NUMBER 28, JANUARY 2006 MIOMBOwildlife-baldus.com/download/Miombo_newsletter.pdfswine influenza viruses. Millions of wild aquatic and shore birds utilize Tanzanian waters and range

THE PROTECTIVE ROLE OF COASTAL MANGROVES AGAINST THE DESTRUCTIVE FORCES OF TSUNAMI.

Neil Burgess, WWF USA, Conservation Science Programme, 1250 24th Street, Washington DC; Finn Danielsen, NORDECO, Skindergade 23, DK-1159 Copenhagen, Denmark;

Faizal Parish, Global Environment Centre, Jalan SS2/72, 47300 Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.

THE NEWSLETTER OF THE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF TANZANIAFree to members ISSN 0856 - 2806 Price Tshs.1000/-

The undersea earthquake of the 26th

December 2004off the coast of Sumatra caused a series of large waves(Tsunami) that unleashed untold damage anddestruction on the coastal regions of the countriessurrounding the Indian Ocean. The suffering of thepeople who survived was well captured by the worlds’

media, and efforts to assist people poured into theregion from all over the world. At the time of thedisaster, scientists and conservationists predicted thatthe scale of the disaster was partly due to the removalof protective coastal vegetation in many parts of theregion, and the destruction of coral reefs.

Fig. 1. Spot satellite images before and after the Tsunami at Katchall Island in the Nicobar Islands - 50 km from the fault line where over2,500 people are thought to have died, showing areas of coast which have been protected by the mangroves retaining vegetation (B) andthose areas not protected which have been stripped of vegetation (A). Images acquired and processed by CRISP, National University of

Singapore; analysis by Global Environment Centre. Co-funding from Solstice Foundation/Nordeco, Denmark.

Cont.. page 3

MIOMBONUMBER 28, JANUARY 2006

Website: www.wsct.or.tz

TANZANIA ON ALERT FOR POSSIBLE OUTBREAK OFBIRD FLU (AVIAN INFLUENZA) FROM MIGRATORY WILD BIRDS

Tanzania, like many other countries with migratory birds’ flyways, is on high alert on possible outbreak of avian influenza.The imminent danger of the flu pandemic can result from transmission of avian influenza virus (AIV) that normallyinfects birds but has on occasions crossed the species barrier to infect human beings. The virus which is spread throughcontact is species specific and can spread rapidly through poultry flocks.

The recent spread of avian influenza (bird flu), caused by the highly pathogenic H5N1 strain, across Asia and intoEastern Europe poses challenges to those concerned with the health of domestic poultry and the conservation of wildbirds. The virus is a main threat to the poultry industry and human life and therefore actions taken by the TanzanianGovernment are targeted at minimizing this risk, by maximizing our vigilance and preparing a contingency plan shouldthe virus arrive. The WCST supports the Government efforts and its membership is collaborating in the vigilance teamset to monitor avian flu.

According to Keyyu, J.D (TAWIRI Scientific Conference, Arusha -2005) while the disease is highly pathogenic indomestic poultry (mainly chicken, ducks and turkeys); migratory wild birds, there are recent claims that considerdomestic and non-domestic cats to be the reservoir of avian influenza virus. Bird to bird transmission occurs throughvirus in droplets or aerosols from the respiratory tract or through excrements by directly contaminating water or food.The feacal-oral route is the commonest, airborne spread over long distance is rare. People become infected through directcontact with infected poultry, or surfaces and objects contaminated with poultry faeces. Most infections in human occurin rural or peri-urban areas where many households keep small poultry flocks that roam freely, sometimes enteringhomes or sharing outdoor areas where children play. Exposure is considered most likely during slaughter, defeathering,butchering, and preparation of poultry for cooking.

There is no evidence that H5N1 infections in humans have been acquired from wild birds. Human infections haveoccurred in people who have been closely associated with poultry. The risk to human health from wild birds can beminimised by avoiding contact with sick or dead birds. However, there is a possibility that this virus could develop intoone that might be transmitted from human to human.

Migratory waterfowls carry avian influenza virus in a less pathogenic form, and then introduce it to poultry flocks wherethe virus circulates and mutates into a very pathogenic form (usually within a few months). The geography, landscapeand ecosystems of Tanzania could provide favorable ground for the introduction and circulation of human, avian andswine influenza viruses. Millions of wild aquatic and shore birds utilize Tanzanian waters and range annually at somestage in their lifecycle. About 3 – 5 million birds migrate each spring and autumn to and over Tanzania using 3 majorflyways (the Rift valley flyway, the Nile flyway and Eastern coast flyway- that run between Siberian/Central Asia andAfrica. Siberia is a meeting and interacting point for wild water birds from Tanzania and those that migrate from Asiaor that are migrating on the Asia – Pacific flyway. Hence, there is a potential risk of birds that migrate to and throughTanzania to come into contact with infected birds from Asia.

EDITORAL COMMENTS

2Miombo No. 28, Jan. 2006

Tanzania has already taken precaution measuresincluding vigilance by the appointment of aNational Technical Team for the surveillance of thedreaded avian influenza. In addition the public hasbeen alerted to report any peculiar deaths of wildbirds especially those associated with water(waterfowl), so as to permit for timely investigationon the cause of their death. Thus WCST would liketo commend the Government for having takenproactive precautionary action on avian influenzavirus by raising necessary public awareness on therole of migratory birds in introducing AIV and forgetting prepared for any eventuality of any outbreakof the avian flu. The WCST further advices that,the government imposes a temporal ban oninternational trade of wild species of birds to avoidpossible transmission of avian influenza from wildbirds to domestic birds and people.

By Lota MelamariWCST CEO/Coordinator

CONTENTSThe Protective Role of Coastal Mangroves .............................................................. 1The effects of hunting ........................................ 4Conservation in Southern Highlands ............. 7In Memorial .............................................................. 8Tourist hunting in Tanzania ............................... 9WCST projects in brief ...................................... 10Tourist hunting: SADC best practices........... 14Social status for a female spotted Hyena ...................................................... 15Proposal to upgrade the Lion to CITES appendix 1..................................... 17Matumizi ya sumu katika bonde la Usangu .................................................... 18

WILDLIFE CONSERVATIONSOCIETY OF TANZANIA

(WCST)

PATRON:H.E Benjamin William Mkapa

3rd

Phase President of the United Republic of Tanzania

Executive Committee Members 2005/2007Mr. M. Y. C. Lumbanga, Chairperson

Dr. Norbert Kayombo, Vice ChairpersonMrs. Anna Lema, Vice-Chair

Mr. P.C.T Mayeye, Hon secretaryMr. D.G. Mawalla, Hon Treasurer

Mrs. Victoria Mushi, MemberMr. Philemon Mgaya, Member

Mr. R. M. Naburi, MemberHon. Judge E.Mwipopo, MemberMrs. Tina Kaiza-Boshe, Member

Mrs. Anna Maembe, MemberMr. William Chiume, Member

Mr. G. Chambua, MemberMr. P. Sumbi, MemberMr. M Damji, Member

Mr. Evarist Maembe, MemberEng. W.D. Bocco, Member

Up Country MembersMrs. Felista Mangalu, Arusha

Ms. Elizabeth Singleton, ArushaMr. John O. Wambura, Morogoro

Prof. A.Z. Matee, MorogoroMr. Job de Graff, Kilimanjaro

SECRETARIATMr. Lota Melamari, CEO/Coordinator

Mr. Paul Nnyiti, Senior Conservation Officer Mrs. Victoria Ferdinand, Education Officer

Mr. Stephen Mukama, AccountantMr. Jasson John, BirdLife Officer

Mr. Elias Mungaya, BirdLife OfficerMr. Hermegast Ambrose, Assistant Education Officer

Mr. Aloyce Kimaryo, Project Manager - Uluguru Mr. Fortunatus Jappi, Fundraising/Membership Officer

Ms. Lucy Clement, Secretary

Editorial Sub-CommitteeMrs. Tina Kaiza-Boshe - Chairperson

Hon. Judge E.Mwipopo; Mrs. Anna Lema; Mr. PeterSumbi; Mr. Lota Melamari; Mr. Paul Nnyiti; Mrs.Victoria Ferdinand; Mr. Fortunatus Jappi; Mathew

Courted (visiting editor).

Editor: Hermegast Ambrose

Letters and enquires should be addressed to the editor.

MIOMBOP.O. Box 70919, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

Tel. +255 22 2112518; Fax 2124572Email: [email protected]; Website: www.wcst.or.tz

Articles of approximately 1,000 words, accompanied bygood photographs or drawings pertaining to environmentalconservation are welcome.

Opinions expressed by contributors are not necessarily theofficial view of the Society.

Printed by Colour Print (T) LimitedP.O. Box 76006 Dar es Salaam, Tel: 2450331 Fax: 2450332

From page 1

Recent research shows that coastlines fringed bymangroves were far less damaged than those wheremangroves were absent or had been removed (Fig. 1).Villages behind mangrove areas were largely undamaged,and even narrow strips of trees prevented much of thedamage. It has also been shown experimentally thatmangrove forests shield coastlines by reducing waveamplitude and energy. Analytical models show that 30trees per 100m

2in a 100m wide belt may reduce the

maximum tsunami flow pressure by more than 90%.

Reports from the region also indicate that mangroves alsoprevented people being washed into the sea, which was amajor cause of death. In addition, mangroves trapped fastmoving pieces of driftwood which was also a major cause ofinjury and death for people. Green belts of other trees, coastaldunes, and intact coral reefs performed similar functions.

According to FAO statistics the area of mangroves in thefive six most affected countries around the Indian Oceandropped by 26% from 5,723,400 to 4,232,700 ha between1980-2000. In Thailand 65% of the mangrove was lost toaquaculture, primarily for shrimp farming, 26% to coastaldevelopment and 9% for other reasons.

