11

Click here to load reader

Biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation in Namtumbo District, Tanzania

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation in Namtumbo District, Tanzania

B

Ra

b

a

ARRAA

KBCPWNT

1

aspcd1aata(lstio

0h

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 162 (2012) 90– 100

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment

jo u r n al hom ep age: www.elsev ier .com/ locate /agee

iodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation in Namtumbo District, Tanzania

ichard Y.M. Kangalawea,∗, Christine Noeb

Institute of Resource Assessment, University of Dar es Salaam, P.O. Box 35097, Dar es Salaam, TanzaniaGeography Department, University of Dar es Salaam, P.O. Box 35149, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 19 August 2011eceived in revised form 20 August 2012ccepted 22 August 2012vailable online 23 September 2012

eywords:iodiversity conservationommunity livelihoodsoverty alleviationildlife management areas

amtumbo District

a b s t r a c t

The emergence of community-based conservation across the world has been associated with ecological,political and socio-economic benefits. However, lack of active involvement in planning and limited accessto conservation areas makes the economic prospects of initiatives like the Wildlife Management Areas(WMAs) rather questionable. This study was undertaken in the Mbarang’andu WMA in Namtumbo Dis-trict, Tanzania to assess the contribution of community-based conservation approaches such as WMAs inenhancing conservation of wildlife resources and poverty alleviation around protected areas. The studymethods used included participatory rural appraisal, key informant interviews, direct field observationsand household survey. A sample of 10% of the village households was selected for interview. LandSatimages from 1995 were used in mapping the physical resource base and land use/cover types of thedistrict. Household data was analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences. Findings fromthe study indicate that much of the village land has been allocated for biodiversity conservation in form

anzania of forests and/or WMAs. However, there is little evidence to show the results of such interventions interms of poverty alleviation, which constrains other local livelihoods while benefiting distant resourceusers such as private investors. The article argues that to enhance local involvement in conservationof biodiversity while addressing poverty issues, mechanisms for accessing wildlife and forest resourceswould need to be reconsidered. In particular, this study establishes that the hunting quotas to the villagessurrounding the WMA need to be increased to enhance community access to animal protein.

© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

The relationship between biodiversity conservation and povertylleviation has been the subject of intense debate amongst thecientific community for several decades. The urgency of globaloverty elimination has made the relation between biodiversityonservation and poverty reduction an important element of theebate especially since the beginning of the 21st century (Adams,999; Adams et al., 2003). While there is a diversity of opinionss to the nature and scale of conservation–poverty reduction linksnd the most appropriate mechanisms that can help to maximisehem, it has widely been accepted that biodiversity loss and povertyre linked problems and that the two should be tackled togethercf. Fisher et al., 2008; Pearce, 2011). These authors argue thativelihoods of the rural poor and options for conservation andustainable use of biological diversity are so intimately entwined

hat they are better addressed through an integrated approach,rrespective of whether the primary motivation is one of devel-pment or conservation. Nevertheless, the link has remained more

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +255 22 2410144; fax: +255 22 2410393.E-mail address: [email protected] (R.Y.M. Kangalawe).

167-8809/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.08.008

complicated and contradictory, which may explain why there havebeen so few detailed studies addressing the link between the two(Pearce, 2011).

There is an increasing concern that global efforts to maintainbiodiversity are sometimes in conflict with those to reduce poverty(Adams et al., 2004). For instance, the 20th century witnessed theestablishment of many protected areas in response to the loss ofbiodiversity. These protected areas caused the foreclosure of futureland use options, with potentially significant economic opportu-nity costs (Adams et al., 2004). In the creation of national parks inTanzania, for instance, the eviction of former occupiers of land andchanges in livelihood strategies caused the exacerbation of povertybecause in the process the concerned communities lost their landthat was a major source of livelihoods for generations (Parkipuny,1997; Songorwa, 2004; Shivji and Kapinga, 1998). The issue of landscarcity and its connections to rural poverty is also reported in otherparts of Africa. Ellis and Bahiigwa (2003) reported, for instance that,in Uganda rural poverty is strongly associated with lack of land(and livestock), as well as inability to secure non-farm alternatives

to diminishing farm opportunities. As much of land is enclosed forwildlife protection, it is still argued that the remaining wildernessin Africa may be its only hope for overcoming its poverty (Pinnock,1996).
Page 2: Biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation in Namtumbo District, Tanzania

osyste

ictcamkv2d

S

R.Y.M. Kangalawe, C. Noe / Agriculture, Ec

For the past three decades, local communities have beennvolved in conservation as a strategy for enhancing biodiversityonservation and poverty alleviation calling for the harmoniza-ion of conservation and development policies and plans acrossountries (PPF, 2003; Tanner, 2004). The strategy has entailed

change from state-controlled to community-controlled wildlifeanagement with the expectation that traditional ecological

nowledge would play a significant role in supporting local conser-ation institutions and traditional practices (Phuthego and Chanda,004). Among the targeted deliverables and benefits from bio-iversity conservation include natural and cultural services that

Fig. 1. Map of Namtumbo District showing the study villages – thource: Kangalawe and Noe (2009).

ms and Environment 162 (2012) 90– 100 91

come with tourism development package including recreational,aesthetic, medicinal as well as spiritual benefits (MillenniumAssessment, 2005). Yet, it has remained uncertain what kind of ben-efits, how communities get and use them for poverty alleviation. Itis clear, however, that those benefits from any one resource maydiffer spatially, in kind and timeframe, according to different stake-holders, and may be shared over different time periods (FAO, 2005).

This article reports part of the findings from a bigger projectundertaken in Namtumbo District in southern Tanzania. The overallobjective of the project was to assess the contribution of commu-nity based biodiversity conservation strategies such as the Wildlife

e insert shows the location of the District within Tanzania.

Page 3: Biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation in Namtumbo District, Tanzania

9 osystems and Environment 162 (2012) 90– 100

MraamhgolasTivortta

2

RMstsa

ovMD(ivfbaapdo

eEdTbn(cttcsmtfr

ioa

following favourable socio-economic conditions obtainable in theregion (NBS and RRCO, 1997).

In both Mgombasi and Nambecha villages the dominant eth-nic groups are the Ndendeule, accounting for 82.8% of respondents.

Table 1Demographic attributes and predominant livelihood activities in Mgombasi andNambecha villages.

Attributes Mgombasi and Nambecha

Demographic attributesPopulation (2002) 3680 3274Population (2009) 5610 3431Number of households 566 572Average household size 6.6 6.6

Predominant livelihood activity (percent of respondents)Crop cultivation 100 98.3Livestock keeping 44.3 63.3Small businesses 22.9 37.5Harvesting natural 16.4 11.4

2 R.Y.M. Kangalawe, C. Noe / Agriculture, Ec

anagement Areas (WMAs) in enhancing conservation of wildlifeesources and poverty alleviation in impoverished communitiesround protected areas. WMAs are a new category of protectedreas that uses the community based natural resource manage-ent approach to promote the conservation of wildlife and its

abitat outside core areas such as national parks, game reserves andame controlled areas. According to the Tanzania’s Wildlife Policyf 1998, the aim has been to transfer the management of WMA toocal communities thus taking care of corridors, migration routesnd buffer zones and ensure that the local communities obtain sub-tantial tangible benefits from wildlife conservation (URT, 1998).he specific objectives for the component of the project addressedn this article were threefold. First, to examine the poverty alle-iation strategies and livelihood systems and the consequencesn local resources, second, to document beneficiaries of naturalesources and the ways in which they exploit and benefit fromhe resources in terms of poverty alleviation and, third, to maphe existing mechanisms for using local biodiversity for povertylleviation and sustainable management of the resources.

