition coming
from war-torn neighboring countries has resulted in indiscriminate killing of
flagship species such as lions and elephants. This is a disadvantage for the VGS,
who are unable to match the firepower of the poachers. Most WMAs have few
meaningful wildlife management patrols and inadequate skills in monitoring and
anti-poaching efforts. Without sufficient revenue to properly train, compensate
and equip enough VGS, WMAs will continue to operate at a disadvantage against
poachers. In addition to lack of revenue, some WMAs do not prioritize game
patrols and VGS salaries. Poorly compensated VGS are less motivated, which
weakens Authorized Association (AA) management capacity. VGS are vital
for managing resources as well as investors’ use of resources (such as hunting
quotas). Without wildlife to photograph or hunt and without VGS to manage
it, the WMAs are certain to fail. Consequently, AAs need to pay the VGS before
addressing other operating costs.
Wildlife numbers, along with biodiversity and wildlife dynamics, should be the
key indicator of success in WMAs in terms of wildlife conservation. However, with
few exceptions, WMAs have not systematically gathered sufficient, standardized
wildlife census data. Some attempts have been made with support from the
United States Government funding to conduct annual or biannual counts for
biological assessments. However, for the most part the reported population
increases of key species such as elephants, lions and leopards are anecdotal.
Because potential revenue is closely linked to the quality of wildlife populations
and habitat in the WMA, this information is necessary for AAs to protect and
improve opportunities for revenue generation.
The management of WMAs requires data collection on wildlife and other
resources in order for authorities to make informed decisions. Despite a
Wildlife Division initiative to provide biological data collection guidance (WMA
Regulations, 2012), there has been inadequate capacity building to prepare
local communities for proper data handling. Most WMAs do not have the ability
to collect, store and analyze data to be used for decision making. In 2012,
efforts began to establish a monitoring system that is owned and implemented
by community members in all WMAs for management purposes. The WMA
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 13
Wildlife and Natural Resource Conservation
monitoring system is based on the principles of WMA ownership and simplicity,
such that it can be used to collect and analyze data without relying on external
expertise. The system will be piloted in seven WMAs: Ikona, Burunge, Makame,
Enduimet, Ngarambe-Tapika, Tunduru and Mbarang’andu. The monitoring
system will collect information such as species sightings, instances of humanwildlife conflict and instances of poaching in a WMA, and it is meant to
complement other information from more extensive wildlife surveys. Prioritizing
accurate wildlife population estimates is essential input for quota setting and is an
indicator of overall WMA effectiveness. This system is vital because AAs are now
expected to propose hunting quotas to the Wildlife Division Director for approval.
Monitoring is essential to community management and ownership, biodiversity
conservation, and revenue generation for WMAs. The WMA monitoring system
is in the pilot stage of implementation and is the first effort of its kind in
Tanzania. This is an opportunity for communities to decide what/why/who/
when to monitor, own their data and results, and conduct their own analyses
and reporting. The data collected will be used to inform management decisions
that are appropriate for local wildlife populations and also to ensure WMA longterm earning potential. This is also vital for the WMAs to set reasonable quotas
for their hunting blocks, which will hopefully ensure long-term healthy game
populations and maximized benefits for communities.
Prior to WMA gazetting, each village that contributes land must develop a land
use plan designating a portion of the village as WMA land. A Resource Zone
Management Plan is then developed for all land that comprises the WMA. The
requirement to develop these plans before a WMA is registered makes Tanzania’s
community-based natural resource management approach unique in eastern and
southern Africa. Setting aside a clearly defined area for wildlife has the advantage
of making it easier to patrol. This in turn improves the chances that the integrity
of the habitat will be maintained, in contrast to the uncertain outcomes in more
loosely defined mixed-use areas. Legally enforceable land use plans that set
aside land for wildlife can reduce the chance of encroachment by agriculture or
settlement and make it easier to combat poaching. However, according to most
community members who are aware that these zones exist, the land use plans
are not being utilized. Challenges can include the lack of community ownership
of the plans and VGS lacking sufficient resources to monitor violations. In
addition, while rigorous land use plans provide significant benefits from improved
management, the process of developing the plans is costly and requires outside
technical capacity that may be lacking in the communities.
There is an opportunity to expand community members’ skills beyond subsistence
agriculture and into other income-generation activities such as conservation
business ventures associated with the management of WMAs. While such
opportunities were previously confined to central government agencies such as
the Wildlife Division, Tanzania National Parks and Ngorongoro Conservation
Area Authority, the implementation of CBNRM has opened room for
communities to engage and participate in new industries. In addition, community
members have the opportunity to acquire new skills in contract negotiations
and management, organizational, and financial management through the
implementation of the WMA approach. Managing wildlife resources as business
entities is probably the most important opportunity brought about through
participation in WMAs.
14 | Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas
4. WMA REVENUE
Through establishing a Wildlife Management Area (WMA) and creating a land
use plan, communities have a greater opportunity to benefit from their natural
resources over the long term. Benefits of WMAs can be divided into communal
benefits and individual benefits. Both of these sources are needed; a high-dollar
communal revenue source is vital to cover operating costs of the WMA and
provide enough revenue to make significant contributions to village governments,
while smaller streams of revenue to individuals lead to household-level
development and provide tangible benefits to families in WMAs.
TABLE 2. Monetary and Nonmonetary Benefits
Monetary
Communal
Benefits
Trophy hunting
Photographic tourism
Potential for timber harvesting
Large-scale honey production
Individual
Benefits
Nonmonetary
Ecosystem services
• Intact watersheds
• Functional wetlands
Natural heritage
Resource/land tenure security
and rights through land use
planning
Employment
Democracy
Cash distribution
Empowerment
Income-generating activities
(crafts, honey production, etc.)
Education
Tourism enterprises are by far the most lucrative opportunities for WMAs to
generate significant revenue. Tanzania’s tourism sector currently generates about
17.5% of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) and nearly 25% of total
export earnings, second only to agriculture. According to the Bank of Tanzania,
the tourism sector’s contribution to the economy is expected to improve from
US$1,759.5 million in 2010 to US$3,836.1 million by 2020. The percentage of
Tanzanians employed by the tourism industry is expected to remain level at 6.3%
of total employment, with the total number of jobs increasing from 624,000 to
776,000 by 2020.6
WMAs focus primarily on developing wildlife-based enterprises such as
photographic tourism and safari hunting, because they are high-value industries
that have strong markets in Tanzania and rely on wildlife conservation. The ability
of a WMA to generate revenue is dependent on location, presence of wildlife
species of interest, and availability of quality infrastructure such as roads and
hotels. WMAs also need a good investor that promotes the interests of the WMA
and contributes to biodiversity management. However, there is a great disparity
in valuable wildlife endowment and infrastructure quality among the 17 WMAs.
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 17
WMA Revenue
WMA IN FOCUS: Enterprises in Enduimet
Capitalizing on its beautiful natural environment, Enduimet WMA entered
into a formal agreement with Tanganyika Wilderness Camps (Kibo Tours
Safaris) to establish Elarai Tented Lodge on the Sinya village land within
the WMA. The lodge has earned the WMA a significant amount of revenue,
which was used by Sinya village to fund numerous development projects,
including school dormitories that would otherwise have been funded through
taxes levied on local households. Sinya and the eight other Enduimet villages
now have greater control over their local resources and are able to capture
a greater part of the revenue generated from wildlife tourism. Sinya village
contributes a large portion of its land to form Enduimet WMA; though they
receive substantial benefits, some community members feel that they should
receive a larger share of WMA revenue.
Enduimet is working to ensure that revenue and financial frameworks are in
place and their goal is for WMA-wide revenue to reach US$1 million per year
by 2016 through natural resource-based enterprises.
Some WMAs are nestled right up against large parks with vast wildlife resources
and established infrastructure, such as Ikona WMA in northern Tanzania
adjacent to the Serengeti. Others, such as the four WMAs in southern Tanzania
between the Selous Game Reserve and the Mozambique border, have lower
numbers of tourists primarily because of dense forests that limit wildlife viewing
opportunities, their remote location and relatively poor infrastructure.
The revenue generated through a WMA’s partnership with a private sector
investor is divided between the central and local government and the WMA.
Revenue retained by the WMA is shared between the AA and member villages.
An AA must allocate at least 15% of its gross revenue for natural resource
development (including coverage for village game scout salaries), at least 50%
for disbursement to WMA member villages and at least 25% for AA management
costs. The AAs can use the remaining 10% as they deem fit. Village Councils have
invested the funds they receive mostly in community development projects.
There is a strong need to continue developing these high-value wildlife-dependent
income sources if conservation goals are to be realized while diversifying revenue
options. Strengthening the tourism sector should also include developing
activities such as hiking or cultural visits, which will add value to staying at a
WMA lodge. Diversification of revenue sources could include activities such
as marketing of forestry products, fish, honey, etc., which complement larger
revenue sources and can provide direct benefits to individual households.
Photographic Tourism
Four of the 17 registered WMAs have photographic or game viewing tourism
investments: Burunge, Enduimet and Ikona in northern Tanzania and IdodiPawaga in the southwest of Tanzania. Wami-Mbiki WMA, in the Morogoro
region in eastern Tanzania (near Dar es Salaam), is the fifth WMA registered for
photographic tourism, but since its establishment has yet to attract investments.
As discussed earlier, northern Tanzania’s world-renowned savanna landscapes
and abundant wildlife provide some of the best conditions for photographic
18 | Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas
tourism. All the aforementioned WMAs, with the exception of Idodi-Pawaga,
started generating tourism revenue in 2006, three years after establishment.
These four WMAs also have safari hunting operations and, because of this
diversification, tend to perform significantly better than the other WMAs in
terms of revenue generation. Idodi-Pawaga WMA is not located in the northern
savannas, but has excellent opportunities for game viewing because of its location
adjacent to the Ruaha National Park. Idodi-Pawaga has been receiving revenue
from photographic tourism activities since its establishment in 2003.
Photographic tourism activities are carried out in designated areas by privately
owned tourism concessions in the WMAs, in accordance with the relevant laws
and regulations. AAs market opportunities for privately owned game viewing
tourism concessions in their WMAs and select investors through a competitive
tender system. Before negotiating with potential investors, the AAs are required to
obtain the advice of the District Natural Resources Advisory Board. The proposed
investments are also subject to approval by the Director of Wildlife Division.
These interactions with and required approvals from the government are part of
the challenge of fully decentralizing authority to the communities. Game viewing
investments typically involve the construction of permanent or semipermanent
accommodations for tourists. Permanent structures are usually lodges that have
a capacity of between 25 and 75 beds, in accordance with WMA regulations.