Conserving, or replanting coastal mangrove areas, is beingproposed as a way to help buffer communities from futuresimilar events. Mangroves also enhance sustainablefisheries and forestry production. Such benefits are notfound in man-made coastal protection structures.Mangrove forests can, however, only be replanted in areasof suitable habitat - coastal mudflats and lagoons.

What does this mean for Tanzania?Tanzania felt some of the effects of the Asian Tsunami, butthese were mild compared with those further east in theIndian Ocean. However, there are still a number ofimportant lessons for Tanzania. These are that the coastalmangroves and other vegetation types have a function inpreventing coastal erosion and in stopping the worsteffects of major events such as undersea earthquakes thatcause Tsunami waves.

As in South East Asia the area of mangroves in Africa hasbeen declining, with FAO estimates suggesting a drop offrom 3,659,000 ha in 1980 to 3,351,000 ha in 2000 – adecline of 308,000 ha (8.4% overall). In Tanzania ananalysis of satellite images indicates that the mangrovecover declined from 112,135 ha in 1990 to 108,307 ha in2000 – a loss of 3,828 ha (3.4 %).

At the present time the major threats to Tanzanianmangroves are clearance for agriculture (mainly rice),solar salt pans, and cutting for building poles, boats,firewood and the production of charcoal. In South EastAsia most of the mangrove was removed to develop pondsfor shrimp aquaculture. Although not yet present inTanzania, shrimp aquaculture has previously beenproposed for the Rufiji mangroves. The 26th DecemberAsian Tsunami shows that Tanzania might have made awise decision in preventing the establishment oflarge scale shrimp farming in the country and thatfuture decisions on the use of Tanzanian mangroveresources should not be taken lightly.


The Protective Role of Coastal Mangroves..

Q1. You have researched wildlife biology andmanagement issues in Tanzania for 25 years. Inthe year 1985 you published an article inSWARA, the East African Wildlife Societymagazine that was highly critical of biologicalarguments used by tourist hunters in EastAfrica and elsewhere. Since then you havecontinued your research. Any new findings orstill anti-hunting?

ANSWER:My views on tourist hunting have changed a lotsince 1985. At that time I focused on one aspect ofhunting, namely the effect that removing animalscan have on a population. For example, in mySwara article, I discussed how big game hunterslike to shoot the biggest males. New behavioraland ecological research studies at that time wereshowing that these large males were not oldanimals that would soon die, as hunters hadclaimed, but were likely to be the breeding malesin the population. Similarly new studies in the1980s were showing that when an adult male lionthat belongs to a pride is removed, new male lionscome in and kill young cubs in order to bring thefemales back into heat quicker. So shootingterritorial male lions has the effect of killing ageneration of cubs as well.

Hunters still have these effects on animalpopulations, of course, but they also have animportant positive influence on habitatconservation and this is where I have beenfocusing my attention over the last 5 years. What Imean by this is that large areas of land, especiallyin Tanzania, have been set aside expressly for thepurpose of tourist hunting, and in so doing, theyhave stopped people moving into these areas tocultivate and graze.

So if you look at the big picture, conserving thenumerous species that live in an area - plants,fungi, insects, birds, reptiles etc - does it reallymatter if hunters reduce the lion population or theeland population to very low levels? Probably not,so if you direct your attention to many species, orbiodiversity as it is now called, hunters have a verypositive effect because the money that they bringinto the country makes it economically worthwhilefor the government to protect an area.

The other thing that has made me more sympatheticto tourist hunting, other than a change of personalfocus, is that I now believe that it has a trivialeffect on mammal and bird populations comparedto illegal hunting. The Illegal hunting takes twoforms in Tanzania: hunting by residents who haveobtained permits to shoot a few animals but whotake many more than they are allowed, andhunting by people who have no permits at all.I don't think anyone really knows exactly howmuch is taken illegally but huge numbers ofanimals are involved each year, far, far more thanthat taken by tourist hunters.

Q2. Could you please specify the positiveeffects which hunting tourism has onhabitat conservation?.

ANSWER:Big game hunting has an important role inpreserving large areas of land from agriculture andsettlement in Tanzania and elsewhere. TheGovernment has set aside large areas of land as

Game Reserves, over 100,000 km2

in total, whichallow for limited tourist hunting. The moneygenerated from this type of hunting throughlicenses and fees is used as a justification forkeeping people out of these areas since the moneycan be used by the Government to build roads orhospitals etc.

THE EFFECTS OF HUNTING ON WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT


MIOMBO Interview with Tim Caro, Professor, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology University of California.

The interview conducted by Dr. Rolf D. Baldus discusses the effects of legal hunting on wildlife management as compared to illegal hunting. It also presents the research findings on the

health of vegetation in different types of protected area, where it was found that excluding certainactivities, such as tree cutting or resident hunting, or excluding people from areas is

the key to conserving habitats.

My research group at the University of Californiaat Davis has shown that Game Reserves arebeneficial for both mammals and vegetation.Using aerial census data collected by theConservation Information Centre in Arusha, wewere able to compare the density of about 20species of large mammals in National Parks, GameReserves, Game Controlled Areas and Open Areasacross the country. We found that densities of mostspecies were similar in Game Reserves and inNational Parks despite certain species being shotby tourist hunters which shows that GameReserves are good at protecting mammal species.Both types of area contained much higher densitiesof mammals than Game Controlled Areas or OpenAreas that also sanction tourist hunting but thatallow settlement and cattle grazing and residenthunting as well. This shows that it is not touristhunting itself that conserves mammals but it is theabsence of people living in Game Reserves andNational Parks or perhaps the absence of residenthunters that are the key.

We also looked at the health of vegetation indifferent types of protected area using satelliteimagery. When we divided up pixels in Tanzaniaaccording to whether they were in National Parks,Game Reserves, Forest Reserves, GameControlled areas or Open Areas, we found thatNational Parks and Game Reserves showedincreases in greenness during the 1980 and 1990s.Thus Game Reserves set aside for hunting blockshelp to keep habitats healthy as do National Parks.Game Controlled Areas and Forest Reserves on theother hand suffered great habitat degradationperhaps because they were having trees removedfrom them during this period of time. Once again,this research shows that excluding certainactivities, such as tree cutting or resident hunting,or excluding people from areas is the key toconserving habitats.

In short, if tourist hunting is accompanied by lawsforbidding other activities, and if these laws areenforced, as they are in Game Reserves, then legalhunting benefits animal and plant communities.When activities are allowed and when there is nopolicing, as in Game Controlled Areas due to lackof funds, then tourist hunting does not helpconservation.

Q3. This brings me to your earlier point. Yousay the effects of legal hunting on wildlife canvirtually be disregarded as compared to illegalhunting. Can you elaborate on this? And doeslegal hunting and the financial returns from ithave any effect on the illegal activities?

ANSWER:Each year animals are killed by people bothlegally and illegally in Tanzania. Legal hunting iscarried out by residents and tourists who obtainlicenses to shoot a small number of animals, aswell as in cropping schemes. Illegal hunting iscarried out by people who have no permits at all,but also by tourists and residents who haveobtained permits to shoot a few animals but whotake more than they are allowed.

Let's go through these one by one bearing in mindthat there is little information on how manyanimals are killed by illegal methods. First, ahunter may kill an animal having acquired licenses.While such hunting is legal, the quotas allocatedfor legal hunting are based on educated guessworkbecause we do not have adequate information onthe size of most animal populations in the country.Thus owners of a hunting block may be allocateda quota to shoot too many individual animals - saytoo many lions in a given year. In practice, theWildlife Department usually sets quotas based onwhat the quota was last year. In an attempt to helpthe Wildlife Department come up with moreinformed quotas, we matched the population sizesof animals counted from aerial surveys with thetourist hunting off-take in different parts of thecountry and found that off-take was usually low -normally less than 10% of the population size - sothe Wildlife Department has got it just about right.Nevertheless, certain species such as eland, lion,leopard and antelope such as reedbuck were beingkilled at overly high rates in some areas.

Hunting licenses for residents are allocated byRegional and District Game Officers. They facethe same problem as their head office in Dar esSalaam they don't know the number of animals inareas under their jurisdiction. These officialsusually set quotas according to what they were lastyear as well - but no one knows whether these arebiologically correct. Near towns these quotas are



on the high side because Game Officers are "undersiege" for licenses from many applicants ratherthan just one hunting company. In short, officialhunting quotas at the Regional and District levelsmay not be set at the appropriate level to maintainanimal populations in the long term. This problemcould be solved by regular monitoring of wildlifepopulations right across the country. It might befeasible but very expensive.

Unfortunately, there is a second problem withlegal hunting. This is the problem of stretching thequota. There are many ways that this is done. Forexample, a hunting company can call up theWildlife Department and say that they don't have aquota to hunt leopard this year in this area, but theyhave a client who would love to shoot one, socould head office stretch a point and sell them alicense for just one animal? Another way this isdone is if the hunting company has a license toshoot a leopard in one of its blocks in the west ofthe country, but it uses that license to shoot aleopard in its eastern block. Yet another way iswhen a resident asks a Game Officer if he couldtake two hartebeest instead of one becauseChristmas is coming up.

A third problem with legal hunting is that residentsor tourists may take more animals than their quotaallows. Consider a tourist hunter who shoots amale buffalo with fair-sized horns but on the lastday of his safari, finds a much larger male. Sincehe is a rich foreigner and the Game Scout with himearns a low salary, he can easily make it worth-while for the scout to forget about the first buffalo.Of course the extent to which this happens is notknown as tourist hunting companies rarely admitto it. Resident hunters also do the same thing. Witha license to hunt one eland, they may shoot say twoor three. Or, if they are unable to locate an eland,will shoot say four reedbuck instead. The extrameat or money can be given to the Game Scout tokeep him quiet. These last two problems could besolved by tightening up on current practicesamong Wildlife Department field staff, and thiswill probably occur in time - although it may notoccur quick enough to save wildlife outside GameReserves.