. The study area

This study was conducted in Namtumbo District in Ruvumaegion, Tanzania (Fig. 1). Two villages namely Nambecha andgombasi, both located in Mgombasi Ward were involved in the

tudy. The District borders Songea District to the West, Ulanga Dis-rict to the North, Tunduru and Liwale Districts to the East. In theouth there is Ruvuma River which forms an international bound-ry with the Republic of Mozambique (DED, 2006).

The study used a village within the WMA to compare the potencyf the phenomenon with a village outside the WMA. Nambechaillage represents villages within the Mbarang’andu WMA, whilegombasi village represented those outside the WMA. Namtumboistrict and particularly the Mbarang’andu Game Controlled Area

which forms the Mbarang’andu WMA) has many wild animals as its part of the Selous Game Reserve ecosystem. This ecosystem pro-ides a home for millions of wild animals and plants. The animalsound in these reserves include elephants, lions, leopards, cheaters,uffaloes, hippopotamuses, crocodiles and many others. The WMAnd its surrounding are also recognised for photographic tourismnd hunting (DED, 2006). The multiple uses of WMA in the arearovided an opportunity to assess their viability for communityevelopment in situations where biodiversity conservation in formf protected areas is the planned future land use.

Two-third of the total land area of Namtumbo district is cov-red by forests. There are two forest reserves in the district; theastern Matogoro and Northern Undendeule. The Northern Unden-eule Forest Reserve is found in the Selous Game Reserve (Fig. 1).he Selous Game Reserve was designated as a World Heritage Siteased on the UNESCO’s criteria (ix) and (x), which represent sig-ificant natural habitats for in situ conservation of biodiversityIUCN, 1982). The Selous is the largest protected area in Tanzaniaovering about six percent of the total land mass and it containshe largest elephant population in Africa. The Selous ecosystem ishus locally important and globally outstanding, which makes itsonservation of global significance (Burgess et al., 2004). Notwith-tanding the biological importance of the area, it is also among theost fertile lands that support crop cultivation and this remains

he main livelihood activity in the area (DED, 2006). Cash andood crops attract business clients from within and outside theegion.

According to the Population and Housing Census conductedn 2002, Namtumbo District has a total population of 175,051f which 51% are females and 49% are males. The district hasn annual growth rate of 3.4%. By the time of this study in

Fig. 2. Population of Mgombasi and Nambecha villages 2002–2009.Source: Compiled from NBS (2005) and Village registers (2009).

2009 the population was projected to be 185,051 (NBS, 2005).The average district population density is about 34 persons/km2

and the average household size is 5.5 persons. The workingage group of 15–64 years is about 53% of the total popula-tion. The settlements are mainly concentrated along the mainroads of Songea-Tunduru, Mtwara-Pachani-Lusewa, Namtumbo-Mgombasi and Mageuzi-Kitanda (DED, 2006).

During the 2002 population and housing census Mgombasi andNambecha villages had a total of 3680 and 3274 people respectively(NBS, 2005). By the time of this study in mid-2009 these villageshad 5610 and 3431 people (Fig. 2), distributed into 566 and 572households respectively (see Table 1). There has been notable dif-ference in terms of population increase in the two villages, wherethe population of Mgombasi increased by 52.4% since 2002 censuswhile that of Nambecha increased by only 4.8% during the sameperiod, equivalent to an annual increase of about 7.5% and 0.7%in Mgombasi and Nambecha respectively. Both internal popula-tion growth and in-migration may explain the observed increaseof population in Mgombasi village compared to Nambecha andother parts of Ruvuma region (NBS and RRCO, 1997). The largedifference in population increase between the two villages maybe attributed to that Mgombasi is a small township with vari-ous social services, businesses and more accessible compared toNambecha. These factors make Mgombasi more attractive to in-migrants compared to Nambecha. The rapid population growthin the region is further attributed to migration, especially duringthe liberation war (1960–1970s) in Mozambique when the regionreceived a large number of refugees. In addition, there have beena considerable number of in-migrants from neighbouring regions

Local brewing 3.3 19.7Construction activities 8.2 11.5Casual labour 6.6 13.1Employment in professional jobs 4.9 0

Page 4: Biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation in Namtumbo District, Tanzania

osyste

OBNsrm

wfAtWgOeM

R.Y.M. Kangalawe, C. Noe / Agriculture, Ec

ther ethnic groups include the Ngoni (6.6%), Makua (4.9%) andena (1.6%). The remaining 4% consists of Ngindo, Manda, Twewe,yasa and Yao comprising about 0.8% each (DED, 2006). The diver-

ity of ethnic groups in these villages reflects variable experiencesegarding the use of local biodiversity as well as overall resourceanagement.Most of the WMA land is protected in form of village land forests,

hich put restrictions on the types of species that can be harvestedrom these protected forests (NBS and RRCO, 1997; DED, 2006).part from forming an important part of the Selous ecosystem,

he district and the WMA are currently hosting the Selous-Niassaildlife Corridor (SNWC) project that aims to link the Selous

ame reserve in Tanzania and Niassa game reserve in Mozambique.n the Tanzania’s side the Mbarang’andu WMA lies within thearmarked corridor. The Selous game reserve ecosystem and thebarang’andu WMA extends south to Mozambique. In the future,

Fig. 3. Land use/cover map o

ms and Environment 162 (2012) 90– 100 93

the wildlife corridor is expected to be an anchor for the establish-ment of the Selous-Niassa cross-border protected area. It is in thiscontext that this study focused on villages forming the WMA incomparison with those outside the WMA. The Mbarang’andu WMAwas established in 2003 and is managed by Mbarang’andu Com-munity Based Organization (CBO). Seven villages form this CBO,namely; Kitanda, Nambecha, Likuyusekamaganga, Mchomoro, Kil-amasera, Songambele and Mtelawamwahi (Mbarang’andu, 2003).The WMA covers a total area of 3052 km2 (Anon., 2008).

Notwithstanding the ecological diversity described above, agri-culture (particularly crop farming) is still the main source oflivelihood, employing about 95% of the total district population.

Out of the total area of 20,375 km2, arable land comprises about2075 km2. However, only 600 km2 is currently under crop culti-vation (DED, 2006). Thus the agricultural land use covers a verysmall part of the district, with bigger areas being under natural

f Namtumbo District.

Page 5: Biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation in Namtumbo District, Tanzania

9 osystems and Environment 162 (2012) 90– 100

vsnddsts(da

3

tpq(Krtaicnsolettmlcudcasacwdmwcla

idwhStat

4

4

i

99.2

98.4

77.9

68

58.2

56.2 Water

Fisheries resources

Agricultural land

Non-timber forest products

Building materials (sand/soil)

Timber forest products

Game products

4 R.Y.M. Kangalawe, C. Noe / Agriculture, Ec

egetation and wildlife areas. Food crops grown are maize, cas-ava, paddy and legumes while cash crops are tobacco, cashewuts, sesame and groundnuts. The livestock industry is not welleveloped in the district and this is mainly attributed to animaliseases. Traditionally most of the residents of Namtumbo keepmall stocks like goats and sheep, and poultry. However, accordingo the district investment profile, the district aims to change thistate of affair, where livestock development will be given priorityDED, 2006). Other economic activities that are carried out in theistrict include lumbering, hunting, beekeeping, mining, carpentrynd small businesses.