Semipermanent accommodations are typically tents with a capacity of up to 24
beds. The concession period for game viewing ventures varies depending on the
accommodation infrastructure involved. In the case of semipermanent tented
camps, the initial concession period is 15 years. The concession is then renewable
(if agreed upon by the investor and the WMA) for another 10 years, after which
ownership of the tented lodges is transferred to the Authorized Association.
Where development of a permanent lodge is involved, the concession period is
25 years, renewable for another 15 years, after which ownership is transferred to
the AA.7
Various fees charged for photographic tourism activities provide revenue for
WMAs. These mandated fees include concession fees, bed fees, wildlife activity
fees (game viewing, walking safaris, night game drives, bird watching and
boating), vehicle entry fees, aircraft landing fees, commercial photography fees,
etc. There are different fees set in the law for nationals and for foreigners. For
example, the wildlife activity fee for a Tanzanian national is T. shillings (Tshs)
2,000 (about US$1.10), and for a foreigner it is US$10. The concession fees are
part of the tender selection process and can therefore be negotiated. AAs can
also negotiate for things such as per-person bed night fees above the regulated
US$15 minimum amount. The law requires the investor to pay a minimum
nonrefundable deposit of US$25,000 to the Director of Wildlife on behalf of the
WMA and the District Council.
The gross revenue from photographic tourism activities is shared between the
government and WMAs according to guidelines set in the law.8 Investors pay the
revenue directly to the government, which then distributes it: 20% to the Wildlife
Division, 15% to the District Council and 65% to WMAs. Prior to the 2012 WMA
Regulations, Burunge, Ikona and Idodi-Pawaga received the revenue directly
from the investor, and then they paid the government its share. Only Enduimet’s
revenue was paid directly to the government after establishment.
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 19
WMA Revenue
Safari Hunting
Safari hunting provides a valuable source of revenue for WMAs, especially in
areas that are less attractive for photographic tourism. Having an abundance of
animals to hunt is a direct benefit of conserving wildlife resources. The more
wild animals the WMA manages and conserves, the more revenue it can generate.
These are very tangible benefits and linkages that can be easily understood at
the community level and are good incentives to reduce poaching and retaliatory
killings of animals such as lions.
Hunting is carried out in hunting blocks designated in the Resource Zone
Management Plan or the General Management Plan of the WMA. Sixteen
WMAs (the exception being Wami-Mbiki) have designated portions of their
areas as hunting blocks, which are then operated by private investors. However,
Chingoli, Kisungule and Kimbanda WMAs are very new and have not yet
solidified partnerships to begin bringing in visitors to their hunting blocks.
Thus, 13 of the 17 WMAs have so far generated income from hunting activities.
For the hunting term that ended in 2012, a uniform block fee was set at
US$27,000 each for the season.
TABLE 3. WMA Hunting Blocks and Categories
Hunting Block
Name
Block
Category
Block Fee
US$
Ngarambe-TapikaLung’onya
II
$30,000
Mbarang’andu Mbarang’andu
II
$30,000
Uyumbu
Uyumbu
III$18,000
Burunge
Burunge I$60,000
Ipole
Ugunda
III$18,000
Tunduru
Tunduru
II$30,000
Idodi-Pawaga
Kinyangesi-MkupuleII
$30,000
Ikona
Fort Ikoma
$60,000
I
Enduimet EngasuraiI$60,000
Liwale
Nachenyo II$30,000
Hokororo II$30,000
Naimba Plain
II
Makao
Makao
II$30,000
Makame
IrkiushoiborII $30,000
Maasai (E)
II
$30,000
Maasai (S)
II
$30,000
Talamai
II$30,000
Ukutu
Gonabis III
$30,000
$18,000
Source: Ministry of Natural Resources & Tourism, Authorized Association Consortium (2012)
20 | Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas
For the hunting term beginning in 2013, all blocks except those in Chingoli,
Kimbanda and Kisungule WMAs have now been categorized in accordance with
the Wildlife Conservation Act of 2009,9 and different block fees will be charged
for each category. See Table 3 for hunting blocks in WMAs and their categories.
The blocks are classified into five categories (I to V) according to criteria set by the
Wildlife Division. Category I has the highest wildlife values and V the lowest. Each
category has an associated minimum block fee per hunting season (nine months,
July to March) set by the Wildlife Division and paid by safari hunting operators
for the right to hunt in that area. The block fee for Category I hunting blocks is
the highest at US$60,000. Fees for Categories II to V are US$30,000, $18,000,
$10,000 and $5,000, respectively. AAs can negotiate with prospective investors
for block fees that are higher than the minimum regulated by the law, as is
currently the case in Ikona WMA. However, while this is legally allowable, higher
costs may have the effect of deterring potential investors. WMAs must be properly
advised to have realistic expectations when negotiating with investors. The AA
keeps the entire amount it negotiates above the set minimum and does not share
it with the government. Therefore, from 2013 on, the amount of revenue that
a WMA can generate from hunting activities is highly dependent on the rating
category of its hunting blocks and the negotiation skills of the AA.
To date, the Wildlife Division has been responsible for allocating hunting
concessions and setting quotas, although this will change starting with the
WMA
2013
hunting season when the WMAs will be responsible for allocating their
Name
hunting blocks and proposing quotas. The Division sets quotas by estimating
the population of valuable species in an area from reports by game scouts, aerial
surveys and data from professional hunters. The Division then sets hunting
quotas for each WMA and allocates five-year hunting concessions to safari
operators. One criticism of this system is that the Wildlife Division quotas are
arbitrary, in some cases unsustainable, and are not supported by the wildlife
population data collected. The revised 2012 WMA Regulations have changed
this system and have given AAs authority to market their hunting blocks,
apply for quotas from the Wildlife Division, and negotiate and enter into
contract agreements with investors. By the end of 2012, eight WMAs had issued
advertisements and received applications for investments in their hunting blocks.
Hunters also pay game fees for each type of animal hunted. The most valuable
game fees are for elephant trophies, which are either US$15,000 or US$20,000,
depending on the size of the trophy. The fees rise to US$18,000 and US$25,000
for bow-and-arrow hunting. Before the 2012 WMA Regulations, there were no
clear guidelines for distribution of hunting revenue between the government
and WMAs. The 2012 WMA Regulations rectified this shortcoming by setting
clear guidelines, as shown in Table 4 on page 22. Under the new benefit-sharing
mechanism, the government receives 25% of the block fees while WMAs get 75%,
and the government (Treasury and Tanzania Wildlife Protection Fund) receives
85% of the permit fees while WMAs get 15%. An AA can charge fees higher than
regulated and is entitled to keep 100% of revenue generated above the minimum
that must be shared with the government.
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 21
WMA Revenue
TABLE 4. Government and WMA Sharing of Gross Hunting Revenue
Central
Government
Local
Government
WMA
Block Fee25% 0%
75%
Game Fee40% 15% 45%
Conservation Fee55%
0%
45%
Observers’ Fee55%
0%
45%
Permit Fee85% 0%
15%
Source: WMA Regulations (2012)
Key Achievements
Game viewing tourism is more developed in Burunge, Enduimet and Ikona than
in Idodi-Pawaga and generates considerable annual revenue. The number of
tourist accommodations in these three WMAs has increased over the years to a
total of 15. Burunge now has five tented lodges, Enduimet has three and Ikona has
seven permanent lodges (Table 5). Total annual revenue from tourism activities
in all four WMAs has steadily grown since establishment. From 2007 to 2012,
the combined value of yearly revenue from game viewing tourism has risen from
about US$63,000 to US$915,000, as shown in Figure 4.
Comparatively, the combined annual revenue from game viewing activities in
just four WMAs has been much higher than that generated from safari hunting
in 13 WMAs (including these four). The difference is more dramatic for the years
2010 to 2012, as shown in Figure 5. This is due in large part to the nature of the
current revenue collection and distribution system described in other sections of
this report. The annual trend in revenue from game viewing activities has been
upward, even in years when revenue from hunting was going down (2009 to
2010). The increasing revenue resulted in more income going to member villages
for community development. For example, in Burunge the yearly income to each
of the nine member villages increased from Tshs 2,083,166 (US$1,605) in 2007
to Tshs 26,152,158 (US$16,657) in 2012.
Given the constraints described in the Safari Hunting section, the fact that these
WMAs have been able to attract hunting investments into their areas and to
earn some revenue, regardless of the size of the revenue, is in itself a significant
achievement. From 2007 to 2012, the 13 WMAs with HBs earned yearly combined
revenue totals that ranged between approximately US$61,500 and US$198,000,
as shown in Figure 4.
The revenue amounts for all WMAs with investors increased dramatically from
2007 to 2008 in just the second year of operation, resulting in the highest income
earned so far from hunting activities. In 2009 and 2010, revenue from hunting
declined significantly, likely due to reduced tourism as a result of the global
economic downturn. In 2011, there was a large increase in revenue, and although
it declined again in 2012, income still exceeds numbers from the recession.
22 | Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas
TABLE 5. Lodging in WMAs with Photographic Tourism Ventures
WMA
Lodge/
Tented Camp
Remarks/
Status
Number
of Beds
Enduimet
Elerai Tented Lodge Shuma'ta Camp
Olmolog/ Noombopon Lodge
12
Operational
8
Operational
12
Under construction
BurungeMaramboi
24
Operational
Lake Burunge Tented Lodge
40
Operational
Tarangire River Camp
40
Operational
Osupuko Lodge
20
Operational
UN Lodge
12
Operational
Ikona
ZARA (Ikoma) Wild Camp
38
Operational
Eco–lodge
36Operational
Simba Lodge
42
Operational
Ikoma Bush Camp (Moivaro)
70 In progress
Thomson Safaris
23
Operational
Farufaru Lodge
21
Operational
TAWISA
Under construction
IdodiPawaga
Tandala Tented Camp
15
Operational
Hilltop Lodge
20
Operational
Sunset Lodge
16
Operational
Vinyago Lodge
40
Operational
Mkwawa Luxury Tented Camp
12
Under construction
TOTAL 501
FIGURE 4. WMA Revenue in Nominal US$
1,200
US$ Thousands
1,000
800
n Hunting
n Game Viewing
600
400
200
0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Source: Individual WMA Records (2012)
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 23
WMA Revenue
FIGURE 5. Annual Gross Revenue from Game Viewing Tourism
600
US$ Thousands
500
400
nBurunge
nEnduimet
nIkona
nIdodi-Pawaga
300
200
100
0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
The benefit-sharing dynamic outlined in the 2010 Tourist Hunting Regulations
states that 25% of income generated from hunting activities is to be remitted to
WMAs with hunting blocks as their share, and the remaining 75% reverts to the
central government. However, the system of paying the 25% share to the WMAs
has been slow and is adversely impacting WMA operations.