Despite these problems with legal hunting,I am sure that most wildlife in Tanzania is actuallykilled by people who have no license at all.Usually these are villagers who set snares or go outwith dogs or with a muzzle loader and kill whateverthey encounter. Some of this meat is cooked athome but an increasing amount is sold in townmarkets or exported to the city where demand forgame meat is high. Over the last year, demand forbushmeat has increased greatly because people’sstandard of living is on the increase. In most of themany villages in Tanzania there are severalpoachers; as a result this kind of hunting probablyhas the biggest effect on wildlife in the country.

In theory, this problem could be solved with tighterpolicing by National Park Rangers, Game Scoutsand police officers, and heavy fines set in court.But given the number of poachers and the highdemand for bush meat, these forces are over-stretched already. Another possibility is to initiatepolice and military operations that remove gunsfrom people’s houses. This has been done before inTanzania and works well for a few years. Yetanother possibility is to get local people involvedin conserving game species that live around theirvillages but there are few of these "community-based conservation schemes" and we still don'tknow whether they will prove successful in thelong term.

On a more positive side, the revenue generated bytourist hunting makes it worthwhile for theGovernment to keep areas set aside for wildlifeprotection, Game Reserves, and to pay GameScouts to monitor hunters' activities. It is thereforeimportant that money from tourist hunting ischanneled directly back into Reserves. Also,during the dry season when tourist hunters arevisiting, their presence may deter poachers,although poachers move back in the wet season.

In short, the revenue generated by tourist huntinghas a very positive impact for habitat conservation;however, resident and tourist hunting are associatedwith many semi-legal activities that have aconsiderable negative impact on wildlifepopulations. Nevertheless, by far the greatestthreat to wildlife is from local people huntingoutside the law. Without doubt these are theneediest of citizens and this presents managers andconservationists with a real headache, one thatthey have been unable to solve.



A culinary delicacy in Zambia is an unlikelybeginning for a conservation initiative in Tanzania,but one of the first targets for the WildlifeConservation Society’s Southern HighlandsConservation Programme (SHCP), was a detailedinvestigation into a once localised and traditionalfoodstuff called Chikanda. Prepared from theboiled root tubers of terrestrial orchids, the dishwas traditionally - though only occasionally -consumed in southwestern Tanzania, northernZambia and Malawi. Indeed in Tanzania it wasmostly considered a ‘poor man’s staple’ only eatenin times of famine. Since the mid-1990’s,however, a growing demand in Zambianrestaurants has had a devastating impact on orchidpopulations throughout the region. In 2001 theSHCP and University of Dar Es Salaam’sresearcher, Henry Ndangalasi showed that over 4million Tanzanian orchids from 85 differentspecies - including many regional endemics –crossed border to Zambia each year. Moreover, thetrade was growing.

Fortunately however, there are grounds foroptimism. Heeding the warning that some orchidspecies could become extinct without intervention,the Government announced the designation of oneof the most important sites, Kitulo Plateau, as anew national park. Perched between the KipengereRange to the east and the Uporoto Mountains tothe west, Kitulo is the largest and most importantAfromontane and Afroalpine grassland inTanzania. The adjacent forest reserves of Numbeand Livingstone were subsequently included byTANAPA, producing an environmentally diversepark of some 402km2, and illustrating Tanzania’scommitment to the broader aspects of biodiversityconservation.

In 2003, the SHCP began cataloguing thebiodiversity and natural resource use in and around

the Mt. Rungwe Forest Reserve. This was thenextended to include also the habitats of the (then)proposed Kitulo National Park, thus culminatingin a thorough understanding of the entire MtRungwe-Kitulo landscape. The area’s diversity isexemplified by the flora, with well over 700species of plant including 70 orchids beingpresent. And despite most of the large herbivoreshaving been hunted out by the 1980’s, over 85species of mammal still occur in these mountains.Eight species of globally significant birdscontribute to Kitulo and Rungwe both beingdesignated as ‘Important Bird Areas’ (IBA), andthe plateau is a vital breeding site for twothreatened species, Denham’s bustard and blueswallow. Indeed, being among important IBAs,Kitulo has been the focus of Wildlife ConservationSociety of Tanzania (WCST).

PLANTS, PRIMATES AND PEOPLE: CONSERVATION IN THE SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS

By Tim R.B. Davenport (Director, WCS-Southern Highlands Conservation Programme)

It is an old irony that one of Tanzania’s biggest environmental challenges is the very extent of thenation’s biological diversity. With such an unparalleled array of important species and habitats, yetfinite resources with which to manage them, it is little surprise that many lesser-known sites becomeneglected. Such has been the case with the Southern Highlands. However, recent research and newdiscoveries are not only changing the way we think about the area’s biodiversity and biogeography, butalso revealing just how important it is for conservation. Nowhere is this more so than in the Mt.Rungwe-Kitulo landscape.

The newly described Highland Mangabey LophocebusKipunji in Mt Rungwe Forest (Photo: Tim Davenport).


Cont.. pg 8

From pg. 7

Studies by SHCP, revealed rich suite of regionally-restricted amphibia, reptiles, fish and invertebratesthat are all of conservation concern. Thesocio-economic data revealed that 30% of theplants, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians andfish are harvested in some way by people, be it fortimber, fuel, medicine, meat or trade. In early2003, we heard rumours about an unusual monkey,known in Kinyakyusa as ‘Kipunji’. Following upthese stories was difficult, as few people knew ofthe primate. Furthermore, because of the terrain,thick secondary forest and the animal’s crypticnature, initial sightings were infrequent. It was notuntil December 2003 that we clearly observed themonkey and recognised it as a new species ofmangabey. Amazingly, in July 2004 the samespecies was also found in Ndundulu Forest in theUdzungwas. Africa’s first new monkey in over 20years had been discovered independently in twosites and within a year.

The Highland Mangabey, Lophocebus kipunji, isbrown with a head and body length of about90 cm. It is characterized by a long, erect crest ofhair on its head, elongated cheek whiskers, anoff-white belly and tail, and an unusual call wetermed a 'honk-bark’. The monkey occurs up to2,450 m in Kitulo and on Mt Rungwe, and its longcoat is probably an adaptation to the cold. Themangabey is extremely rare; we estimate a totalpopulation of just 500 to 1,000 individuals.Moreover, the threats to the species are considerable,not least, as logging, hunting, and unmanagedresource extraction are common across theecosystem. TANAPA has recently begun work toprotect the Livingstone Forest within the newnational park, but we estimate that more than 50%of the original forest has already been lost.Meanwhile, the most extensive remaining forest ison Mt Rungwe, but this remains largelyunmanaged. Whilst there are strong arguments tosupport the inclusion of Mt Rungwe into the park,a more critical need is the protection of theheavily degraded Bujingijila corridor connectingKitulo to Mt Rungwe.

It is hoped that our much greater understanding ofthe significant value of the Mt Rungwe-Kitulolandscape will now encourage more investmentand urgency in its conservation. Furthermore,the area already had good tourism potential basedon the wildflowers and birds of the montanegrassland. The newfound wealth of its forests,with the Highland Mangabey as its flagship,should foster even greater international interest.Hopefully this will contribute to the conservationof a wide variety of rare and threatened species,from orchids to primates, as well as to the needs ofthe surrounding human communities.


PLANTS, PRIMATES AND PEOPLE: CONSERVATION IN THE SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS

Bidding farewell to Mama Anneth Mwakimi

The Wildlife Conservation Society of Tanzania(WCST) suffered a terrible blow of loosing oneof its long serving member of the Secretariat,its environmental and Education/Awarenessofficer, the late Mrs. Anneth Mwakimi on 15thSeptember 2004. She died of breast cancer.

Anneth will be missed by all of us for herdedication, professionalism, and power of work.She will continue to be remembered for herhumility, generosity, and above all sympathy.The great loss is not only a blow to her family;but indeed also to friends, fellow workers, andto all the conservation community in the country.

The Loss of two members of theExecutive Committee

The Society also mourned with deep sorrow thetragic death of a member of the ExecutiveCommittee, the late Mr. Thomas Jeffery Steebwhich occurred on 23rd October 2004. The lateSteeb who served as an Executive CommitteeMember of WCST, was a victim of an accidentthat occurred at his own residence. The lateThomas was a devoted environmentalist and hewill be remembered for website he developedfor the Society.

Meanwhile another big loss was yet witnessedby the Society and the entire Tanzanianconservation community. This was the death ofMr. Costa Aloyce Mlay who passed away inNovember 2004. The late Mr. Mlay wasone of the founder members of the WildlifeConservation Society of Tanzania and acommitted member till the last minute. He isdeeply missed within the field of naturalresources conservation.

The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh, blessed beHis name forever.

May their souls rest in eternal peace.AMEN.


Tanzania has over 140 hunting concessions covering anarea in excess of 200,000 km

2that are leased to

outfitters licensed to conduct tourist hunting. Theseconcessions are distributed throughout the countryeither in Game Reserves, Forest Reserves, GameControlled Areas or Open Areas. Hunting is not allowedin National Parks, Ngorongoro Conservation Area orwithin 2 km of the boundary of these areas. The huntingareas can naturally be divided into three greater land-scapes, namely Miombo of Western Tanzania,Masailand and the Selous/Coastal landscapes. Goodhunting opportunities are available in each of thesegreat areas.