. Methodology

Various methods were used in this study including qualita-ive and quantitative approaches. Qualitative methods includedarticipatory rural appraisal (e.g. focus group discussions) forualitative data collection as described in Chambers and Jiggins1986), Chambers (1992), Mettrick (1993) and Mikkelsen (1995).ey informant interviews were held with Ruvuma regional sec-etariat, natural resources and agricultural officials in the district,he Mbarang’andu WMA leaders and those of the study villages. Inddition, the research team made observations and also conductedn-depth interviews with selected elderly people. Quantitative dataollection involved household survey using a structured question-aire. A sample of 10% of the village households was randomlyelected from a list of households found at the respective villageffices, including 122 households, 61 from each of the two vil-ages. As Clarke (1986) suggests, a 10% sample is representativenough and sufficient for a reasonable statistical inference abouthe population under study. The data collected included informa-ion on household characteristics such as age, level of education,

arital status; household resource endowment (e.g. ownership ofand, livestock, farm implements); major livelihood activities (e.g.rops production, livestock keeping and tourism); alternative landse options; access to land and other natural resources; levels ofependence on local biodiversity; the contribution of biodiversityonservation to poverty alleviation; and natural resources man-gement in general. The questions asked also included differenttrategies used by households in addressing poverty alleviation;ttitudes and levels of awareness of WMAs; experiences and per-eptions of biodiversity conservation. LandSat images from 1995ere analysed and used to map the land use/cover types of theistrict. This information is presented in form of a land use/coverap (Fig. 3). The various methods were combined during the field-ork to complement each other for enhancing reliability of the data

ollected. Secondary sources of data included a review of existingiterature to provide a general background to the research themend the study area.

Qualitative information from focus group discussions and keynformants interviews were triangulated during the discussions asescribed by Chambers (1992). A consensus on a particular aspectas recorded to represent that particular phenomenon. Data fromousehold surveys was analysed using the Statistical Package forocial Science (SPSS) programme. Frequency distribution, crossabulations and descriptive statistics (e.g. means, standard devi-tions) were used to compare different variables within and acrosshe villages.

. Results and discussion

.1. Availability and community dependence on natural resources

It has been observed during this study that local livelihoodsn Mgombasi and Nambecha villages depend heavily on natural

92.6

Fig. 4. Household level of dependence on specific natural resources.

resources. The natural resources commonly used in these villagesand respective proportions of respondents who depend on theseresources are presented in Fig. 4. However, the level of depend-ency on biodiversity resources such as game and forests products,fisheries, and agrodiversity varies from one resource to anotherand is determined by the availability and access to the resource inquestion. Traditionally, community members used local biodiver-sity for subsistence purposes, where they harvested arable crops,forest (timber and non-timber), fisheries and game products (seeFig. 4). These resources were used as sources of food, building mate-rials and cash income as reported by about 90% of the respondentsin the studied villages. Yet, with the establishment of protectedareas, open access of such resources to the communities is increas-ingly becoming difficult as more restrictions have been introducedregarding harvesting of these resources.

Water is the most exploited resource, and it is accessed byevery villager for as long as it is available. Over 90% of respondentsclaimed that they access water from natural springs, harvest-ing storages and rivers which are still free sources. This appliesto the non-timber forest products (e.g. edible mushrooms, wildvegetables and fruits, medicinal plants, among others) and build-ing materials. This high rate of local communities’ dependencyon natural resources is in line with findings by other recentstudies conducted in southern Tanzania (InWent and GTZ, 2007;Schuerholz and Baldus, 2007). The small proportion of respon-dents who reported dependence on mineral resources indicatesthat villagers in the study area are not much involved in small-scalemining activities. However, there is a difference in the availabilityof the above-mentioned resources when compared to others suchas wildlife. The difference is mainly attributed to the ownershipand control of these resources. Whereas contractual agreementsand licenses have limited access and use by local villagers, thesehave empowered external stakeholders in the name of investors.

Some of the resources are available and used all year through,others seasonally and some only during a specific period of theyear. Forest resources, both timber and non-timber, and fisheriesare more exploited during specific periods of the year. For instance,lumbering and fishing activities were reported to be more inten-sive during dry seasons when labour requirement in agriculturalactivities is low. Collection of timber is done in private woodlots,village forests and occasionally in forest reserves albeit illegally.Conceptually, the establishment of WMA in the area has limitedthe collection of timber and other resources available in villageforests. Collection of other wood products such as charcoal and

firewood was reported to be undertaken during most parts of theyear. As such, the studied villages were reported to be the sourceof supply for these resources into the neighbouring urban centres.These activities have considerable contribution to the household
Page 6: Biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation in Namtumbo District, Tanzania

osystems and Environment 162 (2012) 90– 100 95

ecCrtsHmsv

4

sbowhmato

loD(afKiiftaitsapw

scfiptwat

0.57.9

63.8

27.8

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Residential Agriculture Village forest

areas

Village wildlife

areas

Land use category

Pe

rce

nt

of

tota

l la

nd

are

a

TL

S

R.Y.M. Kangalawe, C. Noe / Agriculture, Ec

conomy and may have negative impacts to the environment espe-ially since harvesting of such resources is not done sustainably.ollection of non-timber forest products such as vegetables, mush-ooms, wild fruits and tubers is done during specific periods ofhe year as reported by 84.4% of respondents. The availability ofuch wild food plants depends on rainfall amount and seasonality.ousehold need for building materials is occasional, although suchaterials are available throughout the year. This timing ensures

easonal availability of these resources and their access buffersarious livelihood needs of respective communities.

.2. Agricultural related land uses

Table 1 presents the predominant livelihood activities in thetudy area. These include crop cultivation; livestock keeping; smallusinesses (including food vending, shop keeping, broidery, tail-ring, selling fuelwood, milling machine, mechanic, and artisticorks); local brewing; harvesting of natural resources – includingunting, beekeeping and honey harvesting, collection of traditionaledicines; and construction activities (mainly involving carpentry

nd masonry). Casual labour was also reported to be practiced atimes of need. Employment in professional jobs involved only fewf the village households.

It can be seen from Table 1 that agriculture is the predominantivelihood activity in the study area. It is considered to be a sourcef livelihood to more than 95% of the population in Namtumboistrict (DED, 2006). According to the District Investment Profile

DED, 2006), the prime aim of the district is to alleviate povertynd improve the standard of living in line with the National Strategyor Growth and Reduction of Poverty (NSGRP), commonly known iniswahili as MKUKUTA. Thus, agriculture is regarded as a priority

nvestment area, both in small and large-scale farming, includingrrigation agriculture, beef ranching and dairy farming. Large-scalearmers with substantial capital are thus encouraged to invest inhe areas of mechanisation, transportation as well as marketing ofgricultural products (DED, 2006). These are important attributesn promoting agriculture production and innovations. In the mean-ime, small-scale agriculture is still the main livelihood option in alltudy villages. Local livelihoods have mainly depended on shiftingnd valley bottom cultivation (locally referred to as madimba) foraddy, and flood plains for maize, beans, cassava, groundnuts asell as sesame and tobacco.