Key Challenges and Opportunities
Historically, the revenue-sharing arrangement between the government and
WMAs for hunting concessions has not been transparent. The WMAs are not sure
how much money they are owed, and they are unable to demand their portion.
The government takes an unsustainably high share of hunting revenues. To date,
the revenue-sharing arrangement severely limits the amount of funds available to
WMAs to cover operating costs or to invest in community development initiatives.
Beginning in 2013, this problem is expected to be reduced, as the authority to
negotiate and enforce hunting contracts now rests with the communities through
their WMAs. Revenue-sharing dynamics are discussed further in Chapter 6.
In addition, the transfer of funds from government to WMAs has not been
efficient, both because of delays and because of lack of transparency of the actual
amount of money the government collects from investors in the WMAs. The
justification the government provides for direct collection of WMA revenue is
that AAs lack the capacity for revenue collection. Solving this problem requires a
change of government policy, not only to ensure transparency but also to support
capacity building in AAs to enable full devolution of resource management to
WMA communities.
Other concerns are noncompliance with terms of the agreements by some
investors and lack of enforcement mechanisms. For example, Burunge has four
tourist accommodation sites, yet the AA generates revenue from only two of
the four sites. The two investors managing the other two sites are not paying
revenue to the WMA. One investor is dealing with a long-standing legal case with
pastoralist encroachment that has limited its ability to do business, while the
other investor is simply not complying. Similarly, Enduimet WMA has ongoing
24 | Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas
problems with tourism enterprises in Sinya Village that are resisting paying fees
to the AA. These problems require government intervention to enforce national
WMA regulations.
Some WMAs have found it very challenging to attract investors. For example,
since establishment, Wami-Mbiki WMA has not yet been able to attract
photographic tourism investors. Thus, the only sources of funds for WamiMbiki were donations from the Danish Hunters Association, which supported
development until 2010. The donated funds supported the establishment of
the WMA and operational costs, including patrols. Since 2011, WWF has been
supporting the WMA with funds donated by USAID, especially on anti-poaching
activities and investor recruitment. In 2012, Wami-Mbiki undertook initiatives
to attract photographic tourism investors, including issuing advertisements.
It received four applications, but negotiations fell through before an agreement
could be reached. By the end of 2012, the WMA still had no investors.
AA leaders are generally unprepared to negotiate effectively on behalf of their
communities. They are not well informed about the cost structure and profit
margins of the hunting industry, and they lack the necessary skills to be able to
hold their own in negotiations with the sophisticated and experienced business
professionals who represent the hunting outfitters. Thus, they fail to optimize the
revenue and benefits they could obtain from the concessions, as an inappropriate
share of the income goes to the private sector firms. There are opportunities here
to facilitate targeted training and provide support services, including enhancing
marketing efforts to address the aforementioned challenge of attracting investors,
in order to build management capacity within AAs.
Moreover, the AAs generally do not optimize potential revenues from hunting
concessions or photographic tourism because they lack the management
knowledge and skills necessary to oversee business development. For example,
the AAs obtain revenue from a limited set of fees charged to tourists, usually
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 25
WMA Revenue
bed night fees only. They have no mechanism for collecting information from
the private sector tourism firms on revenue generated from the full suite of fees
charged for tourist activities, such as night game drives, sport fishing, walking
safaris, etc. Visitor entry gates recently constructed in Burunge, Enduimet and
Ikona (funded by USAID under the Cash for Work [CFW] Program) provide one
opportunity for AAs to collect information directly. In addition, AA members
should be closely monitoring lodge visitors, and WMAs should consider a clause
in future contracts with private sector partners requiring that they provide
verifiable information or risk penalty.
Donors, NGOs and government agencies are working to tackle these problems
by providing capacity building for AA members. However, some challenges still
exist. AAs have often shown too great an eagerness to move forward quickly
with contract negotiations, to start the flow of money without waiting for the
training that would help them maximize the benefits. Another concern is that
capacity-building programs depend on long-term donor support, which is unlikely
to continue. A possible alternative would be for AAs to engage professionals
on a commission basis to represent their interests and manage the investor
recruitment process.
There are also ongoing conflicts among member villages in Burunge, IdodiPawaga, Ukutu and Enduimet. The problems are the same in all WMAs and
arise from the fact that some of the villages that used to earn sizable revenues
from direct contracts with investors before they were part of a WMA have seen
those revenues significantly reduced because the funds are now shared equally
among several villages. For example, Minjingu Village in Burunge would like to
break away from the WMA and has therefore stopped accepting tourism revenue
from the WMA. In Enduimet, two villages (Sinya and Elerai) that also had direct
contracts with investors receive considerably less revenue than they used to
before they joined the WMA. Further, they are not happy with the fact that the
26 | Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas
revenue is shared equally with some villages that have very little wildlife on their
land. For example, in 2009 Sinya earned about US$2,000, which was significantly
lower than its annual revenue of about US$23,100 earned before establishment
of the WMA.10
“Generally, the WMA
concept has been
positively accepted by
the communities, and there
are impressive results.
WMAs are generating
income, and the impacts
can be seen in improved
roofs on houses from
thatch grasses to
corrugated iron sheets.”
Lazaro Ole
Vice Chairperson
Makame WMA
There have been other conflicts in some WMAs over the equal sharing of the
50% that goes to member villages. Villages that contribute more land are not
happy to see that villages that contribute less or no land receive the same amount
of revenue. For example, Idodi-Pawaga WMA consists of 21 villages, but 13 of
the villages have not contributed land to the WMA. Initially, when they came
together to establish the WMA, the villagers agreed to include the villages that
were not contributing land on the grounds that if they were left out then they
would have no incentives not to poach or encroach into the WMA. The conflict
arose later, when the WMA started generating revenue. In 2012, the 21 villages
met and resolved to split their share of WMA revenue so that the eight villages
that contributed land receive about 70% to share equally among themselves,
and villages with no land get 30%. The role of villages not contributing land is
significant in maintaining the ecological integrity of the entire ecosystem, and
therefore the need for sharing the benefits accruing from utilization of natural
resources in the WMA cannot be overemphasized. However, such villages have to
participate in resource protection through contribution to anti-poaching patrols.
Safari hunting will continue to supply a large proportion of WMA revenue in
the future, though WMAs face a number of challenges to maximizing benefits
from these enterprises. Many of the hunting blocks have too few valuable trophy
animals remaining and poor-quality infrastructure. Unfortunately, these are
problems that the WMAs cannot solve without support. To build this industry
sustainably, there are opportunities to:
• Collaborate with the hunting and photographic industries to develop joint
business ventures for sustainable utilization of wildlife
• Improve wildlife resources and monitoring of WMA areas
• Develop sustainable and appropriate utilization levels according to limits
of acceptable use
There is inadequate wildlife monitoring by the Wildlife Division and AAs, which
means that hunting quotas may be inappropriate for the long-term viability of
trophy hunting. This problem is partly due to inadequate human and financial
resources in the Wildlife Division to carry out the work. There are also some
nontransparent agreements, which means that hunting offtakes are not well
regulated and benefits are not properly shared with communities.
Although there are substantial emerging opportunities for generating financial
benefits through hunting and photographic tourism industries in the WMAs,
there are still problems stemming from inadequate capacity of local communities
to effectively market WMAs and appropriately make available prime sites for
private sector engagement at market prices. The challenges highlighted here
can be resolved through committed interventions involving government, private
sector, development partners and the WMAs themselves. These challenges are
inevitable considering that the WMA approach is fairly new in Tanzania and most
of the initial efforts were directed at the establishment process and raising the
awareness of the policy itself. More work lies ahead and will become critical in
the years to come as WMAs become increasingly self-reliant and more capable
of generating and managing revenue.
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 27
“If we did not participate in the WMA,
where do you think all these benefits
could have come from, no matter
how little or big?”
Jonisia Pinda, Chairperson
Kitisi Village Idodi-Pawaga WMA
5. COMMUNITY BENEFITS
“The goals for the WMA
are to ensure conservation
of natural resources
especially wildlife; and
enhance sustainable
utilization of wildlife
while aiming at reducing
poverty for the communities
living adjacent to core
protected areas.”
Said Rashid Masudi
AA Chairperson, Tunduru WMA
The 17 registered Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) involve 148 villages
with over 440,000 people that benefit from the sustainable utilization of natural
resources in the areas they have reserved for wildlife protection. Revenue
generated through WMAs from hunting and game viewing enterprises contributes
to community development. The nature and extent of community benefits differ
among the WMAs depending on the amount of revenue generated and the choices
made by Village Councils. To date, no WMAs have distributed cash dividends to
individual households. Instead, the benefits have taken the form of community
development projects, community support initiatives and social welfare support.
Examples of community projects financed by WMA revenue include the
construction of 16 classrooms, nine teacher houses and eight medical dispensaries
across all WMAs. Dams, wells and mills for grinding grain have also been built
with WMA revenue. These projects can provide multiple benefits. A dam can
provide water for livestock or water for wildlife away from areas of potential
conflict with villages, reducing human-wildlife conflict. WMA funds have also
been used to provide school tuition and uniforms for more than 700 primary,
secondary, college and university students. For example, Enduimet has
established an education fund to support students in its member villages (see
In Focus sidebar on page 30).
Some villages have chosen to allocate benefits for particularly vulnerable
households, providing free or subsidized foods in times of crisis. Burunge WMA
agreed to support health insurance for village members to improve access to
medical services. Figure 6 summarizes some of the community projects supported
by WMAs for the benefit of their member villages. WMAs have also enhanced
village government and built local capacity, providing training for those involved
FIGURE 6. Community Development Projects Supported by WMAs
11 1
2
n Village Warehouse
n Seed Oil Processing Mill
n Generator (Electricity)
n Carpentry Workshop
n WMA Scholarship Programs
4
8
37
13
18
(458 individual scholarships)
nDispensary
n Housing for Educators
and Medical Staff
n Water Infrastructure
n School Infrastructure
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 29
Community Benefits
in WMA operation, and supporting construction of 31 village government offices
and eight Authorized Association (AA) offices.
Although up to this point employment numbers have been low, employment
opportunities are one of the most tangible benefits of a WMA. Local residents
can be employed in such positions as game scouts, staff at lodges, or as trackers,
scouts or porters for hunting operations. These employment options are
particularly valuable, as traditional opportunities for paid work are scarce in
many of the areas where WMAs are located. In addition, increased tourism related
to the WMAs has enabled the establishment of small-scale economic activities
such as curio shops and women’s weaving groups.