Animals that can be huntedSchedules of the Hunting Regulations that support theWildlife Conservation Act no. 12 of 1974 specify thetypes of animals that may or may not be hunted on ahunting licence. A wide range of animals (approximately60 species) can legally be hunted by tourist hunters inTanzania. However, Giraffe, Cheetah, Black Rhino,Black & White Colobus and Wild Dog are protectedgame and cannot be hunted in Tanzania.

The Hunting Regulations stipulatethe fees for hunting every typeof animal, and further specify aminimum number of huntingdays and minimum rifle calibresfor hunting various types ofanimals, particularly for dangerousgame. These requirements aresummarised in Table 2 on page 13.

Quota setting Developing an ecological basisfor setting quota is not easy. It isextremely costly to conductregular aerial surveys countrywide, also aerial surveysare unable to provide data for key species such as lionand leopard and do not provide consistently reliabletrends of buffalo populations. Aerial census dataprovide only trends and the method alone thereforedoes not provide sufficient information for setting quotafor any species. It is doubtful that a truly scientific basisfor setting quota will easily be developed in the

complex multi-species ecosystems in Africa. Instead thecumulative experience of setting quotas over manyyears that relies on several verifiable indicators (such aspopulation estimates, trophy quality trends, age,abundance, offtake levels etc.) that can demonstratelittle or no significant detrimental impacts on thewildlife populations provide the benchmark that allowsfor the confidence of setting future hunting quotasthrough an adaptive management approach.

The approach used by the Wildlife Division in Tanzaniato allocate quotas is to rely on the knowledge of ProjectManagers and District Game Officers who suggestquotas for the Game Reserves and Game Controlledand Open Areas respectively. Their proposals may betaken into account, but also may not. Aerial survey datamay also be taken into account (where available)together with past hunting records and recommendationsof professional hunters and outfitters.

There is a general concern that the lion quota is toohigh. On average only 52% of the Selous lion quotas

have been used since 1996,while many hunting outfittersadmit that it is becomingincreasingly difficult to huntgood lion trophies. Manyoutfitters are now restricting thenumbers of lion hunted in theirconcessions despite high quotaallocations, to encourage anincrease in the number andquality of available liontrophies. Some operators areimposing their own tightstandards on the age andquality of lion trophies taken

and have realised the benefits of hunting betterquality trophies, but other operators are sometimesover-shooting their quotas and taking young animals.

A few species, such as lion are being affected by trophyhunting, however the vast majority of species are unaffected.

TOURIST HUNTING IN TANZANIA

Written by Paul Nnyiti of WCST

There is a general concern that hunting quotas are too high leading to poor trophy quality. Wildlifepopulations have declined in many areas of Tanzania, this is attributed to increased settlementencroaching on wildlife areas and illegal offtake for bushmeat. According to available information, onlya few species, such as lion are being affected by hunting.There is no evidence that the regulated touristhunting industry has contributed to the general decline of wildlife populations, but there is plenty of evidencethat the presence of a regulated hunting industry contributes significantly to reducing the illegal activities ofpoachers and provides an economic incentive to protect and manage vast areas.

Cont ... page 12


WCST PROJECTS IN BRIEF

SITE SUPPORT GROUPS AND THE CONSERVATION OF USANGU BASIN

The Usangu flats, southwest of Iringa, is an ecologicallythreatened Important Bird Area (IBA), a seasonallyinundated floodplain. The Usangu wetland is knownfor its richness in biodiversity especially waterfowls,some of which are globally threatened. Despite itsecological value and other vital water retentionproperties for the Mtera and Kidatu Dams whichgenerate over 50% of Tanzania hydro-electric power,the wetland is facing major threats namelyovergrazing due to uncontrolled influx of nomadicpastoralists, expansion of irrigated agriculture withconsequence of claiming more land and more water.Water bird poisoning is a major threat at UsanguSwamps (see the Swahili article in this issue).

The Wildlife Conservation Society of Tanzania(WCST) is implementing a project at Usangusupported by Dutch government through BirdLifeInternational with two main objectives: Improvingthe livelihoods of the local people and conserving theIBA. The WCST operates through the Site SupportGroups (SSGs) with assistance from the MbaraliDistrict Natural Resources Office and Usangu GameReserve Management. The project has enabled theSSG to acquire two forest sites of about 1500 hafrom the Village land for demonstrating theirconservation work that includes catchment forests tohelp to save the wetland resources. A beekeepingproject is being implemented in one of these foreststo provide income for the SSG members. Otheractivities include monitoring the biodiversity of theIBA and the physical status of the Usangu Flatsincluding illegal uptake of natural resources, treeplanting within the village households and schools aswell as environmental awareness activities.

INSTITUTING A STANDARDIZED SUSTAINABLE BIODIVERSITY RESEARCHMONITORING SYSTEM IN THE EASTERN

ARC AND COASTAL FORESTS HOTSPOT OF KENYA AND TANZANIA

WCST, in partnership with BirdLife Internationaland Nature Kenya, have embarked on 4 year (2005-2008) project that aims to institute and coordinate astandardized sustainable biodiversity researchmonitoring system in the Eastern Arc and Coastalforests region of Kenya and Tanzania. Outcomedatabase will focus on 333 globally threatenedspecies that occur in the Eastern Arc and CoastalForests of Tanzania and Kenya, with 110 speciesbeing recorded in Kenya and 310 in Tanzania. Theglobally threatened fauna in the hotspot(s) arerepresented by 29 mammal species, 33 amphibianspecies, 28 bird species, and 7 gastropods.

The globally threatened flora contains 237 plantspecies, which is surely an underestimate. In thehotspot(s), 242 species are listed in the IUCN RedList as Vulnerable, 68 are Endangered, and 24 areCritically Endangered. Given the ongoing fieldresearch in Eastern Arc and Coastal Forests (EACF)coupled with efforts from stakeholders, more recordsare expected from various researchers calling forcontinuous update of the existing records of species.The project, among other things, will monitor theconservation outcomes as a result of all investmentsefforts undertaken by Critical Ecosystem PartnershipFund (CEPF) at species, sites and landscape scales.The CEPF is a joint initiative of ConservationInternational of the US, the Global EnvironmentFacility, the Government of Japan, the John D. andCatherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the World Bank.

COMPACT PROJECT: ON GOING EFFORTS TOWARDS

CONSERVATION OF MOUNT KILIMANJARO,A WORLD NATURAL HERITAGE SITE

Community Management of Protected AreasConservation Project (COMPACT) is a globalproject under operation in globally significantprotected areas that are listed as World NaturalHeritage Sites. In East Africa COMPACT has beenoperating in Kenya and Tanzania through themountain communities of Mt. Kenya andMt. Kilimanjaro. The COMPACT’s focus is onaddressing environmental concerns and challengeswhile considering the needs and interests of the

The Mbarali District Natural Resources Officer, Mr. Rodgers MwalukHincha (in red cap) assisting the SSG members to set -up beeh


WCST PROJECT IN BRIEF

implementing local communities. Since 2001, theCOMPACT project has supported more than 30community projects around Mt. Kilimanjaro,costing more than one billion Tanzania shillings.

The WSCT is working with COMPACT in promotingenvironmental awareness and conservationeducation to communities around Mt. Kilimanjaro.Activities that have been implemented by WCSTinclude conservation education through print media,radio programs, awareness workshops, and locallyconducted trainings and exchange visits. The WCST-COMPACT project component is a platform whereall grantee groups get to interact and shareexperiences, knowledge, skills, values and interests.WSCT, under the consultancy of the MoshiUniversity College of Cooperative and BusinessStudies, is spearheading a process aimed attransforming and re-organizing COMPACT granteegroups into an autonomous group.

WCST PROGRESS IN THE PUGU AND KAZIMZUMBWI FOREST RESERVES.

The Wildlife Conservation Society Tanzania (WCST)has been working with the Forestry and BeekeepingDivision and other stakeholders to develop JointForest Management for Pugu and Kazimzumbwiforest reserves.The WCST is spearheading theprocess whereby communities around Pugu andKazimzumbwi forests will sign partnershipagreements with government authorities to allow forJoint Forest Management (JFM) in the two forestreserves to take place. The Kazimzumbwi and Puguforests, located about 30 km southwest of

Dar es Salaam, are an important biodiversity andwater catchment areas.

As part of the process, WCST in collaboration withthe government, village authorities, communities,and CARE Tanzania (Misitu Yetu Project) havefacilitated various meetings, workshops, trainings,and study tours to various places for community tolearn and appreciate the importance of joint forestmanagement practice. The communities on variousoccasions have been exposed to legal instrumentssupportive of JFM processes including the NationalForestry Policy (1998) and Forestry Act (2002).The Society closely involves community members inforest zonation, resources assessment and in thepreparation of village forest resource maps. Atpresent, the villagers around Pugu and Kazimzumbwiforests have in place a forest management plan, draftby-laws and a draft of JFM agreement which isawaiting approval at district level. Meanwhile, thegovernment and community are participating in jointforest patrol so as to reduce the rate of forest destruction.

PUGU AND MASANGANYA COMMUNITYCONSERVATION BANKS (COCOBA)

The Wildlife Conservation Society Tanzania (WCST)through funds provided by the National Committee ofIUCN in the Netherland, has established a pilotproject for small income generation projects withinfive villages bordering the Pugu and Masanganyaforests. The objective of this project is to empowerthe local communities adjacent to these importantcoastal forests to manage the resources throughoperations that are non-destructive. The project aimsat assisting the communities to manage incomegeneration projects (IGAs) and promoting localfinancial services such as Community ConservationBanks (COCOBA). The COCOBA groups operate assavings and credit groups while receiving training onhow to select appropriate IGAs, which are suitable totheir local areas with guidance on technical, marketingand financial management. So far, the project hasmobilized and recruited the formation of sevencommunity groups with a total of 300 people andrevolving loan of Tshs 12 million to provide seedmoney as capital to group members. The WCST hasinjected one time matching loan worth of 5.0 millionto groups as capital support so that members canacquire start-up capital for IGAs. The groups areengaging in activities such as bee keeping, mushroomfarming, soap making (out of neem extract), poultryprojects, horticulture and improved stoves.

ko (in yellow cap) and the District Beekeeping Officer, Mr. Kenneddyhives at igava B forest site (photo by Jasson John, May 2005)


From pg. 9

Wildlife populations have declined in many areas ofTanzania, but this is attributed to increased settlementencroaching on wildlife areas and illegal offtake tobushmeat. There is no evidence that the regulatedtourist hunting industry has contributed to the generaldecline of wildlife populations, but there is plenty ofevidence that the presence of a regulated hunting industrycontributes significantly to reducing the illegalactivities of poachers and provides an economicincentive to protect and manage vast areas.