In Mgombasi and Nambecha villages land is currently con-idered to be enough for household needs, especially for cropultivation. Responding to a question on whether the land was suf-cient for the present household needs, about 83% of interviewedeople acknowledged that land was enough. This was irrespec-

ive of the fact that vast tracts of land belonging to these villagesere set aside as part of the Selous Game Reserve and recently as

WMA (Fig. 5). In Nambecha Village, for example, about 92% ofhe total land area is under conservation in form of village forest

able 2and uses for villages in Mbarang’andu WMA (2003–2013).

Villages Residential Agriculture

(ha) % (ha)

Nambecha 205.5 0.5 3571.5

Mchomoro 561 0.5 5789

Songambele 2455 5.8 20,836

Kitanda 378.7 0.4 4275

Likuyusekamaganga 24,251.6 27.3 2156

Mtelawamwahi 642.5 1 5216

Kilimasera 75 0.47 1450

Total 28,569.3 6.3 43,293.5

ource: Mbarang’andu (2003).

Fig. 5. Land use categories in Nambecha Village.

reserve and wildlife areas (Fig. 5). This demonstrates that very littleof the village land is available for agriculture and other activities.In the future this may have considerable impact on the local liveli-hoods, especially given the fast growing populations and expandingresource needs. The current perception on land adequacy of agricul-tural land is mainly attributed to the generally small populations inthese villages as well as low technological advancement in farming,but with increasing population and advancement in farming tech-nologies the available land seems inadequate. Experiences fromother parts of the country indicate that loss of access to agriculturalland has increasingly become a significant problem following theestablishment and/or expansion of protected areas (Shivji, 2001;Kideghesho, 2006).

According to the Mbarang’andu WMA land use plans for2003–2013 (Mbarang’andu, 2003), wildlife and forest conservationoccupies most of the village areas with only small fractions of landset aside for agriculture and residence (Table 2). Areas set aside forwildlife and forests in each village are what form Mbarang’anduWMA. These areas combined occupy a total of 385,469.5 hectares(which is 84.2% of the total area) while agriculture occupies only43,293.5 hectares (which is 9.5%). Residences (which include insti-tutional and public spaces) occupy 28,569.3 hectares (6.3%). Thesmall areas currently allocated for agriculture limit agriculturalexpansion and raise some concerns on the future sustainabilityof community livelihoods. Agricultural expansion is particularlylimited in villages like Nambecha that are within the WMA becausemuch of the village land has been allocated for forests or wildlifeareas. Mgombasi village being outside the WMA has better accessto agricultural land and has more potentials for agricultural expan-sion.

Crop diversification has been an important strategy forimproving agricultural productivity in the area, which somewhatcompensates for the limited opportunities for expanding farmsizes. However, high prices of agricultural inputs such as fertiliserswere considered to be a major challenge in sustaining agricul-

tural productivity as reported by 100% and 74% of respondents inMgombasi and Nambecha villages respectively. Concerns relatedto fertilisers were particularly mentioned for food crops. For cash

Forest areas Wildlife areas

% (ha) % (ha) %

7.9 28,705.1 63.9 12,476.3 27.75 29,964 25.2 79,991 68.8

49.1 1344 3.2 1779 41.94.4 55,153.5 56.6 37,535 38.62.4 21,919.4 24.7 40,566.5 45.67.7 21,685.8 32.1 40,000 59.29.13 8875 55.91 5475 34.49

9.5 167,646.8 36.6 217,822.8 47.6

Page 7: Biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation in Namtumbo District, Tanzania

96 R.Y.M. Kangalawe, C. Noe / Agriculture, Ecosyste

Table 3Percent response on means of land acquisition (%).

Means of land acquisition Percent

Inheritance 65.5Pioneering (clearing forest) 12.9Allocation by village government 10.6Hire 4.5Purchase 2.5Borrow 0.8Other means (not specified) 1.6

cfhTctiopfai

tmsos

pfelwlotcels

llttoonslal

4

sabwph

Not applicable (if one did not have land) 1.6

Total 100

rops such as tobacco, there is a company that provides subsidisedertilisers on credit payable after harvesting the crop. As a conditionowever, such fertilisers have to be strictly used in tobacco farms.hus many farmers (86.8%) are unable to buy fertilisers for otherrops that are not subsidised. This was claimed to have contributedo low usage of such inputs, with subsequent low farm productiv-ty. Overall, this experience shows that allocation of larger partsf village land to protected areas has not sufficiently been com-ensated by improvement in agricultural productivity, especiallyor food crops. Thus there is a need to establish alternative mech-nisms for improving productivity in existing farms, e.g. throughncreased use of crop residues for soil fertility improvement.

Majority of the farmers (89%) own land, which is acquiredhrough different means (Table 3). Most of these farmers owned

ore than one plot and growing different types of crops as atrategy for food and cash crop diversification. The strategy alsoptimises exploitation of different parts of landscape with variableoil conditions.

The study revealed that though farmers are faced with a com-lex array of constrains such as crop damage by wildlife, lack ofarm inputs and unstable market, crop cultivation is still consid-red the best future land use option in the area. However, witharge areas of land being allocated to protected areas (forests and

ildlife), and with a rapidly increasing population, the agriculturaland will be highly constrained in the future. Crop cultivation is notnly the main source of food for households but also a source ofhe most needed cash for non-farm expenses such as school fees,lothing and health care. One of the biggest concerns among farm-rs was that market prices offered by crop traders are generally veryow and vary considerably from one place to another and betweeneasons.

Livestock keeping was ranked as second most important futureand use option as reported by about 69% of respondents. Otherand use options mentioned in Table 1 were reported to be subjecto the improvement of the current practices. For example, in most ofhe respondent’s views, agriculture may be the best future land useption only if it is promoted by, among others, improved availabilityf inputs, large-scale agricultural investments, capital for mecha-isation, reliable markets and transportation. However, as will beeen in Section 4.3, there seems to be a contradiction between theand for agriculture and wildlife in relation to what communitiesnd other stakeholders perceive as the preferred current and futureand use.

.3. Wildlife conservation as a livelihood option

Findings from this study did not provide sufficient evidence toupport that wildlife conservation is a livelihood option in the studyrea at present and in the near future. This observation is supported

y two main arguments. First, that although the study villages haveildlife resources and have been involved in conservation for theast two decades, wildlife resources have not contributed to theousehold needs, either for cash or food security. Instead, wild

ms and Environment 162 (2012) 90– 100

animals were reported to very often destroy standing crops andprey on livestock, causing economic losses to farmers. Thus the evi-dent need for agricultural expansion seems to be in conflict withthe need for expansion of wildlife areas. Already wild animals arelocally considered a concern that touches on issues of safety andfood security. The above experience appears to be similar to otherparts of the world (Pearce, 2011). Pearce argues that despite thepromises of conservationists to deliver sustainable developmentaround the world extreme rural poverty continues to show a dis-turbing correlation with the richest biodiversity hotspots. Naturalriches, however well protected, do not translate into better lives forthe most vulnerable. Often those who live closest to nature seemto gain the least from its protection.