WMAs have also provided seed capital for a limited number of micro-lending
programs. These allow families to develop small-scale enterprises linked to game
viewing tourism or safari hunting. Facilitating NGOs working in tandem with
WMAs has also helped villagers establish other income-generating ventures, such
as beekeeping or carpentry workshops, as important alternative livelihoods in
several WMAs across Tanzania.
Another benefit that communities have gained from WMAs is the authority
to manage their natural resources. The shift in power from government to the
communities, although shifting slowly, is a significant benefit. The communities
WMA IN FOCUS: Communal Benefits in Enduimet
WMAs choose to spend their revenue in a variety of different ways that
reflect the needs and values of the particular WMA. The charts below depict
the sources of revenue in Enduimet in 2012 and how the community chose
to allocate that revenue.
Enduimet Revenue in 2012
14%
n Photographic Tourism
n Hunting Tourism
n Other (fines and concession 6%
80%
application fees)
Enduimet Expenditure in 2012
18%
36%
13%
33%
30 | Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas
n Village Revenue Share
n Office Management
nConservation
n Village Education Fund
have been empowered through ownership of their natural resources, increasing
their independence and self-reliance.
Some WMAs have succeeded in integrating wildlife conservation and pastoralist
livestock grazing within the WMA. During the WMA planning process, deliberate
efforts were made to include grazing zones within the zoning scheme of the
General Management Plan. This allows communities to graze livestock in
the WMA following their traditional pastoralist practices. The integration of
livestock and wildlife provides an important motivation for traditional pastoral
communities to accept the WMA establishment within their villages.
“We have used income from
the WMA to support the
construction of a village
office and a teacher’s
house, we have paid for
school fees, and we are
now paying village game
scouts from our own
money, thus helping protect
the resources that also
benefit our neighbors,
Tarangire National Park.”
Noah Teveli
Former Speaker, Burunge WMA
In addition to more tangible benefits detailed above, communities receive
other indirect benefits from WMAs, including maintaining critical ecosystem
services on which all communities depend, such as food, water, timber and fiber;
regulatory services (climate, floods, disease, waste and water quality); cultural
services (recreational, aesthetic and spiritual benefits); and supporting services
(soil formation, photosynthesis and nutrient cycling).
Cash for Work (CFW) Infrastructure Program in WMAs
Another benefit to communities is that WMAs attract donor funding, which is
invested in projects that directly assist communities. For example, in addition
to capacity building, communities also benefited from the USAID-funded CFW
infrastructure development program in the WMAs of Burunge, Enduimet, Ikona,
Ipole and Idodi-Pawaga (see Figure 7). These WMAs were selected based on the
analysis of the extent the global economic crisis that started in 2009 had affected
tourism business and reduced incomes to local communities.
USAID invested approximately US$10 million in the CFW infrastructure
development program that began in 2010 and ends in early 2014. The objective of
the CFW program was to provide livelihood support to some WMA communities
through payments for labor in order to cushion them from the negative impact
of the global economic crisis and at the same time improve WMA infrastructure.
FIGURE 7. CFW Infrastructure Projects in WMAs*
1
1
1
2
15
6
n WMA Boundary Marking
n Game Viewing Track
n Honey Collection Center
n Provision of Water Supply
and Borehole Drilling
n Visitor and Natural Resources 9
11
Centers, Observation Posts
n Village Game Scout Posts
n Road Works Projects
(total of 94 km improved)
n Entry Gates
*Completed or Expected to
be Completed by February 2014
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 31
Through this program, visitor centers, entry gates, village game scout ranger
posts, natural resource facilities, honey collection centers and about 94 km of
access roads have been built. The implementation of the CFW project provided
employment opportunities and income to local people, villages and various
construction companies.
By June 2012, the CFW program employed a total of 14,925 workers, of which
2,873 were women and 12,052 were men, earning a total of about Tshs 1.2 billion
(US$730,000). Women earned about Tshs 197 million (US$120,000) of the total
earnings. Besides employment, the program generated about Tshs 305 million
(US$185,000) for various service providers.
Key Challenges and Opportunities
A major challenge facing WMAs is that most villagers have not yet directly
experienced benefits from WMAs, as most WMAs generate low revenue. The slow
pace of the WMA process and the small scale of benefits, which contrast with the
high expectations, have led to considerable discontent among many villagers. For
example, in Mbarang’andu many local farmers are extending their agricultural
fields into the WMA area with the justification that they are not benefiting from
the WMA. Similarly, in Idodi-Pawaga villagers are encroaching on WMA land
with livestock grazing.
In response, WMAs need to capitalize on opportunities to diversify their programs
in order to enhance the amount of revenues they generate and thus be able to
spread the benefits more broadly. To do so, WMAs could consider establishing
businesses based on timber products, services and other types of tourism such as
cultural tourism. Beekeeping in Uyumbu and Ipole WMAs, for example, has been
an important economic activity among the villages involved in the WMA projects.
WMAs could also allow villagers to pay for the use of some resources from the
WMA, such as charging a fee for fishing in the WMA and for collection of some
of the forestry products (firewood). There is also a need to manage community
expectations on the level of benefits that they would derive from their WMA
through awareness initiatives and to better inform them of nonmonetary benefits
from WMAs.
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 33
6. CHALLENGES AND VISION
FOR THE FUTURE
Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) are an opportunity for community wildlife
management and expanding local communities’ opportunities in meaningful
socioeconomic development initiatives that never existed before in Tanzania.
As alluded to elsewhere in this report, the history of wildlife conservation was
based on central government command and control through the protectionist
approach, and wildlife resources were alienated from local cultures. No amount
of policing with the most sophisticated weapons can guarantee long-term safety
of wildlife resources in the face of ever-increasing human population growth
with its associated increased demands for natural resources. In addition,
improved provision of health, water and sanitation services to rural communities
as well as improvements in nutrition and human settlements have resulted in
increased human populations. The paradigm shift in wildlife or natural resources
management to include participation of local communities who live side by side
with wildlife and depend almost entirely on these resources for their sustenance
was not only timely but necessary.
Many of the challenges facing WMAs are similar to those encountered in other
community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) programs on the
African continent and elsewhere. The most common problems relate to poor
and nontransparent governance practices, weak institutional and management
arrangements, low revenue generation in many WMAs, and inadequate
devolution of rights and responsibilities from government to WMAs.
One of the most important factors to achieving effective community conservation
effort is that communities need to have a sense of ownership of institutions
at the grassroots level and a sense of control and involvement at the local level.
Incomplete devolution of power from the central level in Tanzania is one
of the main challenges the WMA approach faces—namely, that the Wildlife
Division retains extensive control over the WMA process and implementation.
For example, the Wildlife Division still holds power of approval for WMAs in
the engagement of investors for their concessions. Although the Authorized
Associations (AAs) have the authority to select the investors, they still have to
submit their choice to the Director of Wildlife Division for final approval. The
intention of this organizational structure was to give the decision-making power
to the Wildlife Division until such a time that the WMAs had the capacity to make
managerial decisions on their own. As WMAs begin to acquire the knowledge,
skills and information required to make these decisions, the Wildlife Division is
expected to assume a background support role. Progress has been made in 2013,
with WMAs assuming control of negotiating and enforcing hunting contracts.
Local communities and community-based institutions such as AAs will feel
empowered with a greater sense of ownership given clear financial mechanisms
around benefit sharing with investors and the Government of Tanzania.
Currently, revenue generated by tourism concessions in WMAs is paid directly
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 35
Challenges and Vision for the Future
by the investor to the government, which then distributes a portion to the
WMAs. This process is frequently not transparent, with very complicated rules
for revenue distribution to different institutions such as central government,
District Councils, the Wildlife Division and WMAs. This makes it difficult for the
WMA to monitor how much income it is generating, hold investors accountable
and overcome delays in fund disbursement from the government, which can
impact WMA management due to inconsistent cash flow. While the WMAs
do need increased capacity in managing finances, the current system reduces
the feeling of community empowerment and ownership and can decrease the
incentives for conservation and management. To improve this, the Government
of Tanzania should consider allowing AAs to receive payments directly from the
investor, alongside training programs and established checks and balances. This
would improve the AAs’ capacity to manage the revenue they receive, maintain
accountability and improve financial transparency. Furthermore, while WMAs
receive the largest proportion of the funds received from their investors (65%),
this proportion might need to be reviewed in the future given the increasing
management responsibility the AA has, as opposed to that of the Wildlife Division
or District Councils, and the related high costs of proper management. In
addition, an evaluation of village level benefit sharing mechanisms between the
Village Councils and Village Assemblies will improve accountability, ownership
and local empowerment.
Unclear institutional relationships between AAs and national and local
government bodies create confusion over roles, responsibilities and operational
inefficiencies. There are several steps and processes that villagers need to
accomplish in order to have a WMA established. The nature of the process
sometimes leads to costly delays and increased WMA reliance on donors.
To solve this, regulations should be adjusted to provide clarity about roles and
responsibilities of the various actors such as the WMA’s Board of Trustees and
the District Natural Resources Advisory Boards (DNRABs), District Councils,
and private sector partners, which will help address weak relationships and
insufficient understanding of roles and responsibilities in relation to WMA
development. For example, there are tendencies by DNRAB to micromanage
and control AAs. In Idodi-Pawaga, the District Council unilaterally ordered
dissolution of the AA and called for new elections. These actions suggest some
DNRABs and some Boards of Trustees have a poor understanding of their
roles and responsibilities. These issues indicate that there is often a serious
disconnect between the legal instruments guiding WMA implementation and their
application. To this end, WMA-facilitating NGOs have undertaken initiatives to
build awareness among DNRAB members of their functions as provided in the
law, though more still needs to be done.
Extensive technical requirements for establishing WMAs are expensive and
make it necessary to rely on donor support (often for many years) and technical
consultants before the AA can generate any revenue. These procedures need to
be evaluated and simplified wherever possible, and it should be made possible
for the WMAs to start generating income earlier in the process. The overreliance
on donors also creates challenges for the long-term sustainability of the WMA
approach. NGOs currently facilitate all 17 WMAs by providing funding, capacity
building and technical support. The same organizations that provided support
during WMA establishment are also supporting implementation. External support
36 | Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas
for capacity building is very important for CBNRM over the long term. However,
programs can become dependent on external funds and foreign expertise and fail
to build up their own capacities to generate funds and expertise from internal
sources. This can result in the WMA becoming dysfunctional once NGO support
is withdrawn. It is critical to the future outcomes of Tanzania’s WMA program
to develop adequate local capacity before the ending of donor funds and NGO
facilitation.