Allocation of hunting concessionsThe Wildlife Division leases hunting concessions on afive-year tenure to hunting outfitters (mostly privatecompanies) that fulfil the requirements defined in a setof hunting regulations and guidelines, and who havebeen licensed to guide foreign clients on big gamehunting safaris in the country during the hunting season.

Decisions on allocation of concessions are made by anAdvisory Committee on Block Allocation appointed bythe Minister of Natural Resources and Tourism. Thiscommittee screens applications by hunting outfittersand advises the Minister accordingly. The WildlifeDivision allocates a quota for animals that can behunted within each concession during the huntingseason. The hunting quotas are annually modified on anadaptive approach using data from wildlife census,observations by Game Reserve managers, and huntingsuccess of previous years. Outfitters must utilise thewildlife on the quota to generate revenue to not lessthan 40% of the value of the total quota allocated.Failing to do so, the outfitter is required to make atop-up payment to the Wildlife Division to meet the40% minimum.

Pricing of Wildlife The fees charged and the number of days required forhunting various animals is based on the gazettedschedule of fees. The disadvantage of this gazettedschedule is that it is rigid and adjustments to the trophyfees need to be made with Ministerial approval and arethus difficult to achieve. To increase income, the easiestoption to the Wildlife Division has therefore been toincrease the quota settings for some concessionsthereby forcing the shooting of more animals which ina long run is detrimental.

The numbers of many species that can be hunted iscontrolled by the quota allocations, and offtake isactually forced by the 40% utilisation requirement.Many species require a 21-day permit to be hunted (e.g.hippo, sable, roan, klipspringer), however the numbersof hunts that an outfitter can sell effectively depends onthe number of lion, leopard and buffalo trophiesavailable in his concession and on the quota. Outfittersare not able to bring clients at the costs of hunting inTanzania to take a 21-day license to shoot an antelopewhich are widely spread, and thus these trophiestherefore do not catch high market prices. In most cases

the other species are sufficiently abundant to beunaffected by the levels of tourist hunting offtake.Trophy fees for tourist hunting were gazetted in 1991and have not been amended since. As a result, thetrophy fees charged for some key species aresignificantly lower than that applicable elsewhere inthe region.

Tanzania has been required through CITES restrictionsto limit trophy hunting of elephant to not more than 50animals per year. The Wildlife Division has achievedthis by imposing a high minimum trophy size limit.While some increases to trophy fees are justified, largecrosscutting increases must be looked into carefully.The Tanzanian hunting industry is already heavilydependent on trophy fees, and emphasis needs to beshifted towards daily fees and concession lease fees.

Conduct of huntingFinding clients and utilisation of quota is theresponsibility of the outfitter that leases a concession.The outfitter secures hunting clients, and hosts them ina hunting camp constructed within the concession. Thehunting regulations allow only temporary constructionsfor hunting camps, and the camp must be removed atthe end of the hunting season. The hunting seasonextends from 1 July to 31 December each year. Thehunting client brings his/her own hunting rifles, andneeds a weapons import license issued by the Police.

During the hunt, the client must be guided and protectedby a professional hunter, whose services are providedby the outfitter, and licensed by the Wildlife Division.He is typically the host of the client during the entirehunting safari. The Wildlife Division provides a gamescout who supervises the hunt and provides protectionto the client if necessary.

After hunting, the client must fill in the permit showingwhich animals have been hunted and/or wounded. Thisis validated by the game scout that accompanies thehunt, and presented to the game reserve manager/ localauthority, who then issues a letter of clearance allowingthe hunted trophies to be taken out of the hunting area.The completed hunting permit is issued to the huntingoffice that then bills the client for the animals huntedand a trophy-handling fee. On receipt of payment, atrophy export certificate is issued allowing the client totake his/her trophies home.

Minimum trophy requirementsThe following minimum trophy standards areprescribed:• The minimum size of tusk of an elephant

trophy must exceed 1.70 meters or 25 kg • Leopard body length must equal or exceed 1.3

meters• The Wildlife Division is currently developing

a system to allow only trophies from lions that areat least six years old.




Table 1: Fees payable by tourist hunters and outfitters in Tanzania

Trophy fees Descriptions Cost

Permit fees For a hunting safari up to seven days USD 450For a hunting safari more than seven days USD 600

Conservation fees Daily fee per tourist hunter USD 100Observer fees Daily fee per person accompanying a tourist hunter USD 50Trophy-handling fees For a hunting safari up to seven days USD 200

For a hunting safari more than seven days USD 300Block fees Annual fee per concession payable by the outfitter USD 7,500Professional hunters license (annual) Professional hunters resident in Tanzania USD 1,000

Professional hunters non-resident in Tanzania USD 2,000

Costs of huntingFees presented in this document reflect the charges bythe Wildlife Division which are billed to the huntingoutfitter. The hunting outfitter will charge very muchhigher fees to the clients for the privilege of hunting.Typical daily fees billed to hunting clients coming toTanzania range from USD 1,800 to USD 2,500 per day.The hunting outfitters will usually apply similar rules tothe Wildlife Division, whereby minimum length safarisapply to hunt certain types of game, for example to hunta lion a client must pay for a full 21 days even if he/shespends less days in a hunting camp. Some outfitters willalso have a makeup on the game fees charged by theWildlife Division. The outfitter will normally arrangean air charter for the client to fly directly into thehunting area.

Additional costs would include arranging the gunimport license, export of trophies, etc. Total costsamounting to USD 80,000 to hunt a lion with some ofthe more exclusive outfitters is considered acceptable.The hunting outfitter provides no guarantee that the clientwill be provided with an opportunity to shoot a lion.

Currently there are 42 hunting outfitters leasingconcessions in Tanzania. The hunting outfitter mustmarket the hunting opportunities within his concession toattract clients. Normally this is done through basedagents in the United States and Europe, and throughsetting up a stand at international hunting exhibitions,such as the Safari Club Annual Conventions.

Table 2: Schedule of game fees, minimum days and rifle calibres for various game animals available on tourist hunting permits in Tanzania

Animal Price Min Min Animal Price Min Minimum(USD) days rifle (USD) days rifle

calibre calibreBaboon, Olive/Yellow 90 14 Monkey, Blue / Vervet 120 14Buffalo, 1st hunted 600 7 .375 Oribi 120 14 .240Buffalo, 2nd hunted 720 7 .375 Oryx 870 21 .270Buffalo, 3rd hunted 840 16 .375 Porcupine 70 21Bushbuck 340 14 .240 Puku 220 .270Bushpig 190 14 Reedbuck, Bohor 290 14 .240Caracal 70 21 .270 Roan Antelope 870 21 .270Civet Cat 140 14 Sable Antelope 1,200 21 .270Crocodile, Nile 840 14 Shotgun Serval 180 21 .240Dik Dik 170 14 .240 Sitatunga 900 21. 270Duiker, Abbot’s 300 21 Steinbok 150 14 .240Duiker, Blue/Grey/Red 180 14 Suni (Pygmy antelope) 130 14 .240Eland 840 21 .270 Topi 350 7 .270Elephant 5,000- 21 .375 Warthog 320 7 .240

10,000Gazelle, Grant's 220 7 .270 Waterbuck 440 14 .270Gazelle, Thompson's 190 7 .240 Wild Cat 150 14Gerenuk 1,300 21 .270 Wildebeest 320 7 .270Grysbok, Sharpe's 150 14 .240 Zebra 590 7 .270Hartebees 370 7 .270Hippo 840 21 .270 BirdsHoney Badger (Ratel) 70 21 Bustards 15 7 ShotgunHyaena 190 14 Duck / Goose 15 7 ShotgunImpala 240 7 .270 Francolin / Spurfowl / 10 7 Shotgun

PartridgeJackal 120 14 Guineafowl 10 7 ShotgunKlipspringer 720 21 .240 Ostrich 740 21 .270Kudu, Greater 1,170 21 .270 Painted Snipe 10 7 ShotgunKudu, Lesser 1,300 21 .270 Pigeons & Doves 10 7 ShotgunLeopard 2,000 21 .270 Quail 10 7 ShotgunLion 2,000 21 .375 Sandgrouse 10 7 Shotgun


Southern Africa currently offers some 420,000 km2

ofcommunal land and 188,000 km

2of commercial land

for sport hunting. Wildlife numbers outside of protectedareas in Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe communaland private lands are increasing, due mainly to the valuenow placed on the lucrative sport hunting resource. Ingeneral, sport hunting is a high-return, low-impactwildlife use which can compliment a host of otheractivities, for example wildlife viewing safaris andtrade in hides, horns and meat. It is also recognized as avalid wildlife management tool under certain circumstances,for example in addressing human-wildlife conflicts orenhancing species’ population performance.