Secondly, despite some explicit policy focus on pro-poortourism very little is evident on the implementation of such growthstrategies. Official data indicates that Namtumbo District holdspotentials for wildlife and cultural tourism since almost two-thirdof its land area is covered with forests and miombo woodlandswhich form the Selous Game Reserve and its buffer zones (DED,2006). Selous is a massive and important resource from a biodiver-sity point of view (Hahn, 2004) and, ideally, it should contributeproportionally to the local development. However, tourism bringsabout the need for large scale investors for the development ofhotels and other infrastructures. It is clear from the district profilethat the growth of tourism will depend on, among others, wildlifeprotection in areas that are also targeted for agricultural expansion.The district’s ambitious plan for agricultural expansion in tandemwith wildlife tourism (DED, 2006) may be seen as a potential area ofland use conflict which is likely to constrain the efforts of balancingbetween ecological integrity, poverty reduction and human needsin general.

4.4. Mechanisms for utilising wildlife-based resources andbenefits for poverty alleviation

4.4.1. Land use proportions for Mbarang’andu WMAThe Mbarang’andu WMA was established in 2003 and is man-

aged by Mbarang’andu Community Based Organization (CBO).Seven villages form this CBO namely: Kitanda, Nambecha,Likuyusekamaganga, Mchomoro, Kilamasera, Songambele andMtelawamwahi and was officially registered on 18 February 2004under the Societies Ordinance Act, 1954 (Anon., 2008). The totalarea of WMAs within Mbarang’andu is 3052 km2 (Anon., 2008).Fig. 6 presents the proportions of area coverage by the major landuse categories in villages within the Mbarang’andu WMA.

Mbarang’andu WMA is dominated by hilly terrains, but containslarge herds of buffaloes and long tasked elephants in addition tolions and leopards. The WMA serves as migratory route betweenthe Selous and the Niassa Game Reserves hosting the world’s largestelephant, buffalo and sable populations (Utalii Travel and Safaris,2008). Land use data for Mbarang’andu WMA (Fig. 6) demonstratesthat wildlife has taken most of agricultural land and will most likelyconstrain future plans for agricultural expansion even though itremains the main livelihood activity.

Until 2002, there were 28,526 people in the seven villages thatform the Mbarang’andu WMA all of whom fully depending on agri-culture (Mbarang’andu, 2003). Villages were assisted in planningtheir land use which was a pre-requisite for the establishmentof the WMA and its recent registration as a CBO in 2008. Landuse plans for Mbarang’andu WMA were prepared for a 10-yearperiod from 2003 to 2013. As Fig. 6 shows, wildlife and forestconservation occupies most of the village areas with only small

fractions of land set aside for agriculture and residence. Songambelevillage stands out as an exception with 49% of its land in agricul-ture while the remaining six villages (including Nambecha) haveless than 10% of the total land for agriculture This difference is a
Page 8: Biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation in Namtumbo District, Tanzania

R.Y.M. Kangalawe, C. Noe / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 162 (2012) 90– 100 97

r MbaS

pmsr(i(ctp5afgmfiva(

4

stiiTeflittrbDh

bawegc

Fig. 6. Land use proportions foource: Computed from Mbarang’andu (2003).

otential conflict over benefit sharing between those villages withore wildlife areas and those with more land under agriculture

ince, according to the Mbarang’andu CBO constitution wildlife-elated benefits will be shared equally among member villagesMbarang’andu, 2003). The small areas allocated for agriculturen the current plan for the villages forming Mbarang’andu WMAFig. 6) raises some concerns on the future sustainability of localommunity livelihoods. No wonder a large proportion (60%) ofhe respondents in this study revealed that wildlife has no role tolay in poverty alleviation at the household level. Among these,7% cited failures in the existing mechanisms for sharing benefitsccrued from the utilisation of wildlife resources, including huntingees. Nevertheless, 22% appreciated the quota system that makesame meat available and improved social services such as schoolsedical facilities and road construction which are covered by the

unds generated from the sale of village quotas. This seems to ben line with one of the Mbarang’andu’s objectives, “to provide ser-ices within Mbaranga’andu that will improve social and economicctivities while promoting conservation and development issues”Mbarang’andu, 2003).

.4.2. Consumptive tourismConsumptive tourism (hunting) is a well-taped opportunity in

outhern Tanzania. Since several village wildlife areas are pulledogether to form WMAs, they are big enough for commercial hunt-ng activities. Mbarang’andu WMA is currently leased to a privatenvestor, the Game Frontier of Tanzania Ltd. Hunting blocks inanzania are leased by the Wildlife Division on behalf of the gov-rnment. Thus most of the village areas become private propertiesor a specified period of time which makes them inaccessible to vil-agers. This means that land and resource utilisation in the WMAs neither determined by village government and/or according tohe local people’s needs, nor the CBO that manages the WMA buthe Wildlife Division that allocates the hunting blocks and collectsevenues. The mechanism for benefit sharing is as well determinedy the Division. Currently, 25% of hunting revenue is sent to theistrict Councils, which distribute part of it to the villages whereunting is practiced.

The respondents in the two studied villages questioned theseenefit sharing mechanisms and they perceived the governmentnd foreign investors/outside people as the main beneficiaries of

ildlife resources in their area. Villagers claimed that hunting rev-

nues are too small and comes to the villages irregularly. Focusroup discussions in the two villages also cited the amount allo-ated to the villages and irregularity as a loophole for corrupt

rang’andu WMA, 2003–2013.

leaders to misuse the funds for their own benefits. When viewedfrom these local concerns, the promotion of tourism as supportedby the Namtumbo district investment profile does not seem totarget local residents. It is on the basis of the foregoing that bene-fit sharing from tourist activities like hunting remains a potentialarea of resource use conflict that could handicap efforts to alleviatepoverty through biodiversity conservation.

The view that local communities do not benefit much from pro-tected areas is also supported by studies from elsewhere in theworld. Ghezae et al. (2009) write, for example, that the distributionof costs and benefits of protected areas largely tends not to favourlocal communities. The exclusion from access and use, sometimescoupled with resettlement, means that due to loss of land, incomeopportunities and cultural identity, local communities often payvery high cost when protected areas are established, with local ben-efits often being marginalised. Pearce (2011) argues that despitethe promises of conservation to deliver sustainable development,extreme rural poverty continues to show a correlation with therichest biodiversity hotspots. Protection does not translate into bet-ter lives for those who live closest to protected areas. Furthermore,while benefit-sharing arrangements with local communities, e.g.through ecotourism are very relevant options, they in many casesseem to be more rhetorical than actual (Ghezae et al., 2009). There-fore the concern that protected areas such as WMAs are a meansfor poverty reduction for the local communities remains difficultto achieve.

4.4.3. Village hunting quotasSubsistence hunting is recognised as part of the benefits of liv-

ing in proximity to wildlife areas. However, the availability and useof game products is the most contestable aspect of biodiversity inthe studied villages and Namtumbo district in general (Neumann,2001; Ashley et al., 2002). Even though the local people of thearea remain largely crop cultivators, they maintain a long traditionof game hunting as an alternative source of food and householdincome (Ashley et al., 2002). However, changes in land use planshave transformed subsistence hunting from a livelihood activityto commercial enterprises. The Wildlife Division provides huntingquota to the villages which may choose to hunt or sell their quotato the tourist hunting operators (Nelson, 2007). In case the villageschoose to hunt, they can do so under game scouts that are overseen

by the District Game Officer and the WMA governance. Even then,the meat they get would not be provided for free to villagers but ata cost slightly below the market price for other alternatives such asbeef.
Page 9: Biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation in Namtumbo District, Tanzania

98 R.Y.M. Kangalawe, C. Noe / Agriculture, Ecosyste

60

19

138

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Villagers Outsiders (licensed

resource users)

Government Crop buyers

Perceived beneficiaries of local biodiversity

Per

cen

t o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

FM

vctMthct4s2oagt

4c

artofit

TM

ig. 7. Stakeholders benefiting from local biodiversity as perceived by people ingombasi and Nambecha Villages.

The sale of game meat in the villages has been heralded by someillagers and conservationists as a successful attempt to provideommunities with legal access to game meat while at the sameime generating development funds. By virtual of being part of

barang’andu WMA, Nambecha village qualifies for hunting quo-as. However, it is locally perceived that the impact of quota huntingas generally remained insignificant. The number of animals allo-ated per village per hunting season is also very small comparedo the total populations in these villages. For instance, in 2008 only9 animals were allocated as overall annual hunting quotas for theeven villages in the Mbarang’andu WMA (cf. Kangalawe and Noe,009). This may be a disincentive for the sustainable conservationf local biodiversity. Villages outside the Mbarang’andu WMA, suchs Mgombasi do not usually receive hunting quotas, and to accessame meat they have to wait until the villages in the WMA decideo sell some from their quotas.

.5. Stakeholders and institutions involved in biodiversityonservation

Stakeholder and institutional analysis indicated that the studyrea is an attraction to various actors in biodiversity conservation,esource protection and exploitation. Fig. 7 summarises views on

he locally identified stakeholders with interest on the biodiversityf the study area. It appears from Fig. 7 that the communities bene-t most from the local biodiversity and overall natural resources ofhe area. This can be explained by the fact that the rural livelihoods

able 4ajor stakeholders benefiting from the natural resources of the study area.

Name of stakeholder Stakeholder categories Roles

Villagers Resource users Have

Mbarang’andu CBO Local resource managers ManagIndividuals/outsiders (businessmen,

brokers, tourists, researchers andscientists)

Resource users Users

resour

Global Environmental Facility (GEF) Development partner InvolvSelous

German Technical Agency (GTZ) Development partner FacilitGerman Development Bank (KfW) Development partner FacilitWorld Wildlife Fund (WWF) Development partner Suppo

landscsuppo

Association for Development ofProtected Areas

Facilitator Beekeof ADAconse

Government (Ministry of NaturalResources and Tourism, NamtumboDistrict and Village Councils)

Resource owner and regulator Own land co

TLTC Private investor in tobacco FacilitGame Frontiers of Tanzania (GFT) Private investor in wildlife Lease

includTASAF Facilitator-social development Initiat

2001

ms and Environment 162 (2012) 90– 100

in these villages are largely dependent on natural resources andassociated biodiversity as a source of various wood and non-wood,edible and non-edible products. Since most of villagers have littlethat they outsource for their livelihoods, they may have positiveperceptions regarding the benefits from natural resources of thearea. Stakeholders such as licensed crop buyers, hunting compa-nies and mineral explorers were reported as the second-most groupthat benefit from the local natural resources. Unlicensed businesspeople, such as crop traders were mentioned as the third group ofstakeholders benefiting from the local resources.

The list of stakeholders and their main activities (Table 4) sug-gests that stakeholders such as international conservation NGOsand development agencies facilitate different activities that focuson wildlife protection. However, some of stakeholders are only pro-conservation while others like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF)have supported the implementation of conservation activities, withconsiderable community involvement, including the establishmentof wildlife co-management activities through WMAs. Similarly, theAssociation for Development of Protected Areas (ADAP) has playedan important role in facilitating beekeeping activities in the villageswhich are involved in the SNWC project. Promoting beekeepingis an important of-farm activity and means for increasing incomewhile conserving the environment.

4.6. Policy implications of biodiversity conservation and povertyalleviation

Community-based natural resource management are claimed tohave resulted into remarkable successes for wildlife and biodiver-sity conservation in Tanzania. Similar claims have been made forWMAs (Brockington, 2007; IRA, 2007; URT, 2007a; Baldus, 2008).However, the recently revised wildlife policy and the wildlife con-servation (non-consumptive wildlife utilisation) regulations (URT,2007b,c) raise questions on whether local communities will haveany mandate over wildlife to substantiate the role of WMAs inpoverty alleviation. Whereas the 1998 Wildlife Policy of Tanzaniarecognised WMAs as a new category of protected areas in the village

lands where communities would be given ‘full mandate’ for wildlifemanagement (URT, 1998), the revised policy of 2007 recognisesWMAs as a mechanism for protecting wildlife habitats and haltingdegradation (URT, 2007b).

and interests

land rights and responsibilities for protection and utilisation of natural resourceses Mbarang’andu WMA

of contractual agreements (licenses) and community permits to use localces for consumptive and non-consumptive uses in and outside the community

ed in biodiversity conservation. Since 2004 it provided funds for the-Niassa Wildlife Corridor project in which Nambecha village is involved.ates the establishment of WMAs since 1988 and currently the SNWC since 2003ates infrastructure development in the SNWC since 2006rts the implementation of the Miombo Woodland eco-region in Selous-Ruvumaape since 2006. It includes conservation activities with local communities inrt for anti-poaching activities and the establishment of WMAs.eping project in the villages which are involved in the SNWC project. As The aimP is to encourage beekeeping as a means for increasing income while

rving the environment.and and wildlife resources and has institutional obligation for the managementnservation of natural resources.

ates the availability of quality tobacco seeds and buys cropsholder of the Mbarang’andu hunting block operating hunting activities. Theye some conservation activities with local communities.es and fund community projects. It supports water project in Nambecha since

Page 10: Biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation in Namtumbo District, Tanzania

osyste

caWnPiasssbctwrowatvactt

gtacCStstscpiacttbnaafasp

5

hualrafivae

R.Y.M. Kangalawe, C. Noe / Agriculture, Ec

New set of regulations for wildlife conservation (non-onsumptive wildlife utilisation) were issued in September 2007longside the revised wildlife policy. These regulations confer theildlife Division exclusive powers over revenue collection for

on-consumptive wildlife-based activities in WMAs (URT, 2007c).recisely, the Director of Wildlife will control wildlife utilisationn the village land and set out schedules for payment of feesnd other applicable charges which are paid at the Wildlife Divi-ion headquarters in Dar es Salaam. Since consumptive tourism,uch as hunting has always been regulated by the Wildlife Divi-ion (even when hunting blocks are located in the village lands),oth consumptive and non-consumptive tourism regulations leaveommunities with no role to play in wildlife-based revenue collec-ion. Consequently, communities accrue minimum benefits fromildlife in their land. In the light of the abovementioned policy

eviews, it may be argued that WMAs only facilitate appropriationf village lands for the expansion of protected areas. As was the caseith the establishment of other protected areas, village lands set

side as WMAs will become inaccessible for villagers since most ofhem are leased to private investors. Therefore WMAs’ role in alle-iating poverty of neighbouring communities is questionable. Thisrgument was observable in Nambecha village which, apart fromontributing part of its land to Mbarang’andu WMA and borderinghe Selous Game Reserve, it did not demonstrate to be better inerms of poverty levels.

The view that WMAs are part of protected areas expansion pro-ramme is also supported by studies elsewhere in Africa. It is arguedhat such programme has meant less land for local livelihoods suchs agriculture and hunting hence reducing the welfare of the localommunities located on the margins of protected areas (Fisher andhristopher, 2007; Igoe and Croucher, 2007; Johannesen, 2007;pierenburg et al., 2008). However, these claims vary according tohe resource ownership and the available mechanisms for benefitharing between different actors. Other studies show the con-rary, for instance, Bini and Diniz-Filho (2005) reported from atudy undertaken in Brazilian Cerrado that although poverty andonservation are separate policy realms, even newer and smallerrotected areas could generate significant impacts on poverty by

mproving the local economy. Their argument was that protectedreas improved economic activities such as wildlife tourism, whichan be an important component for poverty reduction. In the Nam-umbo situation, where wildlife revenues are not directly accruedo the local communities while village lands are made inaccessi-le for agriculture and other uses, biodiversity conservation mayot have significant contribution to poverty alleviation and over-ll economic development of surrounding local communities. Wergue therefore that efforts towards biodiversity conservation inorm of WMAs and other community-based natural resources man-gement initiatives should be accompanied by elaborate benefitharing mechanisms for such resources to effectively contribute tooverty reduction.

. Conclusions

Livelihoods in Mgombasi and Nambecha villages dependeavily on natural resources. Although a majority of the pop-lation in the studied villages depend on natural resourcess sources of food, building materials as well as cash, theevel of dependency on biodiversity resources varies from oneesource to another and is determined by the availability,ccess and use value of the resource in question. Overall,

ndings from this study enhance the understanding of biodi-ersity conservation within the context of poverty alleviationnd underscore the need for mainstreaming poverty alleviationndeavours in conservation initiatives. Agriculture is the major

ms and Environment 162 (2012) 90– 100 99

livelihood activity and the means for poverty alleviation in thestudy area, and includes a diversity of food and cash crops and smalllivestock keeping. The diversity of crops grown increases the assur-ance of food production, hence food security. However, agricultureis constrained by several challenges including limited land allo-cations in favour of biodiversity conservation in form of forests andWMAs. This has resulted in restricted access to once main sourceof fertile lands for agricultural production and source of forest andwildlife resources for household use and for socio-economic devel-opment.

Namtumbo District also recognises the importance of resourceconservation, especially the biologically rich areas of Selous GameReserve and the surrounding WMA, which have been a motivationfor promoting tourism in these areas. If well managed tourism isexpected to bring about enormous socio-economic benefits as wellas strengthening conservation efforts.

Current experiences from Mgombasi and Nambecha villagesindicate that biodiversity conservation through WMAs facilitatesappropriation of village lands for the expansion of protected areas,making such areas increasingly inaccessible to villagers. Sincemost of them are leased to private investors, the local commu-nities do not have the command over wildlife-based revenues.The subsistence hunting traditionally recognised as part of ben-efits to communities living in the proximity to wildlife areasis at present constrained by the use of game products throughlimited quota allocations of animals. Such allocations seem to beinsignificant compared to the total populations in these villages.This makes the role of biodiversity conservation in alleviatingpoverty of neighbouring communities rather questionable. Thusto enhance local involvement in the conservation of biodiversitywhile addressing poverty issues, local access to wildlife and for-est resources would need to be reconsidered. Otherwise the smallallocations may turn into a disincentive for the sustainable conser-vation of local biological diversity.

The study also enhances the understanding of how the variouspoverty alleviation strategies undertaken by the local communi-ties influence changes in both the environment and biodiversitythrough forest clearance to open up new farms and obtainingfuelwood, especially for curing tobacco, the major cash crop inthe area. It is thus recommended that communities utilising localbiodiversity should be motivated to engage in more sustainablepractices. This would however, need further analysis of existingpolicies and legislation, marketing and technology barriers, incen-tives for sustainable management of biodiversity and the associatedsocio-economic and ecological benefits.

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the University of Dar es Salaamthrough the Sida core support programme. The authors wouldalso like to acknowledge the cooperation of various people andthe Regional and District authorities in the study area. A sessionwith the Mbarang’andu CBO leadership was particularly insightfulin understanding the Mbarang’andu WMA. The Village ExecutiveOfficers of Nambecha and Mgombasi were particularly helpful inmaking necessary arrangements for fieldwork. We are also thank-ful to community members who participated in this study. Finally,we are grateful to the anonymous reviewers of this article for theirconstructive comments.

References

Adams, W.M., 1999. Green Development. Environment and Sustainability in theThird World. Routledge, London/New York.

Adams, W.M., Brockington, D., Dyson, J., Vira, B., 2003. Managing tragedies: under-standing conflict over common pool resources. Science 302, 1915–1916.

Page 11: Biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation in Namtumbo District, Tanzania

1 osyste

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

D

E

F

F

F

G

H

I

I

I

I

J

K

00 R.Y.M. Kangalawe, C. Noe / Agriculture, Ec

dams, W.M., Aveling, R., Brockington, D., Dickson, B., Elliott, J., Hutton, J., Roe, D.,Vira, B., Wolmer, W., 2004. Biodiversity conservation and the eradication ofpoverty. Science 306 (5699), 1146–1149.

non., 2008. Annotated History of the Selous Niassa Wildlife Corridor, Available at:http://www.wildlife-baldus.com/download/SNWC History.pdf

shley, C., Mdoe, N., Reynolds, L., 2002. Rethinking wildlife for livelihoods anddiversification in rural Tanzania: a case study from northern Selous. Livelihoodsand Diversification Directions Explored by Research (LADDER), Working PaperNo.15. Norwich, University of East Anglia.

aldus, D., 2008. Results and Conclusions of the Selous Conservation Program,1987–2003: A Special Report on Selected Side Events at the Ninth Conference ofthe Parties (COP 9) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). InternationalInstitute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Bonn.

ini, L.M., Diniz-Filho, J.A.F., 2005. Conservation Does Not Compromise Social Devel-opment in Brazilian Cerrado.

rockington, D., 2007. Forests, community conservation, and local governmentperformance: the village forest reserves of Tanzania. Soc. Nat. Resour. 20,835–848.

urgess, N., Hales, J., Underwood, E., Dinerstein, E., Olson, D., Itoua, I., Schipper, J.,Ricketts, T., Newman, K., 2004. Terrestrial Ecoregions of Africa and Madagascar:A Conservation Assessment. Washington, DC, Island Press.

hambers, R., 1992. Rural Appraisal: Rapid, Relaxed and Participatory. DiscussionPaper No.311, Institute of Development Studies, Sussex.

hambers, R., Jiggins, J., 1986. Agricultural Research for Resource PoorFarmers. Discussion Paper No. 220. Institute of Development Studies,Sussex.

larke, R. (Ed.), 1986. The Handbook of Ecological Monitoring. Clarendon Press,Oxford.

istrict Executive Director – DED, 2006. Namtumbo District Investment Profile.Namtumbo District Council, Namtumbo.

llis, F., Bahiigwa, G., 2003. Livelihoods and rural poverty reduction in Uganda. WorldDev. 31, 997–1013.

AO, 2005. Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries: Increasing the Contribu-tion of Small-scale Fisheries to Poverty Alleviation and Food Security, vol. 10.FAO, Rome.

isher, B., Christopher, T., 2007. Poverty and biodiversity: measuring the over-lap of human poverty and the biodiversity hotspots. Ecol. Econ. 62, 93–101.

isher, R., Maginnis, S., Jackson, W., Barrow, E., Jeanrenaud, S., Ingles, A., Friend, R.,Mehrotra, R., Farvar, T., Laurie, M., Oviedo, G., 2008. Linking Conservation andPoverty Reduction: Landscapes, People and Power. IUCN – The World Conser-vation Union.

hezae, N., Berlekom, M., Engström, L., Eriksson, M.L., Gallardo, G., Gerhardt, K.,Knutsson, P., Malmer, P., Stephansson, E., Von Walter, S., 2009. Natural resourcetenure – a crucial aspect of poverty reduction and human rights. Swedish Inter-national Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), Stockholm, Sida Studies No.23.

ahn, R., 2004. Environmental Baseline Study for the Ruvuma Interface Pre-feasibility Study into Sustainable Development and Conservation: The Legal andInstitutional Environment. GTZ, Dar es Salaam.

goe, J., Croucher, B., 2007. Conservation, commerce, and communities: the storyof community-based wildlife management areas in Tanzania’s northern touristcircuit. Conserv. Soc. 5 (4), 534–561.

nstitute of Resource Assessment – IRA, 2007. Assessment and evaluation of theWildlife Management Areas in Tanzania. Report for the Ministry of NaturalResources and Tourism, Wildlife Division, Dar es Salaam.

nWent, GTZ, 2007. Tanzania and Mozambique cross-border dialogue. Report on theSecond Multi-stakeholder Workshop of Environment and Conservation Work-ing Group, 20 January 2007, Mtwara.

UCN, 1982. The World Conservation Strategy, International Union for Conserva-tion of Nature and Natural Resources. United Nations Environment Programme,World Wildlife Fund, Geneva.

ohannesen, A., 2007. Protected areas, wildlife conservation, and local welfare. Ecol.Econ. 62, 126–135.

angalawe, R.Y.M., Noe, C., 2009. Ecological Integrity in the Midst of Impover-ishment: The Viability of Biodiversity Conservation in Poverty Alleviation inSouthern Tanzania. Research Report Submitted to the Director of Research and

ms and Environment 162 (2012) 90– 100

Publications and Coordinator of Sida/SAREC Programmes, University of Dar esSalaam.

Kideghesho, J., 2006. Wildlife Conservation and Local Land Use Conflicts in WesternSerengeti Corridor, Tanzania. PhD Thesis, Norwegian University of Science andTechnology, Trondheim.

Mbarang’andu, 2003. Katiba ya Jumuiya ya Hifadhi na Matumizi Endelevu yaMaliasili Mbarang’andu. Wilaya ya Namtumbo, Namtumbo.

Mettrick, H., 1993. Development Oriented Research in Agriculture. ICRA Textbook.The Centre for Development Oriented Research in Agriculture, Wageningen.

Mikkelsen, B., 1995. Methods for Development Work and Research: A Guide forPractitioners. Sage Publications, New Delhi.

Millennium Assessment, 2005. Ecosystem and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Syn-thesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.

National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), 2005. 2002 Population and Housing Census.Village and Street Statistics: Age and Sex Distribution. Ruvuma Region. VolumeVII. National Bureau of Statistics, President’s Office – Planning and Privatization,Dar es Salaam.

National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), Ruvuma Regional Commissioner’s Office-RRCO,1997. Ruvuma region Socio-economic Profile. National Bureau of Statistics andRuvuma Regional Commissioner’s Office, Coordinated by the President’s Office– Planning and Privatisation, Dar es Salaam.

Nelson, F., 2007. Emergent or Illusory? Community Wildlife Management in Tan-zania. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London,Paper No. 146.

Neumann, R., 2001. Africa’s ‘last wilderness’: reordering space for political and eco-nomic control in colonial Tanzania. J. Int. Afr. Inst. 71 (4), 641–665.

Parkipuny, M.S., 1997. Pastoralism, Conservation and Development in the GreatSerengeti Region. A summary of Ngorongoro Conservation Development Project.Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority, Ngorongoro, Occasional Paper No. 1.

Pearce, F., 2011. Conservation and Poverty Reduction. Conservation Magazine.http://www.conservationmagazine.org/2011/03/conservation-and-poverty/

Phuthego, T.C., Chanda, R., 2004. Traditional ecological knowledge and community-based natural resource management: lessons from a Botswana wildlifemanagement area. Appl. Geogr. 24, 57–76.

Pinnock, D., 1996. Super parks an impossible dream? Getaway 8 (8), 88–97.Peace Parks Foundation – PPF, 2003. Annual Report. Stellenbosch.Schuerholz, G., Baldus, R., 2007. Community based wildlife management in support

of transfrontier conservation: the Selous-Niassa and Kawango Upper Zambezichallenges. Paper Presented at Parks, Peace and Partnership Conference, 9–12September, Alberta.

Shivji, I., 2001. A review of common pool resources: a country report on Tanzania.Paper Presented at the Workshop on Common Pool Resources in Tanzania, 14December, Dar es Salaam.

Shivji, I.G., Kapinga, W.B., 1998. Maasai Rights in Ngorongoro, Tanzania.IIED/HAKIARDHI, Dar es Salaam.

Songorwa, A.N., 2004. Wildlife conservation for community development: expe-riences from Selous Conservation Programme and other community-basedwildlife management programmes in Tanzania. Uongozi J. Manage. Dev. 16 (1),50–77.

Spierenburg, M., Steenkamp, C., Wels, H., 2008. Enclosing the local for the globalcommons: community land rights in the Great Limpopo transfrontier conserva-tion area. Conserv. Soc. 6 (1), 87–97.

Tanner, R.J., 2004. Transfrontier conservation areas of Southern Africa and Interna-tional Law in the context of Community involvement, MSc Thesis, University ofMontana.

United Republic of Tanzania – URT, 2007a. Proposal by the United Republic of Tan-zania to Downlist its Elephant Population from Appendix (i) to Appendix (ii) ofthe Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna andFlora – CITES. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Dar es Salaam.

United Republic of Tanzania – URT, 2007b. The Wildlife Policy of Tanzania, Revised.Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Dar es Salaam.

United Republic of Tanzania – URT, 2007c. Wildlife Conservation (Non-consumptive

Wildlife Utilization) Regulations. Government Printers, Dar es Salaam.

United Republic of Tanzania – URT, 1998. Tanzania Wildlife Policy. Ministry of Nat-ural Resources and Tourism, Government Printer, Dar es Salaam.

Utalii Travel and Safaris, 2008. Mbarang’andu Wildlife Management Area. Availableat: http://www.utalii.com/Southern Highlands/mbarangandu.shtml.