Tanzania needs to address a lack of policy integration of multiple natural
resource sectors with WMA regulations. Currently, an AA can manage WMA
land only for wildlife management, without making use of other forms of income
from carbon sequestration or REDD+, sustainable forest management, or other
revenue-generating activities such as beekeeping. Integration of forestry and
other natural resource sectors with wildlife management would make it easier for
AAs to holistically manage their resources and make use of more income options.
“The process for
establishment of the WMA
was too long, and there
was no benchmark as to
where to start it. Through
education on WMA
establishment procedures,
communities have learned
a lot.”
William Kvyan
Administrator, Enduimet WMA
Weak AA management capacity means that AAs do not have sufficient training,
nor the adequate skills and knowledge necessary for effective business, contract
and financial management. AA leaders are responsible for the work that is at
the core of WMA performance, and yet they lack some of the essential skills
needed to effectively manage WMAs. Most of the WMAs have not employed
professional staff to manage various sections of their businesses, with the
exception of Enduimet WMA, which employs a university-qualified accountant.
Where sufficient income exists without donor support, the WMAs should consider
employing professionals to manage their business issues in a similar manner to
Enduimet. A related challenge is that the AA leaders do not have the knowledge
and confidence to manage contracts and investors—which leads to loss of revenue
because of improper oversight by the AA. Adequate training must be provided to
build capacity for AAs to manage their own business affairs or have the ability to
selectively contract individuals or companies that will best manage certain aspects
for them, as in the case of Enduimet.
AA leaders and Village Councils need to be more transparent and accountable in
their management of WMA finances and other business operations. This lack of
AA transparency and accountability has frustrated communities, some of which
have publicly stated that they have no idea of the amount of revenue generated in
their WMAs and what the funds were used for. Though AAs are supposed to post
this information publicly, this is not often done. Even when information is posted,
the money an AA gives to a member village often gets absorbed into the Village
Council without the Village Assembly (all villagers) knowing what that money
was used for. There is need for the government and support NGOs, with guidance
and coordination from the Authorized Association Consortium (AAC), to support
the development of financial management skills and systems of local checks and
balances (including regular audits) that enhance transparency and accountability.
This effort needs to be coordinated from both the national and site-specific levels
with methods developed that can be applied to all WMAs. This also calls for
carrying out continuous awareness and communications programs that enhance
transparency and encourages villagers to hold AA leaders accountable for the
performance of the WMA. Work on this issue should be integrated with building
an increasing sense of community ownership of the WMAs at the grassroots level,
and a local evaluation of the benefit sharing system between Village Councils and
Assemblies and the AA where needed.
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 37
Challenges and Vision for the Future
Many WMAs currently generate insufficient revenue, which results in inadequate
capacity for WMAs to support their activities related to wildlife management, such
as paying Village Game Scouts (VGS). This is a result of many factors, including
some already mentioned, such as confusing benefit-sharing agreements with
the Wildlife Division. To increase revenues, some WMAs need to diversify their
revenue sources to include businesses that are based on other income-generating
activities such as timber, fisheries, honey collection and cultural tourism. Where
there is existing photographic tourism or safari hunting potential, AA leaders
need to learn how to better market their WMAs and to improve their negotiation
skills to get the most out of private enterprise partnerships. This should be
supported by NGOs and the AAC. When strengthening existing income sources
or developing new sources, AA leaders and partners should keep in mind growing
opportunities for direct employment, training and related spillover benefits
for villagers.
Gender equality is another important issue that will need to be better integrated
into all WMA support. Currently, WMA leadership is male-dominated at every
level, and women are underrepresented in the decision-making process and
see fewer direct employment benefits from WMAs. As male leadership remains
heavily engrained in the local culture, mainstreaming gender in WMA support
should be a primary focus of all stakeholders.
Proper management of WMAs requires data collection on wildlife and other
resources in order for authorities to make informed decisions. In order to
decrease poaching and improve the anti-poaching capacity of VGS, it is
necessary to implement meaningful wildlife management patrols and generate
sufficient revenue to properly train, compensate and equip VGS. VGS are vital
for managing resources as well as investors’ use of resources (such as hunting
quotas). Without wildlife, there will be no hunting or photographic tourism and
the WMAs will be without revenue.
38 | Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas
A Vision for the Future
“Communities around the
WMA have realized that
there are lots of benefits
from wildlife conservation,
and more visitors are
coming from different
institutions, including
universities, so they are
very happy with the WMA.”
Kundayo Ole
Chairperson, Makame WMA
Tanzania’s WMA approach to CBNRM has a short 10-year history, as
compared to similar programs in southern Africa developed in the 1980s and
90s, such as the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous
Resources (CAMPFIRE) in Zimbabwe and the Communal Conservancies in
Namibia. Though much progress has been made, the program is still in the
learning and development phase. Growth of the WMA movement from an initial
16 pilot WMAs to 17 gazetted, with more in progress (involving about 1 million
rural people), indicates the popularity of the approach across the country and the
wide acceptance it has received among communities as a promising approach for
conservation and community development. Despite many challenges, WMAs have
the potential to enhance the livelihoods of their communities and secure valuable
areas for wildlife protection. To achieve the vision of a successful WMA program
in Tanzania, lessons learned to date need to inform all stakeholders, and guide the
way forward. Incorporating lessons learned from CBNRM achievements in other
parts of the region will be key for the WMA program.
The Government of Tanzania has demonstrated a strong commitment to creating
an effective enabling environment for WMAs, as illustrated by the various laws
and policies put in place to date. Devolution, however, is incomplete and some
key policies and procedures still undermine the viability of WMAs from both
governance and economic perspectives, the government continues its efforts to
strengthen WMAs. For example, a new national WMA strategy has been drafted
and is in the process of being formally adopted by the government. After adoption,
the implementation of WMAs will be done from a common understanding and
interpretation, leading to a harmonized approach to WMA implementation across
the country. The WMA Implementation Strategy presents a five-year strategy that
is designed to achieve success in WMAs through balancing wildlife conservation
with sustainable community development. This will lead to a review of enabling
statutory legal frameworks that are broad enough to include matters pertaining
to finance and accounting, procurement, land, water, business, rural development,
forestry, tourism, mining, agriculture, livestock development, and environment.
This review will help to address shortcomings in policy, legal frameworks and
practices. The good will and support from the government and stakeholders need
to be nurtured in order to ensure beneficial outcomes for rural communities in
the future.
A review of the current implementation process, in an attempt to simplify the
process so it is more cost- and time-efficient, is important to enable WMAs to
become self-sufficient and to ensure long-term sustainability. WMAs can take
more ownership of the process and cover some basic management costs (such
as employing and training VGS). Business activities related to hunting and
photographic tourism, beekeeping, fishing and marketing to investors could begin
earlier in the WMA creation process. Adjustments in policies and laws regulating
wildlife utilization would of course have to include safeguard clauses to ensure
sustainability of resource use.
Now is a critical moment in WMA development to expand and improve the
revenue WMAs earn and the benefits that reach communities, keeping in mind
long-term sustainability. With more public-private partnerships and stronger
high-value economic activities from already established tourism industries in
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 39
Challenges and Vision for the Future
Tanzania, more benefits will reach the AAs and villages. Encouragingly, income
from photographic tourism activities has continued to rise. With improvements
in marketing, contract negotiation and enforcement, and financial management
within the WMAs and local stakeholders, this trend should continue. Investment
in this sector will provide good payoffs, especially as it seems the photographic
tourism industry in Tanzania is mostly resilient during world economic shifts.
Supporting a low volume of high-value lodges seems to be the main reason for
the continued growth of the industry in Tanzania11 during one of the worst global
economic crises in history. The hunting market in Tanzania is strong and likely to
become an increasing source of revenue for WMAs, even though hunting revenue
to WMAs has not increased significantly in the past few years. Improvements in
setting appropriate quotas, monitoring of hunting concessions, increased block
and other fees going to the AA, and increasing transparency overall are expected
to generate more revenue.
To optimize benefits to local communities, especially in areas of high-potential
forest and woodland habitats, WMAs need to have a diversified portfolio of
income sources. Efforts should be devoted to working with the Ministry of
Natural Resources and Tourism and WMA facilitators to pilot WMA and village
land forest reserve integration. There is potential for strong forestry benefits from
programs such as REDD+, which should be able to be accessed easily through
the WMA platform. Partners and stakeholders should take a lead in engaging
more on cross-sectoral natural resource management, supported by national-level
policy and a legal framework for providing guidance to CBNRM efforts. This
will result in moving forward with integrating wildlife management with
management of other natural resources and will allow WMAs to maximize the
benefits they receive from safeguarding resources. In diversifying, it will be
important to prioritize income sources that can provide high levels of revenue
with strong markets and link the source of income directly to the protection of
a natural resource.
Working groups of WMA support organizations alongside an empowered
AAC are necessary to creating a favorable enabling environment, raising the
revenue potential of the WMAs, and strengthening AA capacity. Made up of
representatives of all WMAs, the AAC can develop into the focal point for the
voice of WMAs and be the coordinator of activities and strategies needed to
strengthen them. The AAC will not be able to fill this role immediately but
needs to grow into this position over time, supported by both the government
and NGO partners. In addition, to improve the coordination and lesson sharing
between institutions supporting WMAs across Tanzania, working groups need
to be established or strengthened to address technical issues related to WMA
sustainability and capacity building.
With continued strategic support, AA leaders and managers will be able to
improve their management and business skills, enabling them to improve the
natural resources of the WMA, negotiate for higher income in business contracts
and become more effective financial managers. There is a need to holistically
analyze the skills gaps within WMAs and design and develop appropriate training
courses and management tools. The results of such analyses will guide the
support partners (including NGO, government and AAC) to develop a strategic
capacity-building program to address the identified shortfalls in the short,
40 | Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas
medium and long terms. This should not be a one-time initiative but a continuous
process of developing coordinated tools and strategies applicable to multiple
WMAs. Progress on this has already been made; in 2012, NGO facilitators
supported AA leaders to receive training in negotiating and managing contracts
and to learn from experiences of the successful Communal Conservancies of
Namibia.12 It is important to promote learning from other initiatives already being
implemented within Tanzania and in other CBNRM programs around the world
in support of WMA capacity building.
Increased women’s participation in WMAs needs to be pursued through various
approaches such as women-led income-generating projects and encouragement
to participate in AA governance bodies. Women should be provided with training
opportunities to enhance their skills as active members in AA governance and to
be employed in the various tourism enterprises in the WMAs. As more women
become actively engaged in the WMAs, they will serve as role models for others.
There is a need for establishing an information management system in which
WMA stakeholders, including the AAC, AAs and the Wildlife Division, become the
major beneficiaries and users. A system containing collated information that is
standardized and collected across all WMAs should be open source and describe
both the tools being used (such as surveys and audit forms) and relevant data
being collected. The newly developed WMA Monitoring System will be a direct fit
and should be implemented across all the WMAs, with data from this system fed
into the larger information management system. The WMA Monitoring System
should also be adapted over time to collect all data that the WMAs find useful in
their decision making, both at local and national levels.