Further growth and development of the hunting industrydepends upon optimal trophy quality, species diversityand professionalism of the services offered. However,the growth of the industry currently exceeds the capacityto manage it well throughout the region. Overallsuccesses of the industry are marred by the continuedexistence of unsustainable management practices,especially in relation to quota setting and huntingconcessions allocations. The lucrative nature of the

industry and potential for abuse and corruption stillaffects the industry and incentives are required toimprove such management practices. Further, thedemand for sport hunting in SADC currently outweighsthe supply, and poor ethical practices have becomean issue resulting from intense competition. It is alsobecoming increasingly important that the managementstructures (private, governmental or non-governmental)implement socially responsible policies.

This article draw upon the experience gained from anassessment of the sport hunting industry in five SADCcountries (Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzaniaand Zimbabwe). The following are some of the keyrecommendations specific to Tanzania.• Hunting block concession allocations should be

based on a transparent and accountable open tendersystem. Block allocation and retention criteriashould include economic as well as concession andcommunity development indicators.

• Government should formalize a policy positionwith regard to the sub-leasing of huntingconcessions. It is recommended that this practicebe restricted where possible, to encourage greatertenure and ownership of the hunting block concession.

• The number of Safari Operators licensed inTanzania should be kept to a manageable size, andnot allowed to increase further by the subdivisionof existing hunting blocks. Further subdivision ofhunting blocks may damage the reputation of thetourist hunting blocks and result in unsustainablequotas being set in subdivided blocks.

TOURIST HUNTING: HOW TANZANIA CAN BENEFIT FROM SADC BEST PRACTICES

By: Simon Milledge, TRAFFIC, East and Southern Africa

USD 29.9 million in Tanzania, USD 28.4 million in South Africa, USD 23.9 million inZimbabwe, USD 12.6 million in Botswana and USD 11.5 million in Namibia. And, it is agrowing industry in most countries. Well-managed sport hunting can be one of the optimalland use options, especially in marginal habitats. This article serves to draw upon theexperiences gained from an assessment of the sport hunting industry in five SADC countries(Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania and Zimbabwe).

CITES trophy exports from Tanzania

Tanzania is one of the top five CITES trophyexporting nations in East and Southern Africa,the others include South Africa, Zimbabwe,Namibia and Botswana. Analysis of CITESannual reports submitted to UNEP-WCMCbetween 1998 and 2003 show that a net trade ofalmost 500 CITES-listed trophies wereexported from Tanzania. Large cat trophiesconstituted 60% of all CITES trophies exportedfrom Tanzania. Indeed, more large cat trophies(2946) were exported from Tanzania during thisperiod than any country in East and SouthernAfrica. They included 1,310 lion trophies (42%of all lion trophies from the region) and 1,509leopard trophies (36% of all leopard trophiesfrom the region). Tanzania also accounted for50% hippopotamus trophies (1,044) from theregion, in addition to a significant proportion ofelephant trophies.


HOW TANZANIA CAN BENEFIT FROM SADC BEST PRACTICES

• The pricing structure with regards to huntingfees is based on a “pay as used” basis, ratherthan a “right to use” basis. This has resultedin companies not being motivated to fully utilizetheir entitled quota of animals, and hasnecessitated governments insistence on 40%of the quota block being paid for in advance.In turn, this may motivate a skewedutilization of quotas in favour of renownedand lucrative trophy species that may bebringing into question the sustainability oftheir quotas. It is recommended that hunting blocksbe competitively marketed and concession fees chargedaccording to the open market value of the blocks.

• The process of establishing Wildlife ManagementAreas and Authorized Associations should besupported and where possible expedited to enablerural communities to harness wildlife benefitsthrough Tourist Hunting and consequently bemotivated to manage and conserve a valuedresource.

• A greater proportion of Tourist hunting revenueshould be distributed directly to local communities

through District Councils and Retention Schemes.

• The Wildlife Division should establish an effectivemonitoring system for the collection of biological,financial and hunt return data that through analysisshould be used for the improved adaptivemanagement of the Tourist Hunting Industry,especially with regards to quota setting.

• Quotas for sought after and renowned trophyspecies such as lion, leopard, sable and roanshould be reviewed to re-assess their sustainabilityin light of high utilization rates.

• A thorough review of the Professional Hunterslicensing system should be undertaken to ensure thatethical and professional standards of hunting aremaintained within the industry. This reviewshould consider the possibility of introducingtrainee, learner and full professional huntercategories according to years of experience andknowledge. Examinations should also berestructured to ensure that all aspects of touristhunting are adequately included.

Spotted hyenas do not win many prizes for theirlooks, but when it comes to the care of their young,no other predator in Africa is quite in the sameleague. Eighteen years of observing spottedhyenas in the Serengeti National Park haveunderlined how tough life can be for a hyenamother, even though mothers have only one or twocubs to rear in each litter.

Spotted hyenas live in structured societies calledclans, and in the Serengeti, clans may containapproximately 40–80 members. Each member of aclan holds a social position within the group, andevery hyena knows its own social status in relation tothat of other members of the group. It is true that yourarely see large numbers of hyenas gathered in oneplace, and this is because individual hyenas or smallgroups of animals go about their daily businessindependently and only meet up with other clanmembers when there is a good reason to do so. A clanis composed of several sub-units of closely relatedfemales, all of whom were born into the clan. Notsurprisingly, the social bonds within family units arestronger than those between different families, andthis partly explains why certain clan members haveclose social bonds, while others are decidedly lessfriendly to each other. Young males born into a clannormally remain associated with their mothers forabout two years, and then start to look for a new

group into which they can immigrate. By the age ofabout 5 years, most males have dispersed from thegroup into which they were born.

Social status influences many aspects of the life of aspotted hyena. Generally animals with high socialstatus prosper while those at the bottom of thehierarchy have to struggle far harder to survive andsuccessfully rear their offspring. In short, there is aconsiderable degree of inequality between membersof a clan, and this, of course, leads to a certain degreeof conflict between groups members. Even so, clanmembers must find ways to resolve this friction sothat they can cooperate in situations when it isnecessary for clan members to work together toachieve a useful common goal. For example, femalehyenas join together to attack female lions thatventure too close to the clan communal den wheretheir vulnerable offspring are hiding underground.A communal show of strength by twenty hyenas canbe an impressive sight, and certainly is enough tointimidate one or two female lions. When male lionsare present, hyenas are far more cautious. They maystill attempt intimidation, but only from a safedistance. Thus despite social tensions, members ofvarious family groups within a clan will cooperatewhen it is in their interests to do so.

SOCIAL STATUS FOR A FEMALE SPOTTED HYENA.By: Marion L East and Heribert Hofer, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany.

Cont.. pg 16

From pg. 15

An unusual aspect of spotted hyena society is that allfemales socially dominate immigrant males in theirgroup. This is true even for the female at the verybottom of the female social hierarchy. Young femalespotted hyenas acquire a social status immediatelybelow that of their mother, which of course meansthat if your mother is socially dominant, you willalso be dominant, whereas if your mother lacksstatus, so will you. This does not imply that femalehyenas genetically inherit their place in society, ratherthat the social support given by dominant mothers totheir daughters ensures that their daughters winencounters with more subordinate group members,and therefore acquire a status similar to that held bytheir mother. Mothers that hold a lowly position inthe female social hierarchy are unable to support theirdaughters against challenges by more dominantfemales, and thus their daughters learn at an earlyage to be submissive, just like their mothers. A highsocial status is a valuable asset to a female, as thisprovides immediate access to large carcasses in thegroup territory. In comparison, females with lowsocial status are underprivileged because the moredominant females monopolize food resources. Forthis reason, subordinate females have to work farharder to feed themselves and their offspring.

Female cubs of Hyenas

The Serengeti hyenas’ preferred food includeswildebeest, Thomson’s gazelle and zebra. When aclan territory is flooded with these migratory species,the amount of food present is high (more than 219animals/km2), and all clan members are ‘at home’feeding on these herbivores. Spotted hyenas are

efficient predators, and chiefly run down their prey atspeeds over considerable distances. As they are notfussy eaters, they will also clean up any deadherbivore they are fortunate enough to find. As aresult of their excellent ability to detect dead animalsover long distances, many members of a clan willquickly assemble when a herbivore is killed or diesfrom other causes. Irrespective of which member of aclan has gone to the trouble of killing, or whichmember located a dead carcass first, when the topfemales appear, other clan members will have to letthem feed first. As immigrant males are at the bottomof the social pecking order, all these males have towait until the females have eaten their full, beforethey can feed. In short, dominant females eat beforesubordinate females, and all females feed before theimmigrant males.

Migratory herbivores represent a large store of food,but when migratory herds move out of a hyenaterritory only a low density of resident herbivoresremain. During such periods there is insufficientfood to feed all hungry members of a clan.Competition for food escalates, and because thedominant females consume most of the food in theterritory the subordinate females must travel 40-70km from their territory before they reach the nearestmigratory herds. Socially dominant females alsooccasionally leave their home territory to go onlong-distance foraging trips but they need to do sofar less often. Young hyenas receive milk from theirmothers for 14-18 months, and because dominantmothers are at home more often, they nurse theiryoung more frequently than subordinate mothers. Thissteady supply of milk allows cubs of dominantmothers to grow well and survive better than cubs ofsubordinate females. Furthermore, the level of stresssuffered by mothers that have to walk more than3,000 km per year to find sufficient food to allowthem to produce enough milk for their cubs is farhigher than that of mothers that can afford the luxuryof staying at home.

By developing a foraging system that permits groupmembers to feed on migratory herbivores throughoutthe year, the size of Serengeti hyena clans has beenreleased from the normal constraint imposed oncarnivore group size by the availability of prey withina group territory. As a result there are more spottedhyenas in the Serengeti than would be expected if allclan members had to survive on only residentherbivores. For this reason, the Serengeti holds oneof the most important populations of spotted hyenasin Africa, and although the Serengeti ecosystemharbours several species of large carnivores, none areas numerous as the spotted hyena.

SOCIAL STATUS FOR A FEMALE SPOTTED HYENA.



The interview was conducted by Dr. Rolf D. Baldus

Q1. Dramatic lion figures are being published bythe world media: According to some scientiststhere are only 15,000 lions left in the whole ofAfrica as compared to 100,000 in the past. Isthe lion an endangered species?

Answer: The earlier figure was never meant to be takenseriously as a population estimate it was just a roughguess of the order of magnitude of the overallpopulation size. Instead of a million lions or ten-thousand,the authors said there were probably on the order of ahundred thousand. The recent numbers stem from thefirst systematic attempts to tally all the lions on thecontinent. This time each guess was scaled down to thesize of a single reserve or park, and then the guesseswere summed up to give a crude total. The two mostwidely cited total guesses, Bauer/Van der Merwe andChardonnet, used different techniques, and the moreinclusive estimate came up with a larger number. So itis simply wrong to claim that these surveys show a“dramatic decline” in lion numbers – we’ll never knowwhat happened to lion numbers over the past 20 years.On the other hand, I do think that there are probablyfewer than 100,000 lions left in the wild – which is lessthan the number of chimpanzees or elephants – so it isimportant to take active steps to conserve the specieswhile we still can.

Q2. What are the main causes for declines of lions where they occur?

Answer: Lions are dangerous animals that kill peopleand livestock. Rural Africans face real threats fromlions, and they retaliate to livestock losses or personalinjury by trying to remove the “problem animal.” Thenumber of lions killed by vengeful humans each year isfar greater than from any other cause.

Q3. If International Trade or trophy hunting arenot threatening the lion, then the Kenyanuplisting proposal at CITES has no basis?

Answer: The Kenyan listing is irresponsible. Itrecognizes the inadequacies of the recent censuses, yetit immediately turns around and cites them as if theywere perfectly accurate. Even worse, the Kenyans claimthat lions are being decimated by FIV (felineimmunodeficiency virus) and distemper. Our Serengetistudies are by far the most exhaustive investigations onlion health, and we cannot find any evidence that FIVcauses significant health effects. While CanineDistemper Virus did cause a 35% decline in theSerengeti lions in 1994, the population recoveredcompletely within 5 years – and is currently at its alltime high. By far the most important threat to lionscomes from problem animal control, and by puttinglions on Appendix 1, the Kenyans would do much moreharm than good. Tanzania has more lions than any othercountry in the world, and the majority of these animalslive outside the national parks. If lion trophy huntingwere stopped, they would have no economic value, andthere would no longer be any incentive to conserve thelions. Opponents of trophy hunting have provided noalternative mechanism for funding the large-scaleconservation efforts required to protect the species.

COUNTER ARGUMENTS ON A RECENT PROPOSAL TO UPGRADE THE LION TO CITES APPENDIX I.

An Article Summarized by Editor from Tanzania Wildlife Discussion Paper No. 41

Many studies provide estimate figures on lion population. The figures provided are still the result of theoreticalmodelling, estimates and projections from smaller research sites. It is very difficult and almost impractical tocount lions except with extensive research. In the case of lion’s questionable figures, one such example was thefalse figure of 15,000 lions for the whole of Africa today or the presentation of a guess that 100,000 lions lived inAfrica one hundred years or so ago. Bauer and Van der Merwe (2004) presented an inventory of availableinformation for lion in Tanzania to an estimate of 7,073 (minimum 5,323 and maximum 8793). A study byChardonnet (2002), gave an estimate of 14,432 lion, (minimum 10,409 and maximum 18,215).

There is a proposal to upgrade the lion to CITES appendix I, what are the basis for the proposal? Is the lion anendangered species?. To know more on the claim that lions need to be upgraded to CITES APPENDIX 1, thefollowing interview was held with Prof. Dr. Craig Packer. He is a distinguished McKnight Professor from theUniversity of Minnesota who has done 26 years of research on the lions of the Serengeti and is regarded as one ofthe world authorities on lions.


Q4. Kenya has had no hunting of lions since 27years and the lion population has been greatlyreduced. Tanzania has lion hunting and at thesame time the biggest population on thecontinent. What is the role of well managedhunting of lions for conservation?

Answer: I think that the situation in Kenya illustratesthat lions would be viewed only as threats to people andlivestock in the absence of trophy hunting. Lions inAmboseli National Park were exterminated by angryMaasai in the early 1990s, and three-fourths of the lionsin Nairobi Park were speared in the past year. Lionsinflict serious damage to these people’s livelihoods, sowhy should they be tolerated outside the parks? TheTanzanian hunting industry certainly has the potentialto play an important role in lion conservation, but thereis significant room for improvement. Huntingcompanies need to engage local communities directlyand help them to co-exist with lions.

Q5. How can lion hunting be improved?

Answer: Lion trophy hunting must be recognized as theprimary mechanism for protecting viable lionpopulations outside the national parks. First andforemost, hunters must work to discover the circum-stances where people and livestock are attacked by

lions. Conservation of such a dangerous animal restswith the tolerance of local people, and practical projectsimproving animal husbandry and personal safety shouldbe implemented in cooperation with the local andregional governments. Second, it is essential to restrictlion hunting to males that are at least 6 years of age –old enough to have raised their first set of offspring. Byenforcing an age minimum, the wildlife authorities willmake giant strides in forcing hunting companies toprevent over-exploitation. Finally, the business oftrophy hunting needs to be based on providing itsclients with an unforgettable adventure – rather thanselling them dead animals. African hunting companiesmust become associated with wildlife conservation inthe same way that Ducks Unlimited is associated withwetlands conservation – rather than being associatedwith dead ducks. Lion conservation is going to be veryexpensive, and hunting companies will have to raisemore and more income from diversified activities –there is no way to stake their fortune on shooting moreand more animals. In addition, the industry needs toattract more long-term investors. By increasing thestability of the hunting blocks (through extendedcontracts and restrictions on who can actually hunt inthose blocks), hunters will increasingly regard theyoung lions on their properties as their crop of thefuture rather than something that should be hastilyplucked before it is ripe.

COUNTER ARGUMENTS ON A RECENT PROPOSAL TO UPGRADE THE LION TO CITES APPENDIX I.

Eneo la bonde la Usangu lililopo wilaya ya Mbarali nikati ya maeneo yenye utajiri mkubwa wa maliasili.Nyingi ya maliasili hizo zinapatikana katika ardhioevu“wetland” iitwayo “Ihefu” ambayo sehemu kubwa (80km

2) ipo ndani ya Pori la Akiba la Usangu. “Ihefu” ni

jina la Wasangu likiwa na maana ya uoto ulio juu yamaji. Baadhi ya rasilimali zilizopo Ihefu ni pamoja nawanyama wa majini kama viboko, mamba, vyura,kobe, samaki n.k. Bonde hilo lina ndege wa ainambalimbali akiwemo Kuzi kijivu (Ashy Starling)ambaye ni adimu duniani na hupatikana Tanzaniapekee. Ndege wanaopatikana kwa wingi katika eneohili ni jamii ya bata, mwara (pelicans) na kweleakwelea.Eneo hili ni makazi ya ndege wanaohamahamakutokana na mabadiliko ya majira toka nyanda zaKaskazini kwenda Kusini.

Bonde la Usangu lina mashamba makubwa ya kilimocha umwagiliaji mpunga yaliyopo Madibira, Mbarali

na Kapunga. Matumizi ya madawa ya kilimo ambayoni sumu yalianza siku nyingi. Madawa mengiyanayotumika katika mashamba ya mpunga kamaThiodan, Furadan na 2-4 D yana madhara mengi kwamazingira na binadamu kama yakitumiwa vibaya.

Hatari nyingine kubwa inayowakabili wananchi waUsangu zaidi ya madawa katika kilimo cha mpunga nimatumizi ya madawa katika kutega ndege. Utegajindege kwa sumu unafanyika zaidi katika miezi yaSeptemba na Oktoba. Hii inatokana na eneo kubwa laardhioevu kukauka na hivyo kuacha madimbwi yamaji kwenye maeneo machache. Maeneo haya yenyemadimbwi huwa kimbilio la ndege na hivyo kuwa nandege wengi kwa pamoja. Kuwepo kwa ndege wengikunafanya wategaji haramu wapige kambi zao kipindihicho. Wategaji hawa haramu wa ndege wanakaakatika kambi kama wanavyokaa wavuvi na kutegandege kwa kutumia sumu za aina mbalimbali. Maeneo

JE SUMU ZINAZOTUMIKA KUULIA NDEGE KATIKA BONDE LA USANGU ZINA MADHARA KWA BINADAMU?

Na: A. Chisanyo, Usangu Game Reserve, Mbarali Mbeya.

Rasilimali zilizopo katika Bonde la Usangu ziko katika hatari ya kuangamizwa na matumizimabaya ya madawa ya kilimo na sumu ambazo hutumiwa na binadamu kuua ndege kwa lengo lakujipatia kitoweo na fedha. Makala hii inaelezea matumizi mabaya ya sumu katika kuua ndegekwenye ardhioevu ya Bonde la Usangu.


JE SUMU ZINAZOTUMIKA KUULIA NDEGE KATIKA BONDE LA USANGU ZINA MADHARA KWA BINADAMU?

ambayo wategaji hupendelea kuweka kambi nakufanya shughuli hii haramu ni maeneo yaliyo namajimaji na uoto asilia wa matete. Lakini kutokana naeneo la Ihefu kuvamiwa na mifugo mingi, uoto huuumeanza kutoweka kwa kipindi cha kiangazi.

Soko kubwa la ndege hawa wanaowindwa kwa njiahii haramu lipo katika mikoa ya Iringa na Mbeya hasawilaya za Njombe, Makete na Mbarali. Miji maarufukwa ulaji wa ndege hawa waliouawa kwa sumu niMakambako, Ilembula, Chimala, Rujewa, naNjombe.

Kufuatana na taarifa mbalimbali za watu ambaowanachukia uharibifu huu, shughuli za utegaji ndegeziko katika utaratibu ufuatao:-

• Mtegaji wa ndege hutafuta sehemu nzuri yenyemajimaji ambayo ina ndege wengi hususanbata, sehemu hiyo huwa na uoto wa matete.

• Baadhi ya matete hayo hukatwa katika sehemuza pingiri katika kimo cha ndege aina ya bata.

• Punje za nafaka kama vile mpungahuchanganywa na sumu na kuwekwa sehemuya juu ya pingiri ili kutoruhusu kuzama punjehizo ndani ya tete hilo.

• Mtega ndege huondoka eneo lililotegwa nakwenda kukaa umbali wa kati ya mita 60 –100 ili kutoa nafasi kwa ndege kuja kunywamaji na kula nafaka yenye sumu.

• Baada ya ndege kula punje zenye sumu huanzakupigapiga mabawa na mwindaji huenda mbiosana ili kuwahi kumchinja na kutoa utumbo.Utumbo hutolewa haraka ili kupunguzakiasi cha sumu kabla ya kuenea katika nyamayote. Kutolewa utumbo kunawafanya wanunuzi(wananchi) waamini kuwa nyama hiyo ni

salama. Fikira hizo zaweza kuwa siyo sahihi kwa vilendege hushindwa kuruka ikionyesha kuwa sumuimeshaenea maeneo mengi ya mwili.

Je, kuna madhara gani yatokanayo na nyama ya ndegewaliouawa kwa sumu? Madhara ni mengi, na siyo tukwa binadamu bali hata kwa viumbe wengine waliopomaeneo ambayo sumu hutumika. Kwa mfano, utumbounaotolewa ndani ya ndege waliouawa kwa sumu nakutupwa ovyo unaweza kusababisha vifo kwa wanyamawalao nyama wakiwemo ndege.

Sayansi inaonyesha kuwamadawa ya kilimo hubadilishavichocheo vya uzazi “sexualhormones” za ndege wanaokulanafaka zinazotoka katikamashamba yanayotumia madawayenye sumu. Kufuatana na utafi-ti wa Dr. Witt (1995), ndegewaliokula nafaka kutoka katikamashamba ambayo yalitumiadawa za kuulia magugu walitagamayai ambayo hayakuwa nagamba (kaka) gumu la yai.

Ingawa watafiti hawajaonyeshamadhara ya moja kwa mojawanakisia kuwa madhara yasiyoya moja kwa moja “indirecteffects” yatokanayo na matumiziya madawa ya kilimo yanawezakuwa na madhara makubwakuliko yale ya moja kwa moja“direct effects.

Matokeo ya tafiti hizi yanatoa mwanga na tahadharikwetu ya kuamini kuwa inawezekana nyama ya ndegewanaouawa kwa sumu ikawa na madhara yasiyo yamoja kwa moja “indirect effects” kwa binadamu. Nainawezeka, madhara haya yakaonekana wazi katikakizazi cha kesho.

Kutokana na hofu hii tunalazimika kuwashauri walajiwaache kabisa kutumia nyama ya ndege hawawaliouawa kwa sumu. Lakini pia natoa wito kwavyombo na ngazi mbalimbali zinazohusika nausimamizi wa rasilimali za bonde la Usangu kulitazamajambo hili kwa uzito wake. Vile vile sekta ya Afya,Ustawi wa Jamii, Wanyama pori na idara nyinginezisaidie kutoa elimu kwa wananchi kwani inaonekanawazi kuwa watu wengi wanaotumia nyama ya ndegewaliouawa kwa sumu, wanaamini kwamba ni utumbopekee ulio na sumu. Wananchi wanastahili kuelezwaukweli ili kuepusha upotoshaji wa ukweli unaofanywana wawindaji haramu. Pia wataalamu waelezewananchi namna ya kutambua nyama ya ndegealiyeuawa kwa sumu.

Namalizia makala hii kwa kuwatolea wito wananchiwote kushirikiana kupiga vita wahalifu wanaocheza naafya za binadamu. Wananchi watoe taarifa za wahusikakatika serikali zao za vijiji au kwa vyombo vya usalamamahali yalipo makambi ya watu hawa ili wachukuliwe hatua zakisheria.

Korongo domo ganzi (Saddle_Billed Stork) ni moja kati ya ndege wanaotegwakwa sumu pembeni ni matenga yanayotumika kubebea ndege waliouawa.

African Wildlife FoundationCombination ServicesCollege Of African Wildlife ManagementCommunity Wildlife Management (GTZ)Coastal TravelCullmen & Hurt Community Wildlife ProjectCHCWPD.T. Dobie & Co T Ltd.Discover Tanzania Safaris Ltd.Dorobo SafarisEmslies Travel LtdEsacs Academy Inter SchoolEast Usambara Catchment Forest Project Easy Travel & Tours Ltd.Friedkin Conservation FoundationGold Star Paint Ltd.Holiday INN.Hoopoe Adventure Tours Ltd.Inter Consult LtdInstituto OikosJ. S. Khambaita LtdKilombore Valley Tea Co.LtdKikoti Safari Camp Ltd.Kearsley Travel & ToursK.J Motors LtdKase Store s LtdKLM ArushaLiti Buhuri. (Tanga)Leopard Tours Ltd.Mahale Wildlife ConservationMehboob H. IsmailNgorongoro Safari Lodge Ltd

Nomad Safari Guides (T) LimitedNomad Tz LtdNew Arusha Hotels LtdOrgut ConsultantRanger Safaris LtdRuaha Safari Camp LtdRolf Rohwer SafarisRobin Hurt SafarisRoy Safaris Ltd.River Trees Country Inn LtdSavannah Tours LtdSVM Financial ServicesSelous Safari CoSerengeti Select SafariSumaria Group (T) LtdSand County FoundationSouthern Sun Hotels (T) LtdSokwe LtdSafderal A. Jaffer & CompanyTanganyika Wattle Co. LtdTanzania Game Trackers Safaris LtdTanzania Wildlife Research InstituteTanzania Tourist BoardTengeru Leominster National Research Project Traffic East & South Africa TATOTAKIM Holidays Tours & SafarisTanzania National ParksTanzania Airport AuthorityTanga Cement Co LtdTarangire Elephant ProjectToyota Tanzania

True AfricaTUTURO Tanganyika LtdTZ Photographic Tours and SafarisWildthing Tailorimade Safari ExpertsWildersun Safari and Tours LtdWWF Tanzania Programme Office.Waljis Travel Bureau LtdYasmin Moledina

Prominent Donors

Bruce Ferguson USABankers Trust Plc LondonBirdLife InternationalCMC Automobiles LtdDANIDAEuropean UnionJapanese EmbassyJ. MooreTanzania Electric Supply CompanyNetherlands Committee for IUCNNORADRoyal Society for the Protection ofBirds, UKSwedish Society for Nature Conservation UNDP/GEFCritical Ecosystem Patnership FundCARE NorwayDanish Ornithological Foundation (DOF)Wetlands Internatinal

SOCIETY NEWS

Miombo No. 28, Jan. 2006

CORPORATE MEMBERS

CODING THE TANZANIAN FOREST RESERVES INTO IUCN PROTECTED AREAS CATEGORIES

The Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania and Kenyaconstitute an area of global importance for biodiversityconservation. It is recognized as one of the world’sbiodiversity hotspot. At the same time, this is an area ofextremely importance for water catchment as manyrivers in Tanzanian are found in these old mountainsrange. It is thus the source of water supply to all largertowns in eastern Tanzania (benefiting millions ofpeople), and it supplies water to most of the country’shydropower plants that provide around 50% total powerto the nation. Ironically, the level of internationalsupport to Tanzania’s Protected Areas system has beenbenefiting more the wildlife protected areas due to theirbeing recognized as part of the World Protected AreasSystem under the IUCN categories. However, notwithstanding this generality, there are some exceptionalcases whereby the biodiversity uniqueness of some ofthe Catchment Forest Reserves makes them strongcandidates in attracting international support forbiodiversity conservation. Such is the case for theEastern Arc Mountains Forest Reserves which are animportant biodiversity hotspot area in Tanzania.

In an effort to maximise opportunities, the Governmentof Tanzania in collaboration with some keydevelopment partners, have developed what is knownas the Eastern Arc Strategy which is a component of the

Project ‘Conservation and Management of the EasternArc Forests’ (GEF/UNDP: URT/01/G32). This is beingimplemented as a Project of the Forest and BeekeepingDivision of the Ministry of Natural Resources andTourism and it is funded by the Global EnvironmentFacility (GEF) through the United NationsDevelopment Programme. The Eastern Arc strategycomponent is striving in strengthening the managementof the Eastern Arc Forest Reserves through assign theminternational status by proposing to be listed in theIUCN Categories of Protected Areas. To this effect, aprocess has been initiated and steps taken to prepare anational proposal to UNEP for the housing of TanzaniaForest Reserves information in the World Database onProtected Areas (WDPA) under the IUCN ProtectedAreas Categories. The process is expected to becompleted by mid 2006. Once this is done, the ForestReserves will attain the same status as the wildlifeprotected areas and therefore gain equal chance incompeting for International Support.

The Wildlife Conservation Society of Tanzania hasbeen entrusted by the Forest and Beekeeping Divisionof the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism tofacilitate the process of coding the Tanzania ForestReserves under IUCN Protected Areas Categories.

Documents

NUMBER 28, JANUARY 2006 MIOMBOwildlife-baldus.com/download/Miombo_newsletter.pdfswine influenza viruses. Millions of wild aquatic and shore birds utilize Tanzanian waters and range