Despite the weaknesses and obstacles we have described, the future is promising
for Tanzania’s WMAs, and there are many encouraging signs. The implementation
of CBNRM through the WMA concept has proven to be an important new
approach to conservation in Tanzania, improving benefits to communities
through new and existing entrepreneurial natural resource-based opportunities.
1
Bank of Tanzania (2013). Economic Bulletin for the Quarter Ending September, 2013.
Vol. XLV No. 3
2
Ministry of Finance (2012). Poverty and Human Development Report 2011. Research and
Analysis Working Group, Ministry of Finance.
3
URT (2007). Wildlife Policy, Tanzania Government Printers, Dar es Salaam.
4
MNRT (1998). Wildlife Policy of Tanzania. Tanzania Government Printers, Dar es Salaam.
5
URT (2007), Op. cit. (former #3)
6
Mbani, Mnaku (2011). Tanzania: Tourism Share to Drop by Y-2020. Business Times,
March 4, 2011.
7
URT (2008). The Wildlife Conservation (Non-Consumptive Wildlife Utilization) Regulations,
Tanzania Government Printers, Dar es Salaam.
8
WMA Regulations (2012).
9
URT (2009). Wildlife Conservation Act, Tanzania Government Printers, Dar es Salaam.
10
Sulle, E, E Lektita, and F Nelson. 2011. From promise to performance? Wildlife Management
Areas in Northern Tanzania. Arusha: Tanzania Natural Resource Forum, Ujamaa Community
Resource Team and Maliasili Initiatives.
11
World Travel & Tourism Council (2008).
12
NACSO (2010). Namibia’s Communal Conservancies: A review of progress and challenges in
2009. NACSO, Windhoek.
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 41
WMA PROFILES
Burunge
JUHIBU AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION
▲
N
YEAR GAZETTED 2006
ADDRESS/CONTACT
Jumuiya ya Hifadhi Burunge,
P.O. Box 269,
Babati – Manyara
AREA 280 km2
REGION Manyara
Lake Manyara
National Park
MEMBER VILLAGES 10
POPULATION 19,989
MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS
Wambugwe, Wabarbaig,
Wairaqw, Wamasai
NEAREST PROTECTED AREAS
Adjacent to Tarangire National
Park and Lake Manyara
National Park; near Ngorongoro
Conservation Area, Kilimanjaro
National Park, Arusha National
Park and Amboseli National
Park in Kenya
Tarangire National
Park
NATURAL RESOURCE
SIGNIFICANCE Burunge WMA
Lake
Burunge
provides crucial wildlife corridors
linking Tarangire National
Park, Lake Manyara National
Park, Manyara ranch and the
Ngorongoro Conservation Area
to the north. The area is best
known for the migrating buffalo
population that moves in and
out of Tarangire, while Lake
Burunge provides habitat for a
range of water fowl, including
greater and lesser flamingoes.
MANAGEMENT Board
of Trustees of nine men,
Authorized Association Council
of 25 men and 11 women;
Executive Committee of seven
men and six women; staff of
30 village game scouts (five
women) and one female office
manager
ENTERPRISES Trophy hunting
(one operator); joint-venture
tourism agreement with
Tanganyika Wilderness Camps;
lodging includes Maramboi
Tented Camp, Lake Burunge
Tented Lodge and Tarangire
Osupuku Lodge
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
Village-initiated development
projects
REVENUE (Nominal, US$)
Year
Hunting
Photographic
Tourism
Other
Total
Revenue
2006
0
0
0
0
2007
10,380
28,888
0
39,268
2008
17,539
63,401
0
80,940
2009
9,558
48,278
0
57,836
2010
3,685
149,454
0
153,139
2011
6,552
240,098
0
246,650
2012
7,429
293,652
663
301,744
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
AWF, AAC, Honey Guide
Foundation
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 43
Chingoli
CHINGOLI AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION
▲
N
YEAR GAZETTED 2012
ADDRESS/CONTACT
Jumuiya ya Hifadhi ya
Wanyamapori Chingoli,
P.O. Box 6, Marumba,
Tunduru
AREA 938 km2
REGION Ruvuma
MEMBER VILLAGES 4
POPULATION No data
MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS
Wayao
NEAREST PROTECTED AREAS
Selous Game Reserve
NATURAL RESOURCE
SIGNIFICANCE The area is
Sasawara
Forest Reserve
part of the Selous-Niassa
Wildlife Corridor. It is rich in
miombo woodlands and wildlife,
including elephants.
MANAGEMENT Board
of Trustees of eight men;
Authorized Association Council
of 12 men and eight women;
Executive Committee of five
men and three women; staff
of 43 village game scouts
Kisungule
WMA
ENTERPRISES None at present
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
None at present
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
Gauff Engineering, WCST,
WWF-Tanzania
REVENUE (Nominal, US$)
Year
Hunting
Photographic
Tourism
Other
Total
Revenue
2012
0
0
5,600
0
44 | Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas
Enduimet
ENDUIMET AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION
▲
N
KENYA
Village
Land
Kilimanjaro
National Park
REVENUE (Nominal, US$)
Year
Hunting
Photographic
Tourism
Other
Total
Revenue
2007
10,268
0
0
10,268
2008
0
23,337
0
23,337
2009
6,246
29,752
0
35,998
2010
0 51,235
0
51,235
2011
13,718 84,265
0
97,983
2012
5,810 76,086
13,100
94,996
YEAR GAZETTED 2007
ADDRESS/CONTACT
Jumuiya ya Hifadhi
Wanyamapori Enduimet
P.O. Box 1, Olmolog – Longido
AREA 1,282 km
2
REGION Kilimanjaro
MEMBER VILLAGES 9
POPULATION 47,103
MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS
Wamaasai
NEAREST PROTECTED AREAS
Borders Kilimanjaro National
Park; near Arusha National Park
and Amboseli National Park in
Kenya
NATURAL RESOURCE
SIGNIFICANCE Bordering
Kilimanjaro National Park on the
southeast, Enduimet provides
an important ecological link
between several key protected
areas. A high diversity of wildlife
species are found within its
borders, including elephant,
buffalo, giraffe, leopard, oryx,
lesser kudu, eland, gerenuk,
klipspringer, hartebeest,
bushbuck, wildebeest,
bushbuck, hyena, and
Thomson’s and Grant’s gazelle.
MANAGEMENT Board of
Trustees of seven men and two
women; Authorized Association
Council of 18 men and nine
women; Executive Committee
of five men and one woman;
42 village game scouts (two
women); and two office
managers
ENTERPRISES Trophy hunting
(one operator, Old Nyika Safaris
Ltd.); joint-venture tourism
agreements with The Monarch
Group Limited; Lodging at
Hatari Lodge/Shu’mata Camp
and Elerai Tented Camp
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
Village-initiated development
projects
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
AWF, AAC, Honey Guide
Foundation
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 45
Idodi-Pawaga
MBOMIPA AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION
▲
N
YEAR GAZETTED 2007
ADDRESS/CONTACT
MBOMIPA Association,
P.O. Box 398, Iringa
AREA 773 km2
REGION Iringa
MEMBER VILLAGES 21
POPULATION 56,724
MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS
Wahehe, Wagogo, Wabena,
Wakinga, Wasukuma
NEAREST PROTECTED AREAS
Ruaha National Park
NATURAL RESOURCE
SIGNIFICANCE Bordered to the
Ruaha
National Park
west by Ruaha National Park,
the diverse landscape of IdodiPawaga WMA supports a wide
range of wildlife and provides
ideal scenery for game viewing.
Key mammal species include
elephant, hippo, giraffe, eland,
buffalo, zebra, antelope, and
greater and lesser kudu. The
area boasts a high diversity of
birds and the African clawless
otter, while key reptiles include
the Nile crocodile, monitor
lizard, python, black mamba,
spitting cobra and puff adder.
Lunda-Mkwabi
Game Controlled Area
MANAGEMENT Board of
Trustees of seven men and zero
women; Authorized Association
Council of 36 men and five
women; Executive Committee of
12 men; staff of 36 village game
scouts (including one woman)
REVENUE (Nominal, US$)
ENTERPRISES Trophy hunting
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
Year
Hunting
Photographic
Tourism
Total
Revenue
2007
0
34,427
34,427
2008
16,172
26,679
42,851
2009
11,603
51,383
62,986
2010
14,208
91,924
106,132
2011
4,333
0
4,333
2012
2,478
52,245
54,723
School tuition for orphans
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
WCS, WWF and AAC
46 | Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas
Ikona
JUHIWAIKO AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION
▲
N
YEAR GAZETTED 2007
ADDRESS/CONTACT
CBO Ikona, P.O. Box 176,
Mugumu Serengeti
AREA 242 km2
REGION Mara
MEMBER VILLAGES 5
POPULATION 21,067
Ikorongo Game
Reserve
MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS
Waikoma, Wakurya, Wanata,
Wajaluo, Wazanaki
NEAREST PROTECTED AREAS
Bordered by Serengeti National
Park, Ikorongo-Grumeti Game
Reserves and Sasakwa
Concession Area.
Village
Land
NATURAL RESOURCE
SIGNIFICANCE Ikona WMA
Grumeti
Game Reserve
harbors many key large wildlife
species, including elephant,
lion, buffalo, giraffe, hartebeest,
waterbuck, wildebeest,
warthog, leopard, topi, roan
antelope, lesser and greater
kudu, klipspringer, zebra,
hippopotamus, black and white
colobus monkey, and crocodile.
Serengeti
National Park
MANAGEMENT Board of
Trustees of six men; Authorized
Association Council of 17 men
and eight women; Executive
Committee of eight men and
four women; staff of 22 village
game scouts (two women);
office support staff of two men
and two women
ENTERPRISES Game viewing,
REVENUE (Nominal, US$)
photography, lodging (seven
lodging investors and one safari
investor)
Year
Hunting
Photographic
Tourism
Total
Revenue
2007
13,110
0
13,110
2008
42,992
85,798
128,790
2009
26,274
172,381
198,655
2010
31,422
190,065
221,487
2011
61,722
416,005
477,727
2012
10,677
492,922
503,599
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
Village-initiated development
projects
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
FZS and AAC
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 47
Ipole
JUHIWAI AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION
▲
N
Ugunda
Forest Reserve
YEAR GAZETTED 2006
Ugalla
River
Game
Reserve
ADDRESS/CONTACT
Jumuiya ya Hifadhi
Wanyamapori ya Ipole,
P.O. Box 171, Sikonge – Tabora
AREA 2,540 km2
Mpembapazi
Forest Reserve
Ugalla
River
Forest
Reserve
REGION Tabora
MEMBER VILLAGES 4
POPULATION 8,884
MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS
Wanyamwezi, Wasukuma,
Waha, Wanyaturu, Wafipa
Itulu
Hill
Forest
Reserve
Nyonga
Forest Reserve
NEAREST PROTECTED AREAS
Ugalla River Game Reserve;
Ugunda, Ngongwa, Nyonga,
Mpembapazi and Hulu Hill
Forest Reserves .
NATURAL RESOURCE
SIGNIFICANCE Surrounded by
a number of important game
and forest reserves, Ipole WMA
is dominated by open woodland
and hosts a rich diversity of
wildlife, including sable and roan
antelopes, kudu, hartebeest,
lion, giraffe, impala, elephant,
leopard, warthog, monkey,
aardvark, baboon, hyena,
buffalo, waterbuck, hydrax,
and porcupine.
MANAGEMENT Board of
Trustees of three men and two
women; Authorized Association
Council of 21 men and four
women; Executive Committee
of five men and two women;
staff of 40 village game scouts
(six women) and one female
office manager
REVENUE (Nominal, US$)
Year
Hunting
Photographic
Tourism
Total
Revenue
2006
0
0
0
2007
12,336
0
12,336
2008
17,821
0
17,821
2009
1,804
0
1,804
2010
2,834
0
2,834
2011
23,409
0
23,409
2012
13,382
0
13,382
ENTERPRISES Trophy hunting
(one investor)
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
Village-initiated development
projects
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
Africare, WWF and AAC
48 | Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas
Kimbanda
KIMBANDA AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION
▲
N
Tunduru
WMA
YEAR GAZETTED 2012
Mbarang’andu
WMA
ADDRESS/CONTACT
Jumuiya ya Wanyamapori
Kimbanda, P.O. Box 24,
Namtumbo
AREA 2,150 km2
REGION Ruvuma
MEMBER VILLAGES 5
Kisungule
WMA
Village
Land
POPULATION 22,185
MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS
Wayao, Wangoni
Village
Land
NEAREST PROTECTED AREAS
Selous Game Reserve
NATURAL RESOURCE
SIGNIFICANCE The area is
part of the Selous-Niassa
Wildlife Corridor. It is rich in
miombo woodlands and wildlife,
including elephants.
MANAGEMENT Board of
Trustees of six men and zero
women; Authorized Association
Council of 15 men and 10
women; Executive Committee
of seven men and one woman;
staff of 60 village game scouts
ENTERPRISES None at present
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
Village government offices,
VGS and AA offices*
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
Gauff Engineering, WCST,
WWF and ACC
REVENUE (Nominal, US$)
* Financed through SelousNiassa Wildlife Corridor Project
Year
Hunting
Photographic
Tourism
Total
Revenue
2012
0
0
0
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 49
Kisungule
KISUNGULE AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION
▲
N
YEAR GAZETTED 2012
ADDRESS/CONTACT
Jumuiya ya Hifadhi ya Jamii
Kisungule, P.O. Box 24,
Namtumbo
Sasawara Forest
Reserve
AREA 1,345 km2
REGION Ruvuma
MEMBER VILLAGES 3
POPULATION 11,813
Kimbanda
WMA
MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS
Wayao, Wangoni
Chingoli
WMA
NEAREST PROTECTED AREAS
Selous Game Reserve
NATURAL RESOURCE
SIGNIFICANCE The area is
part of the Selous-Niassa
Wildlife Corridor. It is rich in
miombo woodlands and wildlife
(e.g., elephants).
Village
Land
MANAGEMENT Board of
Trustees of six men and zero
women; Authorized Association
Council of 12 men and six
women; Executive Committee
of four men and four women;
staff of 36 village game scouts
Village
Land
ENTERPRISES None at present
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
Village government offices,
VGS and AA offices*
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
Gauff Engineering, WCST,
WWF and AAC
REVENUE (Nominal, US$)
* Financed through SelousNiassa Wildlife Corridor Project
Year
Hunting
Photographic
Tourism
Total
Revenue
2012
0
0
0
50 | Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas
Liwale
MAGINGO AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION
▲
N
Selous
Game Reserve
Nyera Kiperere
Forest Reserve
REVENUE (Nominal, US$)
Year
Hunting
Photographic
Tourism
Total
Revenue
2009
15,732 0
15,732
2010
15,907 0
15,907
2011
8,416 0
8,416
4,814
0
4,814
2012
YEAR GAZETTED 2009
ADDRESS/CONTACT
Jumuiya ya Magingo,
P.O. Box 86, Liwale
AREA 3,442 km2
REGION Lindi
MEMBER VILLAGES 8
POPULATION 15,688
MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS
Wangindo
NEAREST PROTECTED AREAS
Selous Game Reserve
NATURAL RESOURCE
SIGNIFICANCE Located in the
Lindi region on the southeastern
edge of Selous Game Reserve,
Liwale WMA is composed of
open woodland. It harbors a
range of birds, reptiles and
mammals, including elephant,
lion, leopard, zebra, buffalo,
eland, hartebeest, wildebeest,
pangolin, wild dog and greater
kudu.
ENTERPRISES Hunting
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
Carpentry workshop, crop
storage
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
WWF and AAC
MANAGEMENT Board of
Trustees of five men and two
women; Authorized Association
Council of 25 men and seven
women; Executive Committee
of 12 men and two women;
staff of 14 village game scouts
(including one woman)
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 51
Makame
INDEMA AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION
▲
N
YEAR GAZETTED 2009
ADDRESS/CONTACT
Jumuiya ya Hifadhi
Wanyamapori ya Makame,
P.O. Box 153, Kiteto – Manyara
Mkungunero
GameReserve
AREA 3,719 km2
Village
Land
REGION Manyara
MEMBER VILLAGES 5
Village
Land
POPULATION 10,664
MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS
Wamaasai
NEAREST PROTECTED AREAS
Mkungunero Game Reserve
NATURAL RESOURCE
SIGNIFICANCE Tanzania’s
Village
Land
largest WMA, Makame WMA
is composed primarily of
open woodlands and mixed
shrubland. It contains an
important assemblage of
wildlife, including elephant, lion,
buffalo, giraffe, leopard, oryx,
lesser kudu, eland, gerenuk,
klipspringer, hartebeest,
bushbuck, zebra, waterbuck,
wildebeest, reedbuck, hyena,
Thomson’s and Grant’s gazelle,
warthog, impala, dik-dik, and
wild pig.
Village
Land
MANAGEMENT Board of
Trustees of nine men and one
woman; Authorized Association
Council of 37 men and 13
women; Executive Committee
of nine men and three women;
staff of 18 village game scouts
and two office support staff
ENTERPRISES Hunting
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
Unreported
REVENUE (Nominal, US$)
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
AWF and AAC
Year
Hunting
Photographic
Tourism
Total
Revenue
2009
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
2011
0
0
0
0
0
0
2012
52 | Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas
Makao
JUHIWAPOMA AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION
▲
N
Serengeti National
Park
Maswa
Game Reserve
YEAR GAZETTED 2009
ADDRESS/CONTACT
Jumuiya ya Hifadhi
Wanyamapori ya Makao, P.O.
Box 44, Meatu, Shinyanga
AREA 769 km2
REGION Shinyanga
MEMBER VILLAGES 7
POPULATION 2,928
MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS
Wasukuma, Watatoga
NEAREST PROTECTED AREAS
Serengeti National Park,
Ngorongoro Conservation Area,
Maswa Game Reserve
NATURAL RESOURCE
SIGNIFICANCE Located in
north-central Tanzania, Makao
WMA serves as an important
ecological linkage between
Maswa Game Reserve and
Serengeti National Park.
MANAGEMENT Board of
Trustees of two men and one
woman; Authorized Association
Council of 12 men and two
women; Executive Committee
of two men and one woman;
staff of 14 village game scouts
(no females)
ENTERPRISES Hunting
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
Unreported
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
FZS and AAC
REVENUE (Nominal, US$)
Year
Hunting
Photographic
Tourism
Total
Revenue
2009
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
2011
15,729
0
15,729
17,994
0
17,994
2012
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 53
Mbarang’andu
MBARANG’ANDU AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION
▲
N
YEAR GAZETTED 2006
ADDRESS/CONTACT
Jumuiya ya Maliasili
Mbarang'andu, P.O. Box 15,
Songeaa
AREA 2318 km
North East
Undendeule
Forest Reserve
2
Selous
Game Reserve
REGION Ruvuma
MEMBER VILLAGES 7
POPULATION 75,170
MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS
Wandendeule, Wayao,
Wamakua, Wanindi
NEAREST PROTECTED
AREAS Selous Game Reserve,
Northern Undendeule and
Liulinde Forest Reserves
NATURAL RESOURCE
SIGNIFICANCE Bordered
Tunduru
WMA
by Selous Game Reserve to
the north and Mozambique
to the south in southern
Tanzania, Mbarang’andu
harbors many notable wildlife
species, including elephant,
hippopotamus, leopard, buffalo,
Iion, hyena, zebra, bush pig,
warthog, hartebeest, wildebeest,
sable antelope, reedbuck, wild
dog, aardvark, silver-backed
jackal, python, and a variety
of small mammals, reptiles,
amphibians and birds.
Kimbanda
WMA
MANAGEMENT Board of
Trustees of five men and one
woman; Authorized Association
Council of 21 men and 14
women; Executive Committee
of seven men and three women;
staff of 21 village game scouts
and two office support staff
ENTERPRISES Hunting
REVENUE (Nominal, US$)
Year
Hunting
Photographic
Tourism
Total
Revenue
(one Investor)
2006
0
0
0
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
2007
0
0
0
2008
13,221
0
13,221
2009
22,679
0
22,679
2010
4,648
0
4,648
2011
4,909
0
4,909
2012
2,808
0
2,808
VGS Posts*, medical
dispensaries, school tuition,
classrooms and desks
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
Gauff Engineering, WCST, ACC
and WWF
* Financed with donor assistance
54 | Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas
Ngarambe-Tapika
MUNGATA AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION
▲
N
YEAR GAZETTED 2006
ADDRESS/CONTACT
Jumuiya ya Hifadhi ya
Wanyamapori Mungata,
P.O. Box 28, Rufiji
AREA 731 km2
REGION Pwani
Kichi Hill
Forest Reserve
MEMBER VILLAGES 2
POPULATION 2,514
MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS
Wangindo, Wamatumbi,
Wapogoro
Selous
Game
Reserve
NEAREST PROTECTED AREAS
Selous Game Reserve, Kichi
and Lung'onya Forest Reserves
Village
Land
NATURAL RESOURCE
SIGNIFICANCE Located in
Tanzania’s Coastal Region at
the southeastern edge of Selous
Game Reserve, NgarambeTapika WMA is a healthy
and productive ecosystem
dependent on freshwater
inputs and annual flood cycles.
The area’s pristine miombo
woodland and surrounding Kichi
hill forests and Lung’onya plains
serve as a critical dry season
refuge for a range of important
wildlife, including elephants.
Village
Land
Lungonya Forest
Reserve
MANAGEMENT Board of
Trustees of three men and two
women; Authorized Association
Council of 12 men and eight
women; Executive Committee
of six men and two women;
staff of 16 village game scouts
(all men)
REVENUE (Nominal, US$)
Year
Hunting
Photographic
Tourism
Total
Revenue
2006
0
0
0
2007
15,376
0
15,376
2008
34,109
0
34,109
2009
25,023
0
25,023
2010
23,920
0
23,920
2011
24,006
0
24,006
2012
15,783
0
15,783
ENTERPRISES Trophy hunting
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
School tuition, diesel generator,
deep well, oil mill
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
WWF and AAC
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 55
Tunduru
NALIKA AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION
▲
N
Selous Game Reserve
YEAR GAZETTED 2007
ADDRESS/CONTACT
Jumuiya ya Nalika,
P.O. Box 6, Tunduru, Ruvuma
AREA 1,391 km2
Muhuwesi
Forest Reserve
Mbarang’andu
WMA
REGION Ruvuma
MEMBER VILLAGES 10
POPULATION 8,941
MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS
Wayao, Wandendeule
Village
Land
NEAREST PROTECTED AREAS
Selous Game Reserve
NATURAL RESOURCE
SIGNIFICANCE Located in
Tanzania’s Ruvuma Region
and bordering several game
reserves and forest reserves,
Tunduru WMA is home to
many species of reptiles,
birds, amphibians and
mammals, including elephant,
hippopotamus, leopard, buffalo,
lion, hyena, zebra, bush pig,
warthog, hartebeest, wildebeest,
sable antelope, reedbuck, wild
dog, aardvark, silver-backed
jackal and python.
Kimbanda
WMA
MANAGEMENT Board of
Trustees of six men; Authorized
Association Council of 20 men
and 10 women; Executive
Committee of seven men and
three women; staff of 54 village
game scouts (all men)
ENTERPRISES Trophy hunting
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
Village government, VGS and
AA offices*
REVENUE (Nominal, US$)
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
Year
Hunting
Photographic
Tourism
Total
Revenue
2007
0
0
0
2008
11,861
0
11,861
2009
17,067
0
17,067
2010
2,875
0
2,875
2011
4,620
0
4,620
2012
2,643
0
2,643
Gauff Engineering, WCST,
WWF and AAC
* Financed through SelousNiassa Wildlife Corridor Project
56 | Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas
Ukutu
JUKUMU AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION
▲
N
Mkulazi Forest
Reserve
Vigoregoro
Forest Reserve
Mikumi
National Park
Selous
Game Reserve
REVENUE (Nominal, US$)
Year
Hunting
Photographic
Tourism
Total
Revenue
2010
0
0
0
2011
27,758 0
27,758
2012
28,923 0
28,923
YEAR GAZETTED 2010
ADDRESS/CONTACT
Jumuiya ya Hifadhi
Wanyamapori ya Ukutu,
P.O. Box 1880, Morogoro
AREA 640 km2
REGION Morogoro
MEMBER VILLAGES 21
POPULATION 58,020
MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS
Wakutu, Waluguru
NEAREST PROTECTED AREAS
Mikumi National Park, Selous
Game Reserve, Mkulazi Forest
Reserve
NATURAL RESOURCE
SIGNIFICANCE Bounded on
the north by Ruvu River and
bordering several protected
areas, Ukutu WMA is mostly
open woodland and harbors
a high density of mammals,
including wildebeest, elephant,
buffalo, zebra, giraffe,
impala, common waterbuck,
bohor reedbuck, red duiker,
sable antelope, hyena, lion,
leopard, wild dog, cheetah,
hippopotamus, hartebeest,
bushbuck, dik-dik, bush pig
and warthog.
MANAGEMENT Board of
Trustees of seven men and one
woman; Authorized Association
Council of 29 men and four
women; Executive Committee
of three men; staff of 22 village
game scouts (19 men and three
women) and one office support
staff
ENTERPRISES Trophy hunting
(one investor)
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
Unreported
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
WWF and AAC
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 57
Uyumbu
UWIMA AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION
▲
N
YEAR GAZETTED 2006
ADDRESS/CONTACT
Jumuiya ya Hifadhi ya
Wanyamapori ya Uwima,
P.O. Box 44, Usoke,
Urambo, Tabora
Ugalla
North
Forest
Reserve
AREA 870 km2
REGION Tabora
MEMBER VILLAGES 4
POPULATION 17,075
MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS
Wanyamwezi, Wasukuma
NEAREST PROTECTED AREAS
Ugalla Game Reserve, Ugalla
North and Wala River Forest
Reserves
NATURAL RESOURCE
SIGNIFICANCE Located
Ugalla
River
Game
Reserve
in northwestern Tanzania,
Uyumbu is dominated by open
woodlands and hosts a variety
of wildlife, including elephants,
lion, buffalo, zebra, warthog,
eland, giraffe, hartebeest,
waterbuck, hippopotamus,
leopard, common duiker, kudu,
reedbuck, sable and roan
antelope, hyena, bushbuck,
and impala.
MANAGEMENT Board of
Trustees of three men and zero
women; Authorized Association
Council of eight men and four
women; Executive Committee
of four men and two women;
staff of 39 village game scouts
(35 men and four women)
Wala River
Forest Reserve
REVENUE (Nominal, US$)
ENTERPRISES Hunting
Year
Hunting
Photographic
Tourism
Total
Revenue
2006
0
0
0
2007
0
0
0
2008
0
0
0
2009
0
0
0
2010
1,312
0
1,312
2011
2,860
0
2,860
2012
1,636
0
1,636
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
Village-initiated development
projects
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
Africare (2003–2010), WWF
(2010 to date) and AAC
58 | Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas
Wami-Mbiki
WAMI-MBIKI AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION
▲
N
Gwami
Forest Reserve
YEAR GAZETTED 2007
ADDRESS/CONTACT
Wami-Mbiki Society,
P.O. Box 1238, Morogoro
Pagale Forest Reserve
AREA 4,000 km2
REGION Morogoro
MEMBER VILLAGES 24
POPULATION 65,935
MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS
Wakwere, Wazigua, Wamasai,
Wagogo
NEAREST PROTECTED AREAS
Saadani National Park
NATURAL RESOURCE
SIGNIFICANCE Among
Tanzania’s largest WMAs,
Wami-Mbiki has a high density
and diversity of wildlife. In
addition, the cultural diversity
of the 24 surrounding villages
makes Wami-Mbiki a prime
location for walking safaris
and photo tourism.
MANAGEMENT Board of
Trustees of four men and zero
women; Authorized Association
Council of 42 men and six
women; Executive Committee
of 10 men and two women;
staff of 22 village game scouts
(18 men and four women) and
one office support staff
ENTERPRISES None at present
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
Classroom, teacher offices and
housing, medical dispensaries,
dam, wells, village government
offices*
REVENUE (Nominal, US$)
Year
Hunting
Photographic
Tourism
Total
Revenue
2007
0
10,000
10,000
2008
0
10,000
10,000
2009
0
10,000
10,000
2010
0
0
0
2011
0
0
0
2012
0
0
0
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
WWF and AAC
* Financed by donors
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 59
WMA SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS
60 | Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas
Government of Tanzania
WILDLIFE DIVISION
Director of Wildlife, Ministry of Natural Resources & Tourism, Wildlife Division
P.O. Box 9372, Dar es Salaam
Tel: +255 22 2866408 | Email: [email protected] | Website: www.mnrt.go.tz
PMO – RALG
Environment and Natural Resources Sector Coordinator, Prime Minister’s Office
Regional Administration and Local Government, P.O. Box 1923, Dodoma
Tel: +255 26 2321234 | Email: [email protected] | Websites: www.pmoralg.go.tz
WMA Support Organizations
AFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION (AWF)
Plot No: 27 Old Moshi Road, P.O. Box 2658, Arusha
Tel: +255 27 2509616 | Website: www.awf.org
Area of Operation: Northern Tanzania (Burunge, Enduimet and Makame)
AFRICARE
Plot No: 116 Ada Estate, Galu Street, P.O. Box 63187, Dar es Salaam
Email: [email protected] | Website: www.africare.org
Area of Operation: Western Tanzania (Ipole and Uyumbu)
AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION CONSORTIUM
P.O. Box 13685 Mikoroshoni Street
Msasani, Dar es Salaam
Tel: +255 22 2668615 / +255 78 8389039 | Website: www.twma.co.tz
Area of Operation: National
FRANKFURT ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY (FZS)
Africa Regional Office, Serengeti National Park
P.O. Box 14935, Arusha
Tel: +255 68 6175263 | Website: www.fzs.org
Area of Operation: Northern Tanzania (Ikona and Makao)
HONEY GUIDE FOUNDATION
P.O. Box 2657, Arusha
Tel: +255 27 2542946 | Email: [email protected] | Website: www.honeyguide.org
Area of Operation: Northern Tanzania (Enduimet and Burunge)
JBG GAUFF
P.O. Box 4351, Dar es Salaam
Tel: +255 78 4988838
Area of Operation: Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor
PAMS FOUNDATION
P.O. Box 16556, Arusha
Tel: +255 76 4807889 | Email: [email protected] | Website: http://pamsfoundation.org
Area of Operation: Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor
TANZANIA NATURAL RESOURCE FORUM (TNRF)
Plot No. 10, Corridor Area, P.O. Box 15605, Arusha
Tel: +255 75 5022267 | Email: [email protected] | Website: www.tnrf.org
Area of Operation: Northern Tanzania
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY (WCS)
P.O. Box 1654, Iringa
Tel: +255 78 6090940 | Website: www.wcs.org/where-we-work/africa/tanzania.aspx
Area of Operation: South-Central Tanzania (Idodi-Pawaga)
WORLD WILD FUND FOR NATURE (WWF)
Plot 350 Regent Estate, Mikocheni, P.O. Box 63117, Dar es Salaam
Tel: +255 22 2700077 | Website: www.wwf.org/wh0_we_are/wwf_offices/tanzania
Area of Operation: National
Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 61
4 | Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas