TWMA Status Report 2012

Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas | 1

Tanzania’s Wildlife Management AreasA 2012 Status Report


Tanzania’s Wildlife Management AreasA 2012 Status Report

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The compilation of this report was a collaborative effort initiated by ERR-Consulting Group and facilitated by WWF with the input of numerous people and organizations. Contributing writers and editors were Prof. Hussein Sosovele, Asukile R. Kajuni, Judith Balint, Erica Rieder, Angela Amlin, Eliezer Sungusia, Gerald Mushi, Schuyler Olsson, Rodney Ngalamba, Phillip Paul and Caroline Cook. Report design was by Donna Sicklesmith-Anderson. Special thanks should go to all our partners (including WCS, WCST, FZS, GTZ, JBG, AWF, DHA, and Africare) who have been facilitating and guiding the WMA implementation process in the field and who contributed immensely during the workshop held in Bagamoyo from July 17 to 18, 2013. Also we thank the reviewers who made useful comments to improve the presentation of this report, including Neil Burgess, Mikala Lauridsen and Robert Layng. We are very grateful to many other individuals and organizations not listed here but who provided valuable data, information and feedback for this document.

This report was made possible through a partnership between the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania, WWF-Tanzania, WWF-US, and the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this report are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government or WWF.

Published by: WWF Tanzania Country Office | Plot 350 Regent Estate Mikocheni | P.O. Box 63117 | Dar es Salaam | Telephone: +255 22 277 5346; +255 22 270 1675 | Fax: +255 22 277 5535 | www.panda.org

Copyright: WWF Tanzania Country Office for text, maps and graphs; photographs with individual photographers as listed below.

Printed by: PEN plus | P.O. Box 8233 | Dar es Salaam; First Published: March 2014

Suggested citation: WWF (2014). Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas: A 2012 Status Report. WWF, Dar es Salaam.

ACRONYMSAA Authorized AssociationAAC Authorized Association ConsortiumAWF African Wildlife FoundationCBNRM Community-Based Natural Resource ManagementCBO Community-Based OrganizationCFW Cash-for-Work ProjectDNRAB District Natural Resources Advisory BoardFZS Frankfurt Zoological SocietyGMP General Management PlanGTZ Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (German Agency for Technical Cooperation)NCAA Ngorongoro Conservation Area AuthorityNGO Non-Governmental OrganizationTANAPA Tanzania National ParksUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentVGS Village Game ScoutsWCS Wildlife Conservation SocietyWMA Wildlife Management AreaWWF World Wide Fund for Nature

PHOTOGRAPHYFront Cover, Page 15 © Caroline Cook/WWF-US; Title Page, Acknowledgements, Contents, Page 35 © WWF-US/Dan Forman; Introduction © Gary Tognoni/istock.com; Page 1, Page 32 © ERR Consulting; Page 3 © Kjetil Kolbjornsrud/istock.com; Page 10 © Lee Snow/istock.com; Page 12, 18, 33 (bottom), 39 © WWF-US; Page 13 © WWF-US/Steve Morello; Page 14 © Erica Rieder/WWF-US; Page 16 © BlueOrange Studio/istock.com; Page 17, 25 © WWF; Page 26 © Martin Harvey/WWF-Canon; Page 27 © Tom Gilks/WWF-Canon/naturepl.com; Page 28, 29, 31, 33, 37 (top) © Eliezer Sungusia/WWF-Tanzania; Page 34, 42 and Back Cover © Ryan Faas/istock.com; Page 36, 38, 41 © Allard Blom/WWF-US; Page 60 © S. Burel/istock.com.

CONTENTS

1. Introduction and Background ........................................................................... 1

2. Overview of Wildlife Management Areas .....................................................5

3. Wildlife and Natural Resource Conservation ................................................11

4. WMA Revenue .................................................................................................17

5. Community Benefits .......................................................................................29

6. Challenges and Vision for the Future ...........................................................35

WMA Profiles ......................................................................................................43

WMA Support Organizations .............................................................................. 61

List of Figures

1. Steps to WMA Establishment ...........................................................................6

2. WMA Institutional Structure ............................................................................9

3. Cumulative Area under 17 WMAs ....................................................................11

4. WMA Revenue in Nominal US$......................................................................23

5. Annual Gross Revenue from Game Viewing Tourism ......................................24

6. Community Development Projects Supported by WMAs .................................29

7. CFW Infrastructure Projects in WMAs............................................................ 31

List of Tables

1. Registered WMAs of Tanzania .......................................................................... 7

2. Monetary and Nonmonetary Benefits ..............................................................17

3. WMA Hunting Blocks and Categories .............................................................20

4. Government and WMA Sharing of Gross Hunting Revenue ............................22

5. Lodging in WMAs with Photographic Tourism Ventures .................................23


1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Tanzania is home to extraordinary wildlife migrations set against iconic African landscapes. Its natural wealth ranges from the open grasslands of the Serengeti in the north to granite inselbergs and thick woodlands in the south. At the same time, Tanzania remains economically one of the poorest countries in the world, with widespread poverty, particularly in the rural areas. This juxtaposition of human poverty and a wealth of biodiversity and habitats creates significant challenges in trying to resolve the trade-offs between conservation and basic human survival. The natural resource base contributes over 30% of the national gross domestic product,1 primarily through agriculture and tourism, and over 75% of Tanzanians depend directly on natural resources for their livelihoods.2 The tourism sector holds a promising future for sustainable development. Tourists come to Tanzania to see pristine landscapes and view wildlife, which incentivizes the preservation of those natural resources as potential sources of income. However, inadequate resource management capacity, poor governance, and inequitable access and sharing of income from resource utilization are some of the problems that negatively impact natural resources and the rural poor who depend on them.

Until about 15 years ago, wildlife management in Tanzania was an exclusively state-controlled affair, dating back to 1891 when laws controlling hunting were first enacted by the German colonial administration. The laws, which restricted local use of wildlife by making traditional hunting a criminal offense and regulated trophy hunting by Europeans, were continued through the period of British control from 1920 to 1961. After World War II, the British put particular emphasis on the preservation of wildlife and the establishment of protected areas. As a result, at Tanzania’s independence in 1961, there were three major national parks and nine game reserves. Even after Tanzania’s independence, wildlife management practices continued largely unchanged and focused on creating exclusive zones for wildlife and on keeping wildlife management under central government control.

Control and management of wildlife have been the responsibility of multiple state agencies in Tanzania since the passing of the Wildlife Conservation Act in 1974. The Wildlife Division of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism controls wildlife outside national parks, in game reserves and in game controlled areas. The Tanzania National Parks and the Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority manage wildlife in national parks and in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, respectively. Currently, Tanzania has 16 national parks, which, together with lands under other protected area status, account for approximately 36% of the country.3 Many of the protected areas were created where human population was low, but in some instances it was accomplished through land seizure and involuntary resettlement of local communities. This process generated substantial resentment among rural populations and heightened negative sentiments towards conservation efforts.

2 | Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas

The wildlife sector crisis of the 1980s, in which Tanzania lost half of its elephant population and almost its entire black rhino population through poaching, spawned actions on the part of the Government of Tanzania to critically examine the current state of wildlife policy and management. The Government’s realization that sustainable resource conservation and rural development are closely linked emerged from the perceived failure of past, traditionally centralized, wildlife management policies and practices in Tanzania. With support from development partners such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Government of Tanzania began pursuing a new model of conservation based on the principles of community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) being pioneered in other countries in eastern and southern Africa. This approach is intended to empower local communities and allow them to have greater involvement and authority in the management of natural resources, and it slowly became a critical complementary strategy to the traditional centralized command-and-control approach as a way to promote sustainable biodiversity conservation together with rural economic development.

The central idea of CBNRM is that when local communities have ownership of natural resources and they derive significant benefits from the use of those resources, then those resources will be sustainably managed. This involves shifting control of natural resources from the state to the community and the development of opportunities for local residents to earn income from the resources newly under their control. With significant wildlife resources in eastern and southern Africa, the focus of CBNRM is on maximizing the value of wildlife-rich lands to outcompete other land uses. When local residents experience economic gains from wildlife enterprises, their standard of living improves, and this gives them incentive to support conservation efforts.

The 1998 Wildlife Policy of Tanzania4 (revised in 20075) exemplified this new vision as it opened doors for local community participation in wildlife conservation. This new policy led to the establishment of Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) on village lands, Tanzania’s approach to CBNRM in the wildlife sector. A set of WMA Regulations was developed in 2002, and formal implementation began in 2003. Parallel initiatives, including the 2002 Forest Act, focused on devolution of natural resource management to communities. While progress has been steady, complete devolution of decision making by the government to communities has not yet taken place.

This report presents the 2012 status of Tanzania’s 17 registered WMAs. The information serves as an initial foundation for future assessments. Our vision is that this report will be updated every two years, providing a valuable up-to-date reference for the growth and development of WMAs over time.

Chapter 2 provides an overview of the WMA approach and discusses the main objectives, the establishment process, and the governance institutions and structure as well as the enabling legislation. In Chapter 3, we provide details of how WMAs provide benefits to wildlife conservation efforts. Chapters 4 and 5 describe the ways in which communities are benefiting from WMAs. In Chapter 6, we discuss key challenges facing the WMAs and the vision for the future. Individual profiles of the 17 WMAs and information on WMA support organizations conclude the report.

Introduction and Background

▲

N

0 100 200 400km

WMAs

Protected Areas

Cities and Towns

MAP KEY

K E N Y A

U G A N D A

Z A M B I A

M O Z A M B I Q U EMALAWI

T A N Z A N I A


2. OVERVIEW OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS

A Wildlife Management Area (WMA) is an area of communal land set aside exclusively as habitat for wildlife by member villages. Following the principles of community-based natural resource management (CBNRM), the key underlying assumption of the WMA concept is that providing local communities with economic benefits and involving them in management will promote both long-term health of wildlife and habitat and rural economic development. Communities will thus have a vested interest in the conservation of natural resources because they benefit directly from their sustainable management. In 2003, the Government of Tanzania launched a pilot phase of WMA development. Following evaluation of the pilot phase, WMAs were formally adopted as an approach for involving communities in wildlife management.

WMAs can provide local residents with benefits through associated enterprises that use either wildlife or other natural resources in the WMA. Before the introduction of the WMA approach, there were no legal frameworks for communities to participate in wildlife management, although individual villages could, on a small scale and in an ad hoc manner, enter into business contracts with the private sector. Without fences controlling movement of large iconic African mammals such as elephants, zebras and lions, multiple villages preserving large tracts of land together are able to collectively capitalize on potential tourism opportunities and more effectively protect wildlife in the area. Such ventures had few safeguards to ensure economic or environmental sustainability. WMAs allow communities to secure user rights to the wildlife resources on their land, and the legal framework allows communities to benefit directly from any enterprise that is based on wildlife.

Enabling Legislation

The 1998 Wildlife Policy (revised in 2007) is the statutory foundation for CBNRM in Tanzania. The Government of Tanzania enacted the first WMA Regulations in 2002 (revised in 2005), which detailed the process for establishing a WMA, the requirements for the management of wildlife and a basic framework for sharing benefits among stakeholders. This was replaced by the 2012 WMA Regulations.

The government also enacted several WMA-enabling statutes, including the 2004 Environmental Management Act—a comprehensive legal framework for national environmental management, which became operational in 2005. The government reaffirmed its WMA policies and regulations in the Wildlife Conservation Act of 2009. Other laws governing WMA activities include the 2008 Wildlife Conservation (Non-Consumptive Wildlife Utilization) Regulations and the 2010 Wildlife Conservation (Tourist Hunting) Regulations.

WMA Objectives The main objectives of the WMA process are to:

• increase the participation of local communities in the management of wildlife resources;

• enable local communities to derive benefits from wildlife resources; and

• enhance the conservation of wildlife resources.


Creation of a WMATo form a WMA, an interested village (or group of villages) must follow a 12-step process. Villages must agree to set aside part of their land for wildlife (the WMA land itself) and elect village members to represent them through a community organization responsible for future WMA management. Through these steps, land use plans are developed, bylaws and regulations put in place, and a Resource Zone Management Plan or General Management Plan written that together form the basic framework for the WMA. The Director of the Wildlife Division is responsible for ultimate authorization and designation of a WMA. This 12-step process is simplified in Figure 1 to show the essential components of WMA establishment.

In 2003, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), with support from USAID and GTZ, produced a user-friendly reference manual titled Guidelines for the Designation and Management of WMAs. The manual provides a systematic guide on how to deal with issues pertaining to identification, establishment, initiation and management of WMAs.

The establishment process requires significant financial resources and technical capacities that are not readily available in the villages. Consequently, from its inception in 2003 to date, donors have been providing substantial funding for WMAs. USAID, for example, has awarded grants totaling approximately US$27 million to aid WMAs in a variety of ways, from supporting establishment of WMAs to building WMA infrastructure while generating income for community members via temporary employment. Much of the funding, channeled through the Wildlife Division and various facilitating NGOs such as Africare, African Wildlife Foundation (AWF), Frankfurt Zoological Society (FZS), Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and WWF, is used to support outreach, project development and capacity building in the communities.

WMAs TodayThe WMA approach began in 2003 with 16 pilot WMAs. Four of these pilot WMAs became the first formally registered WMAs in 2006. As of the end of 2012, 17 WMAs have been gazetted, with 21 more moving toward formal registration (Table 1). From 2006 to 2012, the area under WMA management nationwide grew from about 6,700 km2 to about 27,430km2 (>3% of the country’s land area). There are currently 148 villages with a population of more than 440,000 people participating in WMAs.

Institutional StructuresLocal communities form the foundation of any WMA. However, the WMA itself is managed through a range of institutions beginning at the village level and feeding up through district and national levels. WMA administration at the village level involves the Authorized Association (AA), Village Council and Village Assembly. The AA, monitored by the Village Council, is the key organization responsible for policy and strategic matters relating to WMA management, including acquisition

t

Community Organization • Village Assembly agrees to form a WMA based on Village Council recommendations on what land to donate.

• Villages form a repre-sentative community-based organization (CBO); undertake to make a constitution and bylaws, and register it with the Ministry of Home Affairs.

• The CBO prepares a strategic plan for the proposed WMA.

Overview of Wildlife Management Areas

FIGURE 1. Steps to WMA Establishment

Adapted from WMA Regulations (2012) and Sulle et al (2011)

Land Use Planning • Villages prepare land use plans, including the future WMA, which must be surveyed, mapped and registered.

• Villages prepare bylaws to support the land use plans, which are then subjected to Environmen- tal Impact Assessments.

• The CBO prepares an interim five-year Resource Zone Management Plan or a 10-year (or longer) General Management Plan that zones resource use in the WMA.

t

Authorized Association and WMA Formation • The CBO applies to the Wildlife Director (WD) for Authorized Association (AA) status and is gazetted.

• The AA applies to the WD for user rights to the wildlife inside the WMA and applies for a hunting block, if desired.

• AA enters investment agreements.


TABLE 1. Registered WMAs of Tanzania

YearStarted

WMAName

Ngarambe-Tapika 2003 2006 Rufiji GTZiii, WWF 2 731 2,514

Mbarang’andu 2003 2006 Namtumbo GTZ, WCSTiv, 7 2,318 75,170 JBGv, WWF

Uyumbu 2003 2006 Urambo Africare, WWF 4 870 17,075

Burunge 2003 2006 Babati AWF 10 280 19,989

Ipole 2003 2006 Sikonge Africare, WWF 4 2,540 8,884

Wami- Mbiki 2003 2007 Mvomero, Danish 24 4,000 65,935 Bagamoyo and Hunters Assn, Morogor Rural WWF

Enduimet 2003 2007 Longido AWF 9 1,282 47,103

Idodi- Pawaga 2003 2007 Iringa WWF 21 773 56,724 Rural

Ikona 2003 2007 Serengeti FZS 5 242 21,067

Tunduru 2003 2007 Tunduru GTZ, JBG/ 9 1,391 8,941 WCST, WWF

Liwale 2003 2009 Liwale WWF 9 3,442 15,688

Makao 2003 2009 Meatu FZS 7 769 2,928

Makame 2003 2009 Kiteto AWF 4 3,719 10,664

Ukutu 2008 2010 Morogoro Rural GTZ, WWF 21 640 58,020

Chingoli 2008 2012 Tunduru GTZ, JBG/ 4 938 No Data WCST, WWF

Kimbanda 2008 2012 Namtumbo JBG/WCS 5 2,150 22,185 WWF

Kisungule 2008 2012 Namtumbo JBG/WCS 3 1,345 11,813 WWF

TOTALS 17 WMAs 148 27,430 444,700

YearGazetted

District NGOFacilitator i

Villages Area(km2)ii

Population(2002)

i NGOs in bold are former facilitators. ii Land area as discussed at stakeholders’ workshop in Bagamoyo, October 2013iii Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (German Organization for Technical Cooperation)iv Wildlife Conservation Society of Tanzaniav Gauff Engineering


Overview of Wildlife Management Areas

of user rights, development of benefit-sharing mechanisms, budgeting and recordkeeping, communication of policies, and private sector engagement. At the district level, the District Council and the District Natural Resources Advisory Board (DNRAB) are the responsible agents. The District Council is a local government organization mandated to provide key administrative support to the AAs, including assistance in establishing WMAs, guidance on village land use plans and bylaws, assistance in negotiating private sector contracts, and issuance of residence hunting licenses to the AAs. The DNRAB acts as an arbitrating body for conflict resolution and provides critical legal and technical advice to the AAs in WMA management and contract negotiations. WMAs are comanaged by the Wildlife Division at the national level through the WMA Support Unit. Other actors at the national level are the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the Authorized Association Consortium (AAC). The AAC is the apex body for the AAs, serving as a platform for the AA members to articulate their views and concerns and to undertake collective planning. See Figure 2 for the institutional structure—solid lines signify direct reporting and broken lines indicate consultation.

WMA IN FOCUS: Enduimet

Enduimet WMA is located in the West Kilimanjaro Basin of Longido District. It shares a border with Kilimanjaro National Park to the southeast, Ngasuri Open Area to the west and the Kenyan border to the north. Enduimet was established in 2003 with land allocated by nine villages. Today Enduimet consists of 1,282 km2.

Enduimet is an important WMA with significant potential to generate revenue from tourism activities for the development of the local villages. A significant amount of research on elephant and lion dynamics in Tanzania has been conducted within Enduimet, and it is the only WMA with a permanent research camp and a long-term monitoring program. Enduimet has a very unique and extensive plains ecosystem that is home to an abundance of wildlife and is the only WMA that protects a transboundary corridor between Kilimanjaro and Amboseli National Parks.

Purpose: To conserve Enduimet WMA as a part of the Kilimanjaro-Amboseli Ecosystem to preserve biodiversity, encourage tourism, and build the economy of Enduimet WMA and adjacent areas.


FIGURE 2. WMA Institutional Structure (Adapted from 2012 WMA Regulations)

Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism Oversees tourism development, national parks development, game reserves and game controlled areas, tourism attractions development, forests, and antiquities and cultures.

Village Assembly Consists of all villagers. Approves all WMA bylaws and elects representatives to Village Council and AA. Also approves revenue allocations proposed by the Village Council, typically for social service programs, land use determination, and land management issues.

District Natural Resources Advisory Board Includes the District Commissioner and the executive director, district officers, and three AA representatives. Provides legal and technical advice to the AA, reviews proposed hunting quotas from AA, and advises on investments in the WMA.

Ngorongoro Conservation Area AuthorityThe Director of the Wildlife Division consults Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority (NCAA) when facilitating WMA establishment adjacent to Ngorongoro Conservation Area.Wildlife Division

(Director) Responsible for facilitating establishment of WMAs and overseeing AA performance and WMA wildlife conservation. Makes decisions regarding setting and allocating wildlife hunting quotas.

District CouncilLocal government agency responsible for approving natural resource bylaws, preparations of land use plans, monitoring enforcement of wildlife laws and supporting the DNRAB.

Village CouncilMonitors activities of the AA, provides land for the establishment of the WMA and participates in the preparation of land use plans. Creates and enforces natural resource bylaws within their village.

Tanzania National ParksThe Director of the Wildlife Division consults with Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA) when facilitating WMA establishment adjacent to national parks.

Authorized Association ConsortiumCivil society organization created to represent the interests of AAs at the national level. Supports AAs in marketing business opportunities in sustainable utilization of wildlife and other natural resources.

Authorized AssociationCommunity organization in charge of managing the WMA according to management plans and regulations. Individuals selected by village (usually two), accountable to Village Council.

n National Level

n Regional and District Level

n Local Level

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Wildlife and other natural resources are the foundation of all Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs). Through this model, wildlife protection provides revenue and other tangible benefits such as jobs and community improvement projects. Therefore, long-term sustainability of natural resources is critically important to WMAs. This chapter highlights the impact of WMAs on wildlife conservation.

The 17 registered WMAs have added about 27,430 km2 to the total land area under protection for wildlife in Tanzania—a contribution of more than 3% of the country’s total land area (see Figure 3). Substantial additional habitat will be added when the other 21 WMAs obtain full registration—adding another 4% of Tanzania’s total land area and resulting in about 7% of the national territory being reserved for wildlife conservation within WMAs.

3. WILDLIFE AND NATURAL RESOURCECONSERVATION

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

FIGURE 3. Cumulative Area Under 17 WMAs

The land chosen by villagers for the WMAs is village land that borders existing protected areas, such as national parks, game reserves and forest reserves. The WMAs provide important buffer zones for 18 national protected areas (eight national parks, one conservation area, eight game reserves and one game controlled area) and 16 forest reserves. They also serve as critical wildlife corridors and dispersal areas for wildlife in Tanzania’s Protected Areas System—including the major well-known parks of the northern part of the country such as Serengeti, Ngorongoro, Tarangire and Lake Manyara—thereby establishing biological linkages among the nation’s protected areas.

Cum

ulat

ive

Are

a (k

m2 )


Some WMAs have also established their own village land forest reserves as further buffers between both the WMA and other protected areas, putting villages and crops farther from wildlife and improving the quality of the habitat around a WMA—thereby improving the ecological and economic value of the area.

Communities depend on critical ecosystem services provided by WMAs, which may include enhanced conservation of soil, protection of hydrologic systems and traditional crop varieties; thus, protection of forested land is clearly linked to the success of traditional agricultural systems. The forests conserved in WMAs are also important globally for their carbon sequestration services. However, the possibility of generating revenue through forest protection and/or enhancement in WMAs has not yet been thoroughly explored. The achievements made through improved WMA conservation also have important implications for stemming the loss of genetic and biological diversity. Together with national parks and game reserves, WMAs address and combat challenges associated with ecosystem fragmentation and disjointed conservation areas, enhancing connectivity via corridors between parks and reserves.

WMAs have increased the number of people working to conserve wildlife nationally. For example, as of October 2012, there were 529 village game scouts (VGS) across 17 WMAs working to protect local wildlife. The game scouts have many roles, but their primary purpose is to monitor and protect wildlife within the WMA boundary, prevent illegal encroachment into the WMAs and respond to incidents of human-wildlife conflict.

Key Challenges and Opportunities With wildlife populations expected to grow as a result of improved WMA management, increasing conflict with human settlements can be anticipated. In an environment without fences, growing wildlife and human populations may interact with growing frequency. Human-wildlife conflict can also be aggravated by habitat encroachment as villagers illegally extend their cultivation plots into restricted WMA areas. In some cases, this is a result of residents from villages outside the WMA and from other parts of the country encroaching on restricted areas for livestock grazing and crop farming. Local strategies to alleviate this conflict will be progressively important in the future, and the Authorized Association Consortium and supporting NGOs can provide assistance with best

Wildlife and Natural Resource Conservation

WMA IN FOCUS: Wildlife in Enduimet

Enduimet is home to a variety of species, including elephant, buffalo, giraffe, leopard, oryx, eland, wildebeest and hyena. Ecologically, the WMA provides connectivity between the Mkomazi, Arusha and Kilimanjaro National Parks and the Greater Tsavo Ecosystem in Kenya.

Enduimet WMA is divided into three zones: the Olkunonoi-Kitendeni Wildlife Corridor Zone, the Engasurai Tourist Hunting Zone and the Sinya Photographic Safari Zone. Enduimet comprises the northern portion of the larger Kitendeni Wildlife Corridor, which is critical to the survival of both Kilimanjaro and Amboseli National Parks. The corridor serves as an important seasonal migration route and dispersal area for wildebeest, zebras and elephants moving between the two national parks.


practices specific to each problem species. Tanzania has experts on human-wildlife conflict mitigation, but their experiences are not yet maximized to guide efforts across the country. The human-wildlife conflict problem is exacerbated by the lack of a well used compensation/restitution mechanism. There is a consolation scheme regulated by the government under the 2009 Wildlife Conservation Act, which enables the Director of the Wildlife Division to issue monetary payment as a consolation to an individual or group for loss of livestock or up to five acres of crops. Consolation may also be issued for cases of injury or death, provided the individual or group was not engaged in unlawful activity at the time of injury. In addition to the government scheme, the WMAs could also institute their own consolation/compensation scheme agreed upon by the WMA members.

Other WMA areas are experiencing increased poaching as a result of human-wildlife conflict, inadequate anti-poaching capacity of VGS, and increases in prices of ivory and rhino horns in international markets (Southeast Asia and the Middle East). Improvements in technology have exacerbated the situation by making it much easier to communicate and move goods from the fields to markets. The increased availability of military weapons, small arms and ammunition coming from war-torn neighboring countries has resulted in indiscriminate killing of flagship species such as lions and elephants. This is a disadvantage for the VGS, who are unable to match the firepower of the poachers. Most WMAs have few meaningful wildlife management patrols and inadequate skills in monitoring and anti-poaching efforts. Without sufficient revenue to properly train, compensate and equip enough VGS, WMAs will continue to operate at a disadvantage against poachers. In addition to lack of revenue, some WMAs do not prioritize game patrols and VGS salaries. Poorly compensated VGS are less motivated, which weakens Authorized Association (AA) management capacity. VGS are vital for managing resources as well as investors’ use of resources (such as hunting quotas). Without wildlife to photograph or hunt and without VGS to manage it, the WMAs are certain to fail. Consequently, AAs need to pay the VGS before addressing other operating costs.

Wildlife numbers, along with biodiversity and wildlife dynamics, should be the key indicator of success in WMAs in terms of wildlife conservation. However, with few exceptions, WMAs have not systematically gathered sufficient, standardized wildlife census data. Some attempts have been made with support from the United States Government funding to conduct annual or biannual counts for biological assessments. However, for the most part the reported population increases of key species such as elephants, lions and leopards are anecdotal. Because potential revenue is closely linked to the quality of wildlife populations and habitat in the WMA, this information is necessary for AAs to protect and improve opportunities for revenue generation.

The management of WMAs requires data collection on wildlife and other resources in order for authorities to make informed decisions. Despite a Wildlife Division initiative to provide biological data collection guidance (WMA Regulations, 2012), there has been inadequate capacity building to prepare local communities for proper data handling. Most WMAs do not have the ability to collect, store and analyze data to be used for decision making. In 2012, efforts began to establish a monitoring system that is owned and implemented by community members in all WMAs for management purposes. The WMA

“Some animals have decreased in number as compared to the 1980s, including giraffe, elands, elephants, gerenuk, lions and dik-dik. But with the establishment of the WMA we expect to restore the population of these and others.”

Elizabeth Ole Kisau Makame WMA


monitoring system is based on the principles of WMA ownership and simplicity, such that it can be used to collect and analyze data without relying on external expertise. The system will be piloted in seven WMAs: Ikona, Burunge, Makame, Enduimet, Ngarambe-Tapika, Tunduru and Mbarang’andu. The monitoring system will collect information such as species sightings, instances of human-wildlife conflict and instances of poaching in a WMA, and it is meant to complement other information from more extensive wildlife surveys. Prioritizing accurate wildlife population estimates is essential input for quota setting and is an indicator of overall WMA effectiveness. This system is vital because AAs are now expected to propose hunting quotas to the Wildlife Division Director for approval.

Monitoring is essential to community management and ownership, biodiversity conservation, and revenue generation for WMAs. The WMA monitoring system is in the pilot stage of implementation and is the first effort of its kind in Tanzania. This is an opportunity for communities to decide what/why/who/when to monitor, own their data and results, and conduct their own analyses and reporting. The data collected will be used to inform management decisions that are appropriate for local wildlife populations and also to ensure WMA long-term earning potential. This is also vital for the WMAs to set reasonable quotas for their hunting blocks, which will hopefully ensure long-term healthy game populations and maximized benefits for communities.

Prior to WMA gazetting, each village that contributes land must develop a land use plan designating a portion of the village as WMA land. A Resource Zone Management Plan is then developed for all land that comprises the WMA. The requirement to develop these plans before a WMA is registered makes Tanzania’s community-based natural resource management approach unique in eastern and southern Africa. Setting aside a clearly defined area for wildlife has the advantage of making it easier to patrol. This in turn improves the chances that the integrity of the habitat will be maintained, in contrast to the uncertain outcomes in more loosely defined mixed-use areas. Legally enforceable land use plans that set aside land for wildlife can reduce the chance of encroachment by agriculture or settlement and make it easier to combat poaching. However, according to most community members who are aware that these zones exist, the land use plans are not being utilized. Challenges can include the lack of community ownership of the plans and VGS lacking sufficient resources to monitor violations. In addition, while rigorous land use plans provide significant benefits from improved management, the process of developing the plans is costly and requires outside technical capacity that may be lacking in the communities.

There is an opportunity to expand community members’ skills beyond subsistence agriculture and into other income-generation activities such as conservation business ventures associated with the management of WMAs. While such opportunities were previously confined to central government agencies such as the Wildlife Division, Tanzania National Parks and Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority, the implementation of CBNRM has opened room for communities to engage and participate in new industries. In addition, community members have the opportunity to acquire new skills in contract negotiations and management, organizational, and financial management through the implementation of the WMA approach. Managing wildlife resources as business entities is probably the most important opportunity brought about through participation in WMAs.

Wildlife and Natural Resource Conservation


4. WMA REVENUE

Through establishing a Wildlife Management Area (WMA) and creating a land use plan, communities have a greater opportunity to benefit from their natural resources over the long term. Benefits of WMAs can be divided into communal benefits and individual benefits. Both of these sources are needed; a high-dollar communal revenue source is vital to cover operating costs of the WMA and provide enough revenue to make significant contributions to village governments, while smaller streams of revenue to individuals lead to household-level development and provide tangible benefits to families in WMAs.

Trophy huntingPhotographic tourism Potential for timber harvesting Large-scale honey production

Monetary

TABLE 2. Monetary and Nonmonetary Benefits

Communal Benefits

Individual Benefits

Nonmonetary

Ecosystem services• Intact watersheds• Functional wetlandsNatural heritage Resource/land tenure security and rights through land use planning

Democracy EmpowermentEducation

EmploymentCash distributionIncome-generating activities (crafts, honey production, etc.)

Tourism enterprises are by far the most lucrative opportunities for WMAs to generate significant revenue. Tanzania’s tourism sector currently generates about 17.5% of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) and nearly 25% of total export earnings, second only to agriculture. According to the Bank of Tanzania, the tourism sector’s contribution to the economy is expected to improve from US$1,759.5 million in 2010 to US$3,836.1 million by 2020. The percentage of Tanzanians employed by the tourism industry is expected to remain level at 6.3% of total employment, with the total number of jobs increasing from 624,000 to 776,000 by 2020.6

WMAs focus primarily on developing wildlife-based enterprises such as photographic tourism and safari hunting, because they are high-value industries that have strong markets in Tanzania and rely on wildlife conservation. The ability of a WMA to generate revenue is dependent on location, presence of wildlife species of interest, and availability of quality infrastructure such as roads and hotels. WMAs also need a good investor that promotes the interests of the WMA and contributes to biodiversity management. However, there is a great disparity in valuable wildlife endowment and infrastructure quality among the 17 WMAs.


Some WMAs are nestled right up against large parks with vast wildlife resources and established infrastructure, such as Ikona WMA in northern Tanzania adjacent to the Serengeti. Others, such as the four WMAs in southern Tanzania between the Selous Game Reserve and the Mozambique border, have lower numbers of tourists primarily because of dense forests that limit wildlife viewing opportunities, their remote location and relatively poor infrastructure.

The revenue generated through a WMA’s partnership with a private sector investor is divided between the central and local government and the WMA. Revenue retained by the WMA is shared between the AA and member villages. An AA must allocate at least 15% of its gross revenue for natural resource development (including coverage for village game scout salaries), at least 50% for disbursement to WMA member villages and at least 25% for AA management costs. The AAs can use the remaining 10% as they deem fit. Village Councils have invested the funds they receive mostly in community development projects.

There is a strong need to continue developing these high-value wildlife-dependent income sources if conservation goals are to be realized while diversifying revenue options. Strengthening the tourism sector should also include developing activities such as hiking or cultural visits, which will add value to staying at a WMA lodge. Diversification of revenue sources could include activities such as marketing of forestry products, fish, honey, etc., which complement larger revenue sources and can provide direct benefits to individual households.

Photographic TourismFour of the 17 registered WMAs have photographic or game viewing tourism investments: Burunge, Enduimet and Ikona in northern Tanzania and Idodi-Pawaga in the southwest of Tanzania. Wami-Mbiki WMA, in the Morogoro region in eastern Tanzania (near Dar es Salaam), is the fifth WMA registered for photographic tourism, but since its establishment has yet to attract investments. As discussed earlier, northern Tanzania’s world-renowned savanna landscapes and abundant wildlife provide some of the best conditions for photographic

WMA Revenue

WMA IN FOCUS: Enterprises in Enduimet

Capitalizing on its beautiful natural environment, Enduimet WMA entered into a formal agreement with Tanganyika Wilderness Camps (Kibo Tours Safaris) to establish Elarai Tented Lodge on the Sinya village land within the WMA. The lodge has earned the WMA a significant amount of revenue, which was used by Sinya village to fund numerous development projects, including school dormitories that would otherwise have been funded through taxes levied on local households. Sinya and the eight other Enduimet villages now have greater control over their local resources and are able to capture a greater part of the revenue generated from wildlife tourism. Sinya village contributes a large portion of its land to form Enduimet WMA; though they receive substantial benefits, some community members feel that they should receive a larger share of WMA revenue.

Enduimet is working to ensure that revenue and financial frameworks are in place and their goal is for WMA-wide revenue to reach US$1 million per year by 2016 through natural resource-based enterprises.


tourism. All the aforementioned WMAs, with the exception of Idodi-Pawaga, started generating tourism revenue in 2006, three years after establishment. These four WMAs also have safari hunting operations and, because of this diversification, tend to perform significantly better than the other WMAs in terms of revenue generation. Idodi-Pawaga WMA is not located in the northern savannas, but has excellent opportunities for game viewing because of its location adjacent to the Ruaha National Park. Idodi-Pawaga has been receiving revenue from photographic tourism activities since its establishment in 2003.

Photographic tourism activities are carried out in designated areas by privately owned tourism concessions in the WMAs, in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations. AAs market opportunities for privately owned game viewing tourism concessions in their WMAs and select investors through a competitive tender system. Before negotiating with potential investors, the AAs are required to obtain the advice of the District Natural Resources Advisory Board. The proposed investments are also subject to approval by the Director of Wildlife Division. These interactions with and required approvals from the government are part of the challenge of fully decentralizing authority to the communities. Game viewing investments typically involve the construction of permanent or semipermanent accommodations for tourists. Permanent structures are usually lodges that have a capacity of between 25 and 75 beds, in accordance with WMA regulations. Semipermanent accommodations are typically tents with a capacity of up to 24 beds. The concession period for game viewing ventures varies depending on the accommodation infrastructure involved. In the case of semipermanent tented camps, the initial concession period is 15 years. The concession is then renewable (if agreed upon by the investor and the WMA) for another 10 years, after which ownership of the tented lodges is transferred to the Authorized Association. Where development of a permanent lodge is involved, the concession period is 25 years, renewable for another 15 years, after which ownership is transferred to the AA.7

Various fees charged for photographic tourism activities provide revenue for WMAs. These mandated fees include concession fees, bed fees, wildlife activity fees (game viewing, walking safaris, night game drives, bird watching and boating), vehicle entry fees, aircraft landing fees, commercial photography fees, etc. There are different fees set in the law for nationals and for foreigners. For example, the wildlife activity fee for a Tanzanian national is T. shillings (Tshs) 2,000 (about US$1.10), and for a foreigner it is US$10. The concession fees are part of the tender selection process and can therefore be negotiated. AAs can also negotiate for things such as per-person bed night fees above the regulated US$15 minimum amount. The law requires the investor to pay a minimum nonrefundable deposit of US$25,000 to the Director of Wildlife on behalf of the WMA and the District Council.

The gross revenue from photographic tourism activities is shared between the government and WMAs according to guidelines set in the law.8 Investors pay the revenue directly to the government, which then distributes it: 20% to the Wildlife Division, 15% to the District Council and 65% to WMAs. Prior to the 2012 WMA Regulations, Burunge, Ikona and Idodi-Pawaga received the revenue directly from the investor, and then they paid the government its share. Only Enduimet’s revenue was paid directly to the government after establishment.


Safari Hunting Safari hunting provides a valuable source of revenue for WMAs, especially in areas that are less attractive for photographic tourism. Having an abundance of animals to hunt is a direct benefit of conserving wildlife resources. The more wild animals the WMA manages and conserves, the more revenue it can generate. These are very tangible benefits and linkages that can be easily understood at the community level and are good incentives to reduce poaching and retaliatory killings of animals such as lions.

Hunting is carried out in hunting blocks designated in the Resource Zone Management Plan or the General Management Plan of the WMA. Sixteen WMAs (the exception being Wami-Mbiki) have designated portions of their areas as hunting blocks, which are then operated by private investors. However, Chingoli, Kisungule and Kimbanda WMAs are very new and have not yet solidified partnerships to begin bringing in visitors to their hunting blocks. Thus, 13 of the 17 WMAs have so far generated income from hunting activities. For the hunting term that ended in 2012, a uniform block fee was set at US$27,000 each for the season.

Ngarambe-Tapika Lung’onya II $30,000

Mbarang’andu Mbarang’andu II $30,000

Uyumbu Uyumbu III $18,000

Burunge Burunge I $60,000

Ipole Ugunda III $18,000

Tunduru Tunduru II $30,000

Idodi-Pawaga Kinyangesi-Mkupule II $30,000

Ikona Fort Ikoma I $60,000

Enduimet Engasurai I $60,000

Liwale Nachenyo II $30,000

Hokororo II $30,000

Naimba Plain II $30,000

Makao Makao II $30,000

Makame Irkiushoibor II $30,000

Maasai (E) II $30,000

Maasai (S) II $30,000

Talamai II $30,000

Ukutu Gonabis III $18,000

TABLE 3. WMA Hunting Blocks and Categories

Block Category

Hunting Block Name

Block Fee US$

Source: Ministry of Natural Resources & Tourism, Authorized Association Consortium (2012)

WMA Revenue


For the hunting term beginning in 2013, all blocks except those in Chingoli, Kimbanda and Kisungule WMAs have now been categorized in accordance with the Wildlife Conservation Act of 2009,9 and different block fees will be charged for each category. See Table 3 for hunting blocks in WMAs and their categories. The blocks are classified into five categories (I to V) according to criteria set by the Wildlife Division. Category I has the highest wildlife values and V the lowest. Each category has an associated minimum block fee per hunting season (nine months, July to March) set by the Wildlife Division and paid by safari hunting operators for the right to hunt in that area. The block fee for Category I hunting blocks is the highest at US$60,000. Fees for Categories II to V are US$30,000, $18,000, $10,000 and $5,000, respectively. AAs can negotiate with prospective investors for block fees that are higher than the minimum regulated by the law, as is currently the case in Ikona WMA. However, while this is legally allowable, higher costs may have the effect of deterring potential investors. WMAs must be properly advised to have realistic expectations when negotiating with investors. The AA keeps the entire amount it negotiates above the set minimum and does not share it with the government. Therefore, from 2013 on, the amount of revenue that a WMA can generate from hunting activities is highly dependent on the rating category of its hunting blocks and the negotiation skills of the AA.

To date, the Wildlife Division has been responsible for allocating hunting concessions and setting quotas, although this will change starting with the 2013 hunting season when the WMAs will be responsible for allocating their hunting blocks and proposing quotas. The Division sets quotas by estimating the population of valuable species in an area from reports by game scouts, aerial surveys and data from professional hunters. The Division then sets hunting quotas for each WMA and allocates five-year hunting concessions to safari operators. One criticism of this system is that the Wildlife Division quotas are arbitrary, in some cases unsustainable, and are not supported by the wildlife population data collected. The revised 2012 WMA Regulations have changed this system and have given AAs authority to market their hunting blocks, apply for quotas from the Wildlife Division, and negotiate and enter into contract agreements with investors. By the end of 2012, eight WMAs had issued advertisements and received applications for investments in their hunting blocks.

Hunters also pay game fees for each type of animal hunted. The most valuable game fees are for elephant trophies, which are either US$15,000 or US$20,000, depending on the size of the trophy. The fees rise to US$18,000 and US$25,000 for bow-and-arrow hunting. Before the 2012 WMA Regulations, there were no clear guidelines for distribution of hunting revenue between the government and WMAs. The 2012 WMA Regulations rectified this shortcoming by setting clear guidelines, as shown in Table 4 on page 22. Under the new benefit-sharing mechanism, the government receives 25% of the block fees while WMAs get 75%, and the government (Treasury and Tanzania Wildlife Protection Fund) receives 85% of the permit fees while WMAs get 15%. An AA can charge fees higher than regulated and is entitled to keep 100% of revenue generated above the minimum that must be shared with the government.

WMAName


Key Achievements Game viewing tourism is more developed in Burunge, Enduimet and Ikona than in Idodi-Pawaga and generates considerable annual revenue. The number of tourist accommodations in these three WMAs has increased over the years to a total of 15. Burunge now has five tented lodges, Enduimet has three and Ikona has seven permanent lodges (Table 5). Total annual revenue from tourism activities in all four WMAs has steadily grown since establishment. From 2007 to 2012, the combined value of yearly revenue from game viewing tourism has risen from about US$63,000 to US$915,000, as shown in Figure 4.

Comparatively, the combined annual revenue from game viewing activities in just four WMAs has been much higher than that generated from safari hunting in 13 WMAs (including these four). The difference is more dramatic for the years 2010 to 2012, as shown in Figure 5. This is due in large part to the nature of the current revenue collection and distribution system described in other sections of this report. The annual trend in revenue from game viewing activities has been upward, even in years when revenue from hunting was going down (2009 to 2010). The increasing revenue resulted in more income going to member villages for community development. For example, in Burunge the yearly income to each of the nine member villages increased from Tshs 2,083,166 (US$1,605) in 2007 to Tshs 26,152,158 (US$16,657) in 2012.

Given the constraints described in the Safari Hunting section, the fact that these WMAs have been able to attract hunting investments into their areas and to earn some revenue, regardless of the size of the revenue, is in itself a significant achievement. From 2007 to 2012, the 13 WMAs with HBs earned yearly combined revenue totals that ranged between approximately US$61,500 and US$198,000, as shown in Figure 4.

The revenue amounts for all WMAs with investors increased dramatically from 2007 to 2008 in just the second year of operation, resulting in the highest income earned so far from hunting activities. In 2009 and 2010, revenue from hunting declined significantly, likely due to reduced tourism as a result of the global economic downturn. In 2011, there was a large increase in revenue, and although it declined again in 2012, income still exceeds numbers from the recession.

WMA Revenue

Source: WMA Regulations (2012)

Central Government

TABLE 4. Government and WMA Sharing of Gross Hunting Revenue

Block Fee 25% 0% 75%

Game Fee 40% 15% 45%

Conservation Fee 55% 0% 45%

Observers’ Fee 55% 0% 45%

Permit Fee 85% 0% 15%

Local Government

WMA


Lodge/ Tented Camp

TABLE 5. Lodging in WMAs with Photographic Tourism Ventures

Enduimet Elerai Tented Lodge 12 Operational

Shuma'ta Camp 8 Operational

Olmolog/ Noombopon Lodge 12 Under construction

Burunge Maramboi 24 Operational

Lake Burunge Tented Lodge 40 Operational

Tarangire River Camp 40 Operational

Osupuko Lodge 20 Operational

UN Lodge 12 Operational

Ikona ZARA (Ikoma) Wild Camp 38 Operational

Eco–lodge 36 Operational

Simba Lodge 42 Operational

Ikoma Bush Camp (Moivaro) 70 In progress

Thomson Safaris 23 Operational

Farufaru Lodge 21 Operational

TAWISA Under construction

Tandala Tented Camp 15 Operational

Hilltop Lodge 20 Operational

Sunset Lodge 16 Operational

Vinyago Lodge 40 Operational

Mkwawa Luxury Tented Camp 12 Under construction

TOTAL 501

Number of Beds

WMA Remarks/ Status

Idodi-Pawaga

FIGURE 4. WMA Revenue in Nominal US$

n Hunting

n Game Viewing

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

US$

Tho

usan

ds

Source: Individual WMA Records (2012)


The benefit-sharing dynamic outlined in the 2010 Tourist Hunting Regulations states that 25% of income generated from hunting activities is to be remitted to WMAs with hunting blocks as their share, and the remaining 75% reverts to the central government. However, the system of paying the 25% share to the WMAs has been slow and is adversely impacting WMA operations.

Key Challenges and OpportunitiesHistorically, the revenue-sharing arrangement between the government and WMAs for hunting concessions has not been transparent. The WMAs are not sure how much money they are owed, and they are unable to demand their portion. The government takes an unsustainably high share of hunting revenues. To date, the revenue-sharing arrangement severely limits the amount of funds available to WMAs to cover operating costs or to invest in community development initiatives. Beginning in 2013, this problem is expected to be reduced, as the authority to negotiate and enforce hunting contracts now rests with the communities through their WMAs. Revenue-sharing dynamics are discussed further in Chapter 6.

In addition, the transfer of funds from government to WMAs has not been efficient, both because of delays and because of lack of transparency of the actual amount of money the government collects from investors in the WMAs. The justification the government provides for direct collection of WMA revenue is that AAs lack the capacity for revenue collection. Solving this problem requires a change of government policy, not only to ensure transparency but also to support capacity building in AAs to enable full devolution of resource management to WMA communities.

Other concerns are noncompliance with terms of the agreements by some investors and lack of enforcement mechanisms. For example, Burunge has four tourist accommodation sites, yet the AA generates revenue from only two of the four sites. The two investors managing the other two sites are not paying revenue to the WMA. One investor is dealing with a long-standing legal case with pastoralist encroachment that has limited its ability to do business, while the other investor is simply not complying. Similarly, Enduimet WMA has ongoing

FIGURE 5. Annual Gross Revenue from Game Viewing Tourism

WMA Revenue

n Burunge

n Enduimet

n Ikona

n Idodi-Pawaga

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

US$

Tho

usan

ds


problems with tourism enterprises in Sinya Village that are resisting paying fees to the AA. These problems require government intervention to enforce national WMA regulations.

Some WMAs have found it very challenging to attract investors. For example, since establishment, Wami-Mbiki WMA has not yet been able to attract photographic tourism investors. Thus, the only sources of funds for Wami-Mbiki were donations from the Danish Hunters Association, which supported development until 2010. The donated funds supported the establishment of the WMA and operational costs, including patrols. Since 2011, WWF has been supporting the WMA with funds donated by USAID, especially on anti-poaching activities and investor recruitment. In 2012, Wami-Mbiki undertook initiatives to attract photographic tourism investors, including issuing advertisements. It received four applications, but negotiations fell through before an agreement could be reached. By the end of 2012, the WMA still had no investors.

AA leaders are generally unprepared to negotiate effectively on behalf of their communities. They are not well informed about the cost structure and profit margins of the hunting industry, and they lack the necessary skills to be able to hold their own in negotiations with the sophisticated and experienced business professionals who represent the hunting outfitters. Thus, they fail to optimize the revenue and benefits they could obtain from the concessions, as an inappropriate share of the income goes to the private sector firms. There are opportunities here to facilitate targeted training and provide support services, including enhancing marketing efforts to address the aforementioned challenge of attracting investors, in order to build management capacity within AAs.

Moreover, the AAs generally do not optimize potential revenues from hunting concessions or photographic tourism because they lack the management knowledge and skills necessary to oversee business development. For example, the AAs obtain revenue from a limited set of fees charged to tourists, usually

FIGURE 5. Annual Gross Revenue from Game Viewing Tourism


bed night fees only. They have no mechanism for collecting information from the private sector tourism firms on revenue generated from the full suite of fees charged for tourist activities, such as night game drives, sport fishing, walking safaris, etc. Visitor entry gates recently constructed in Burunge, Enduimet and Ikona (funded by USAID under the Cash for Work [CFW] Program) provide one opportunity for AAs to collect information directly. In addition, AA members should be closely monitoring lodge visitors, and WMAs should consider a clause in future contracts with private sector partners requiring that they provide verifiable information or risk penalty.

Donors, NGOs and government agencies are working to tackle these problems by providing capacity building for AA members. However, some challenges still exist. AAs have often shown too great an eagerness to move forward quickly with contract negotiations, to start the flow of money without waiting for the training that would help them maximize the benefits. Another concern is that capacity-building programs depend on long-term donor support, which is unlikely to continue. A possible alternative would be for AAs to engage professionals on a commission basis to represent their interests and manage the investor recruitment process.

There are also ongoing conflicts among member villages in Burunge, Idodi-Pawaga, Ukutu and Enduimet. The problems are the same in all WMAs and arise from the fact that some of the villages that used to earn sizable revenues from direct contracts with investors before they were part of a WMA have seen those revenues significantly reduced because the funds are now shared equally among several villages. For example, Minjingu Village in Burunge would like to break away from the WMA and has therefore stopped accepting tourism revenue from the WMA. In Enduimet, two villages (Sinya and Elerai) that also had direct contracts with investors receive considerably less revenue than they used to before they joined the WMA. Further, they are not happy with the fact that the

WMA Revenue


revenue is shared equally with some villages that have very little wildlife on their land. For example, in 2009 Sinya earned about US$2,000, which was significantly lower than its annual revenue of about US$23,100 earned before establishment of the WMA.10

There have been other conflicts in some WMAs over the equal sharing of the 50% that goes to member villages. Villages that contribute more land are not happy to see that villages that contribute less or no land receive the same amount of revenue. For example, Idodi-Pawaga WMA consists of 21 villages, but 13 of the villages have not contributed land to the WMA. Initially, when they came together to establish the WMA, the villagers agreed to include the villages that were not contributing land on the grounds that if they were left out then they would have no incentives not to poach or encroach into the WMA. The conflict arose later, when the WMA started generating revenue. In 2012, the 21 villages met and resolved to split their share of WMA revenue so that the eight villages that contributed land receive about 70% to share equally among themselves, and villages with no land get 30%. The role of villages not contributing land is significant in maintaining the ecological integrity of the entire ecosystem, and therefore the need for sharing the benefits accruing from utilization of natural resources in the WMA cannot be overemphasized. However, such villages have to participate in resource protection through contribution to anti-poaching patrols.

Safari hunting will continue to supply a large proportion of WMA revenue in the future, though WMAs face a number of challenges to maximizing benefits from these enterprises. Many of the hunting blocks have too few valuable trophy animals remaining and poor-quality infrastructure. Unfortunately, these are problems that the WMAs cannot solve without support. To build this industry sustainably, there are opportunities to:• Collaborate with the hunting and photographic industries to develop joint

business ventures for sustainable utilization of wildlife• Improve wildlife resources and monitoring of WMA areas• Develop sustainable and appropriate utilization levels according to limits

of acceptable use

There is inadequate wildlife monitoring by the Wildlife Division and AAs, which means that hunting quotas may be inappropriate for the long-term viability of trophy hunting. This problem is partly due to inadequate human and financial resources in the Wildlife Division to carry out the work. There are also some nontransparent agreements, which means that hunting offtakes are not well regulated and benefits are not properly shared with communities.

Although there are substantial emerging opportunities for generating financial benefits through hunting and photographic tourism industries in the WMAs, there are still problems stemming from inadequate capacity of local communities to effectively market WMAs and appropriately make available prime sites for private sector engagement at market prices. The challenges highlighted here can be resolved through committed interventions involving government, private sector, development partners and the WMAs themselves. These challenges are inevitable considering that the WMA approach is fairly new in Tanzania and most of the initial efforts were directed at the establishment process and raising the awareness of the policy itself. More work lies ahead and will become critical in the years to come as WMAs become increasingly self-reliant and more capable of generating and managing revenue.

“Generally, the WMA concept has been positively accepted by the communities, and there are impressive results. WMAs are generating income, and the impacts can be seen in improved roofs on houses from thatch grasses to corrugated iron sheets.”

Lazaro OleVice Chairperson Makame WMA

“If we did not participate in the WMA, where do you think all these benefits could have come from, no matter how little or big?”

Jonisia Pinda, Chairperson Kitisi Village Idodi-Pawaga WMA


The 17 registered Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) involve 148 villages with over 440,000 people that benefit from the sustainable utilization of natural resources in the areas they have reserved for wildlife protection. Revenue generated through WMAs from hunting and game viewing enterprises contributes to community development. The nature and extent of community benefits differ among the WMAs depending on the amount of revenue generated and the choices made by Village Councils. To date, no WMAs have distributed cash dividends to individual households. Instead, the benefits have taken the form of community development projects, community support initiatives and social welfare support.

Examples of community projects financed by WMA revenue include the construction of 16 classrooms, nine teacher houses and eight medical dispensaries across all WMAs. Dams, wells and mills for grinding grain have also been built with WMA revenue. These projects can provide multiple benefits. A dam can provide water for livestock or water for wildlife away from areas of potential conflict with villages, reducing human-wildlife conflict. WMA funds have also been used to provide school tuition and uniforms for more than 700 primary, secondary, college and university students. For example, Enduimet has established an education fund to support students in its member villages (see In Focus sidebar on page 30).

Some villages have chosen to allocate benefits for particularly vulnerable households, providing free or subsidized foods in times of crisis. Burunge WMA agreed to support health insurance for village members to improve access to medical services. Figure 6 summarizes some of the community projects supported by WMAs for the benefit of their member villages. WMAs have also enhanced village government and built local capacity, providing training for those involved

5. COMMUNITY BENEFITS

FIGURE 6. Community Development Projects Supported by WMAs

n Village Warehouse

n Seed Oil Processing Mill

n Generator (Electricity)

n Carpentry Workshop

n WMA Scholarship Programs (458 individual scholarships)

n Dispensary

n Housing for Educators and Medical Staff

n Water Infrastructure

n School Infrastructure

1 1 1

24

8

13

37

18

“The goals for the WMA are to ensure conservation of natural resources especially wildlife; and enhance sustainable utilization of wildlife while aiming at reducing poverty for the communities living adjacent to core protected areas.”

Said Rashid Masudi AA Chairperson, Tunduru WMA


in WMA operation, and supporting construction of 31 village government offices and eight Authorized Association (AA) offices.

Although up to this point employment numbers have been low, employment opportunities are one of the most tangible benefits of a WMA. Local residents can be employed in such positions as game scouts, staff at lodges, or as trackers, scouts or porters for hunting operations. These employment options are particularly valuable, as traditional opportunities for paid work are scarce in many of the areas where WMAs are located. In addition, increased tourism related to the WMAs has enabled the establishment of small-scale economic activities such as curio shops and women’s weaving groups.

WMAs have also provided seed capital for a limited number of micro-lending programs. These allow families to develop small-scale enterprises linked to game viewing tourism or safari hunting. Facilitating NGOs working in tandem with WMAs has also helped villagers establish other income-generating ventures, such as beekeeping or carpentry workshops, as important alternative livelihoods in several WMAs across Tanzania.

Another benefit that communities have gained from WMAs is the authority to manage their natural resources. The shift in power from government to the communities, although shifting slowly, is a significant benefit. The communities

Community Benefits

WMA IN FOCUS: Communal Benefits in Enduimet

WMAs choose to spend their revenue in a variety of different ways that reflect the needs and values of the particular WMA. The charts below depict the sources of revenue in Enduimet in 2012 and how the community chose to allocate that revenue.

Enduimet Revenue in 2012

Enduimet Expenditure in 2012

n Photographic Tourism

n Hunting Tourism

n Other (fines and concession application fees)

n Village Revenue Share

n Office Management

n Conservation

n Village Education Fund

80%

14%

6%

36%

18%

13%

33%


have been empowered through ownership of their natural resources, increasing their independence and self-reliance.

Some WMAs have succeeded in integrating wildlife conservation and pastoralist livestock grazing within the WMA. During the WMA planning process, deliberate efforts were made to include grazing zones within the zoning scheme of the General Management Plan. This allows communities to graze livestock in the WMA following their traditional pastoralist practices. The integration of livestock and wildlife provides an important motivation for traditional pastoral communities to accept the WMA establishment within their villages.

In addition to more tangible benefits detailed above, communities receive other indirect benefits from WMAs, including maintaining critical ecosystem services on which all communities depend, such as food, water, timber and fiber; regulatory services (climate, floods, disease, waste and water quality); cultural services (recreational, aesthetic and spiritual benefits); and supporting services (soil formation, photosynthesis and nutrient cycling).

Cash for Work (CFW) Infrastructure Program in WMAsAnother benefit to communities is that WMAs attract donor funding, which is invested in projects that directly assist communities. For example, in addition to capacity building, communities also benefited from the USAID-funded CFW infrastructure development program in the WMAs of Burunge, Enduimet, Ikona, Ipole and Idodi-Pawaga (see Figure 7). These WMAs were selected based on the analysis of the extent the global economic crisis that started in 2009 had affected tourism business and reduced incomes to local communities.

USAID invested approximately US$10 million in the CFW infrastructure development program that began in 2010 and ends in early 2014. The objective of the CFW program was to provide livelihood support to some WMA communities through payments for labor in order to cushion them from the negative impact of the global economic crisis and at the same time improve WMA infrastructure.

FIGURE 7. CFW Infrastructure Projects in WMAs*

* Completed or Expected to be Completed by February 2014

n WMA Boundary Marking

n Game Viewing Track

n Honey Collection Center

n Provision of Water Supply and Borehole Drilling

n Visitor and Natural Resources Centers, Observation Posts

n Village Game Scout Posts

n Road Works Projects (total of 94 km improved)

n Entry Gates

15

1 11

2

6

9

11

“We have used income from the WMA to support the construction of a village office and a teacher’s house, we have paid for school fees, and we are now paying village game scouts from our own money, thus helping protect the resources that also benefit our neighbors, Tarangire National Park.”

Noah Teveli Former Speaker, Burunge WMA


Through this program, visitor centers, entry gates, village game scout ranger posts, natural resource facilities, honey collection centers and about 94 km of access roads have been built. The implementation of the CFW project provided employment opportunities and income to local people, villages and various construction companies.

By June 2012, the CFW program employed a total of 14,925 workers, of which 2,873 were women and 12,052 were men, earning a total of about Tshs 1.2 billion (US$730,000). Women earned about Tshs 197 million (US$120,000) of the total earnings. Besides employment, the program generated about Tshs 305 million (US$185,000) for various service providers.

Key Challenges and OpportunitiesA major challenge facing WMAs is that most villagers have not yet directly experienced benefits from WMAs, as most WMAs generate low revenue. The slow pace of the WMA process and the small scale of benefits, which contrast with the high expectations, have led to considerable discontent among many villagers. For example, in Mbarang’andu many local farmers are extending their agricultural fields into the WMA area with the justification that they are not benefiting from the WMA. Similarly, in Idodi-Pawaga villagers are encroaching on WMA land with livestock grazing.

In response, WMAs need to capitalize on opportunities to diversify their programs in order to enhance the amount of revenues they generate and thus be able to spread the benefits more broadly. To do so, WMAs could consider establishing businesses based on timber products, services and other types of tourism such as cultural tourism. Beekeeping in Uyumbu and Ipole WMAs, for example, has been an important economic activity among the villages involved in the WMA projects. WMAs could also allow villagers to pay for the use of some resources from the WMA, such as charging a fee for fishing in the WMA and for collection of some of the forestry products (firewood). There is also a need to manage community expectations on the level of benefits that they would derive from their WMA through awareness initiatives and to better inform them of nonmonetary benefits from WMAs.


6. CHALLENGES AND VISION FOR THE FUTURE

Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) are an opportunity for community wildlife management and expanding local communities’ opportunities in meaningful socioeconomic development initiatives that never existed before in Tanzania. As alluded to elsewhere in this report, the history of wildlife conservation was based on central government command and control through the protectionist approach, and wildlife resources were alienated from local cultures. No amount of policing with the most sophisticated weapons can guarantee long-term safety of wildlife resources in the face of ever-increasing human population growth with its associated increased demands for natural resources. In addition, improved provision of health, water and sanitation services to rural communities as well as improvements in nutrition and human settlements have resulted in increased human populations. The paradigm shift in wildlife or natural resources management to include participation of local communities who live side by side with wildlife and depend almost entirely on these resources for their sustenance was not only timely but necessary.

Many of the challenges facing WMAs are similar to those encountered in other community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) programs on the African continent and elsewhere. The most common problems relate to poor and nontransparent governance practices, weak institutional and management arrangements, low revenue generation in many WMAs, and inadequate devolution of rights and responsibilities from government to WMAs.

One of the most important factors to achieving effective community conservation effort is that communities need to have a sense of ownership of institutions at the grassroots level and a sense of control and involvement at the local level. Incomplete devolution of power from the central level in Tanzania is one of the main challenges the WMA approach faces—namely, that the Wildlife Division retains extensive control over the WMA process and implementation. For example, the Wildlife Division still holds power of approval for WMAs in the engagement of investors for their concessions. Although the Authorized Associations (AAs) have the authority to select the investors, they still have to submit their choice to the Director of Wildlife Division for final approval. The intention of this organizational structure was to give the decision-making power to the Wildlife Division until such a time that the WMAs had the capacity to make managerial decisions on their own. As WMAs begin to acquire the knowledge, skills and information required to make these decisions, the Wildlife Division is expected to assume a background support role. Progress has been made in 2013, with WMAs assuming control of negotiating and enforcing hunting contracts.

Local communities and community-based institutions such as AAs will feel empowered with a greater sense of ownership given clear financial mechanisms around benefit sharing with investors and the Government of Tanzania. Currently, revenue generated by tourism concessions in WMAs is paid directly


by the investor to the government, which then distributes a portion to the WMAs. This process is frequently not transparent, with very complicated rules for revenue distribution to different institutions such as central government, District Councils, the Wildlife Division and WMAs. This makes it difficult for the WMA to monitor how much income it is generating, hold investors accountable and overcome delays in fund disbursement from the government, which can impact WMA management due to inconsistent cash flow. While the WMAs do need increased capacity in managing finances, the current system reduces the feeling of community empowerment and ownership and can decrease the incentives for conservation and management. To improve this, the Government of Tanzania should consider allowing AAs to receive payments directly from the investor, alongside training programs and established checks and balances. This would improve the AAs’ capacity to manage the revenue they receive, maintain accountability and improve financial transparency. Furthermore, while WMAs receive the largest proportion of the funds received from their investors (65%), this proportion might need to be reviewed in the future given the increasing management responsibility the AA has, as opposed to that of the Wildlife Division or District Councils, and the related high costs of proper management. In addition, an evaluation of village level benefit sharing mechanisms between the Village Councils and Village Assemblies will improve accountability, ownership and local empowerment.

Unclear institutional relationships between AAs and national and local government bodies create confusion over roles, responsibilities and operational inefficiencies. There are several steps and processes that villagers need to accomplish in order to have a WMA established. The nature of the process sometimes leads to costly delays and increased WMA reliance on donors. To solve this, regulations should be adjusted to provide clarity about roles and responsibilities of the various actors such as the WMA’s Board of Trustees and the District Natural Resources Advisory Boards (DNRABs), District Councils, and private sector partners, which will help address weak relationships and insufficient understanding of roles and responsibilities in relation to WMA development. For example, there are tendencies by DNRAB to micromanage and control AAs. In Idodi-Pawaga, the District Council unilaterally ordered dissolution of the AA and called for new elections. These actions suggest some DNRABs and some Boards of Trustees have a poor understanding of their roles and responsibilities. These issues indicate that there is often a serious disconnect between the legal instruments guiding WMA implementation and their application. To this end, WMA-facilitating NGOs have undertaken initiatives to build awareness among DNRAB members of their functions as provided in the law, though more still needs to be done.

Extensive technical requirements for establishing WMAs are expensive and make it necessary to rely on donor support (often for many years) and technical consultants before the AA can generate any revenue. These procedures need to be evaluated and simplified wherever possible, and it should be made possible for the WMAs to start generating income earlier in the process. The overreliance on donors also creates challenges for the long-term sustainability of the WMA approach. NGOs currently facilitate all 17 WMAs by providing funding, capacity building and technical support. The same organizations that provided support during WMA establishment are also supporting implementation. External support

Challenges and Vision for the Future


for capacity building is very important for CBNRM over the long term. However, programs can become dependent on external funds and foreign expertise and fail to build up their own capacities to generate funds and expertise from internal sources. This can result in the WMA becoming dysfunctional once NGO support is withdrawn. It is critical to the future outcomes of Tanzania’s WMA program to develop adequate local capacity before the ending of donor funds and NGO facilitation.

Tanzania needs to address a lack of policy integration of multiple natural resource sectors with WMA regulations. Currently, an AA can manage WMA land only for wildlife management, without making use of other forms of income from carbon sequestration or REDD+, sustainable forest management, or other revenue-generating activities such as beekeeping. Integration of forestry and other natural resource sectors with wildlife management would make it easier for AAs to holistically manage their resources and make use of more income options.

Weak AA management capacity means that AAs do not have sufficient training, nor the adequate skills and knowledge necessary for effective business, contract and financial management. AA leaders are responsible for the work that is at the core of WMA performance, and yet they lack some of the essential skills needed to effectively manage WMAs. Most of the WMAs have not employed professional staff to manage various sections of their businesses, with the exception of Enduimet WMA, which employs a university-qualified accountant. Where sufficient income exists without donor support, the WMAs should consider employing professionals to manage their business issues in a similar manner to Enduimet. A related challenge is that the AA leaders do not have the knowledge and confidence to manage contracts and investors—which leads to loss of revenue because of improper oversight by the AA. Adequate training must be provided to build capacity for AAs to manage their own business affairs or have the ability to selectively contract individuals or companies that will best manage certain aspects for them, as in the case of Enduimet.

AA leaders and Village Councils need to be more transparent and accountable in their management of WMA finances and other business operations. This lack of AA transparency and accountability has frustrated communities, some of which have publicly stated that they have no idea of the amount of revenue generated in their WMAs and what the funds were used for. Though AAs are supposed to post this information publicly, this is not often done. Even when information is posted, the money an AA gives to a member village often gets absorbed into the Village Council without the Village Assembly (all villagers) knowing what that money was used for. There is need for the government and support NGOs, with guidance and coordination from the Authorized Association Consortium (AAC), to support the development of financial management skills and systems of local checks and balances (including regular audits) that enhance transparency and accountability. This effort needs to be coordinated from both the national and site-specific levels with methods developed that can be applied to all WMAs. This also calls for carrying out continuous awareness and communications programs that enhance transparency and encourages villagers to hold AA leaders accountable for the performance of the WMA. Work on this issue should be integrated with building an increasing sense of community ownership of the WMAs at the grassroots level, and a local evaluation of the benefit sharing system between Village Councils and Assemblies and the AA where needed.

“The process for establishment of the WMA was too long, and there was no benchmark as to where to start it. Through education on WMA establishment procedures, communities have learned a lot.”

William Kvyan Administrator, Enduimet WMA


Many WMAs currently generate insufficient revenue, which results in inadequate capacity for WMAs to support their activities related to wildlife management, such as paying Village Game Scouts (VGS). This is a result of many factors, including some already mentioned, such as confusing benefit-sharing agreements with the Wildlife Division. To increase revenues, some WMAs need to diversify their revenue sources to include businesses that are based on other income-generating activities such as timber, fisheries, honey collection and cultural tourism. Where there is existing photographic tourism or safari hunting potential, AA leaders need to learn how to better market their WMAs and to improve their negotiation skills to get the most out of private enterprise partnerships. This should be supported by NGOs and the AAC. When strengthening existing income sources or developing new sources, AA leaders and partners should keep in mind growing opportunities for direct employment, training and related spillover benefits for villagers.

Gender equality is another important issue that will need to be better integrated into all WMA support. Currently, WMA leadership is male-dominated at every level, and women are underrepresented in the decision-making process and see fewer direct employment benefits from WMAs. As male leadership remains heavily engrained in the local culture, mainstreaming gender in WMA support should be a primary focus of all stakeholders.

Proper management of WMAs requires data collection on wildlife and other resources in order for authorities to make informed decisions. In order to decrease poaching and improve the anti-poaching capacity of VGS, it is necessary to implement meaningful wildlife management patrols and generate sufficient revenue to properly train, compensate and equip VGS. VGS are vital for managing resources as well as investors’ use of resources (such as hunting quotas). Without wildlife, there will be no hunting or photographic tourism and the WMAs will be without revenue.



A Vision for the Future Tanzania’s WMA approach to CBNRM has a short 10-year history, as compared to similar programs in southern Africa developed in the 1980s and 90s, such as the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) in Zimbabwe and the Communal Conservancies in Namibia. Though much progress has been made, the program is still in the learning and development phase. Growth of the WMA movement from an initial 16 pilot WMAs to 17 gazetted, with more in progress (involving about 1 million rural people), indicates the popularity of the approach across the country and the wide acceptance it has received among communities as a promising approach for conservation and community development. Despite many challenges, WMAs have the potential to enhance the livelihoods of their communities and secure valuable areas for wildlife protection. To achieve the vision of a successful WMA program in Tanzania, lessons learned to date need to inform all stakeholders, and guide the way forward. Incorporating lessons learned from CBNRM achievements in other parts of the region will be key for the WMA program.

The Government of Tanzania has demonstrated a strong commitment to creating an effective enabling environment for WMAs, as illustrated by the various laws and policies put in place to date. Devolution, however, is incomplete and some key policies and procedures still undermine the viability of WMAs from both governance and economic perspectives, the government continues its efforts to strengthen WMAs. For example, a new national WMA strategy has been drafted and is in the process of being formally adopted by the government. After adoption, the implementation of WMAs will be done from a common understanding and interpretation, leading to a harmonized approach to WMA implementation across the country. The WMA Implementation Strategy presents a five-year strategy that is designed to achieve success in WMAs through balancing wildlife conservation with sustainable community development. This will lead to a review of enabling statutory legal frameworks that are broad enough to include matters pertaining to finance and accounting, procurement, land, water, business, rural development, forestry, tourism, mining, agriculture, livestock development, and environment. This review will help to address shortcomings in policy, legal frameworks and practices. The good will and support from the government and stakeholders need to be nurtured in order to ensure beneficial outcomes for rural communities in the future.

A review of the current implementation process, in an attempt to simplify the process so it is more cost- and time-efficient, is important to enable WMAs to become self-sufficient and to ensure long-term sustainability. WMAs can take more ownership of the process and cover some basic management costs (such as employing and training VGS). Business activities related to hunting and photographic tourism, beekeeping, fishing and marketing to investors could begin earlier in the WMA creation process. Adjustments in policies and laws regulating wildlife utilization would of course have to include safeguard clauses to ensure sustainability of resource use.

Now is a critical moment in WMA development to expand and improve the revenue WMAs earn and the benefits that reach communities, keeping in mind long-term sustainability. With more public-private partnerships and stronger high-value economic activities from already established tourism industries in

“Communities around the WMA have realized that there are lots of benefits from wildlife conservation, and more visitors are coming from different institutions, including universities, so they are very happy with the WMA.”

Kundayo Ole Chairperson, Makame WMA


Tanzania, more benefits will reach the AAs and villages. Encouragingly, income from photographic tourism activities has continued to rise. With improvements in marketing, contract negotiation and enforcement, and financial management within the WMAs and local stakeholders, this trend should continue. Investment in this sector will provide good payoffs, especially as it seems the photographic tourism industry in Tanzania is mostly resilient during world economic shifts. Supporting a low volume of high-value lodges seems to be the main reason for the continued growth of the industry in Tanzania11 during one of the worst global economic crises in history. The hunting market in Tanzania is strong and likely to become an increasing source of revenue for WMAs, even though hunting revenue to WMAs has not increased significantly in the past few years. Improvements in setting appropriate quotas, monitoring of hunting concessions, increased block and other fees going to the AA, and increasing transparency overall are expected to generate more revenue.

To optimize benefits to local communities, especially in areas of high-potential forest and woodland habitats, WMAs need to have a diversified portfolio of income sources. Efforts should be devoted to working with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism and WMA facilitators to pilot WMA and village land forest reserve integration. There is potential for strong forestry benefits from programs such as REDD+, which should be able to be accessed easily through the WMA platform. Partners and stakeholders should take a lead in engaging more on cross-sectoral natural resource management, supported by national-level policy and a legal framework for providing guidance to CBNRM efforts. This will result in moving forward with integrating wildlife management with management of other natural resources and will allow WMAs to maximize the benefits they receive from safeguarding resources. In diversifying, it will be important to prioritize income sources that can provide high levels of revenue with strong markets and link the source of income directly to the protection of a natural resource.

Working groups of WMA support organizations alongside an empowered AAC are necessary to creating a favorable enabling environment, raising the revenue potential of the WMAs, and strengthening AA capacity. Made up of representatives of all WMAs, the AAC can develop into the focal point for the voice of WMAs and be the coordinator of activities and strategies needed to strengthen them. The AAC will not be able to fill this role immediately but needs to grow into this position over time, supported by both the government and NGO partners. In addition, to improve the coordination and lesson sharing between institutions supporting WMAs across Tanzania, working groups need to be established or strengthened to address technical issues related to WMA sustainability and capacity building.

With continued strategic support, AA leaders and managers will be able to improve their management and business skills, enabling them to improve the natural resources of the WMA, negotiate for higher income in business contracts and become more effective financial managers. There is a need to holistically analyze the skills gaps within WMAs and design and develop appropriate training courses and management tools. The results of such analyses will guide the support partners (including NGO, government and AAC) to develop a strategic capacity-building program to address the identified shortfalls in the short,



medium and long terms. This should not be a one-time initiative but a continuous process of developing coordinated tools and strategies applicable to multiple WMAs. Progress on this has already been made; in 2012, NGO facilitators supported AA leaders to receive training in negotiating and managing contracts and to learn from experiences of the successful Communal Conservancies of Namibia.12 It is important to promote learning from other initiatives already being implemented within Tanzania and in other CBNRM programs around the world in support of WMA capacity building.

Increased women’s participation in WMAs needs to be pursued through various approaches such as women-led income-generating projects and encouragement to participate in AA governance bodies. Women should be provided with training opportunities to enhance their skills as active members in AA governance and to be employed in the various tourism enterprises in the WMAs. As more women become actively engaged in the WMAs, they will serve as role models for others.

There is a need for establishing an information management system in which WMA stakeholders, including the AAC, AAs and the Wildlife Division, become the major beneficiaries and users. A system containing collated information that is standardized and collected across all WMAs should be open source and describe both the tools being used (such as surveys and audit forms) and relevant data being collected. The newly developed WMA Monitoring System will be a direct fit and should be implemented across all the WMAs, with data from this system fed into the larger information management system. The WMA Monitoring System should also be adapted over time to collect all data that the WMAs find useful in their decision making, both at local and national levels.

Despite the weaknesses and obstacles we have described, the future is promising for Tanzania’s WMAs, and there are many encouraging signs. The implementation of CBNRM through the WMA concept has proven to be an important new approach to conservation in Tanzania, improving benefits to communities through new and existing entrepreneurial natural resource-based opportunities.

1 Bank of Tanzania (2013). Economic Bulletin for the Quarter Ending September, 2013. Vol. XLV No. 32 Ministry of Finance (2012). Poverty and Human Development Report 2011. Research and Analysis Working Group, Ministry of Finance.3 URT (2007). Wildlife Policy, Tanzania Government Printers, Dar es Salaam.4 MNRT (1998). Wildlife Policy of Tanzania. Tanzania Government Printers, Dar es Salaam.5 URT (2007), Op. cit. (former #3)6 Mbani, Mnaku (2011). Tanzania: Tourism Share to Drop by Y-2020. Business Times, March 4, 2011.7 URT (2008). The Wildlife Conservation (Non-Consumptive Wildlife Utilization) Regulations, Tanzania Government Printers, Dar es Salaam.8 WMA Regulations (2012).9 URT (2009). Wildlife Conservation Act, Tanzania Government Printers, Dar es Salaam.10 Sulle, E, E Lektita, and F Nelson. 2011. From promise to performance? Wildlife Management Areas in Northern Tanzania. Arusha: Tanzania Natural Resource Forum, Ujamaa Community Resource Team and Maliasili Initiatives. 11 World Travel & Tourism Council (2008).12 NACSO (2010). Namibia’s Communal Conservancies: A review of progress and challenges in 2009. NACSO, Windhoek.

WMA PROFILES


Burunge JUHIBU AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION

YEAR GAZETTED 2006

ADDRESS/CONTACT Jumuiya ya Hifadhi Burunge, P.O. Box 269, Babati – Manyara

AREA 280 km2

REGION Manyara

MEMBER VILLAGES 10

POPULATION 19,989

MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS Wambugwe, Wabarbaig, Wairaqw, Wamasai

NEAREST PROTECTED AREAS AdjacenttoTarangireNationalPark and Lake Manyara National Park; near Ngorongoro ConservationArea,KilimanjaroNational Park, Arusha National Park and Amboseli National Park in Kenya

NATURAL RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE Burunge WMA provides crucial wildlife corridors linking Tarangire National Park, Lake Manyara National Park, Manyara ranch and the Ngorongoro Conservation Area to the north. The area is best known for the migrating buffalo population that moves in and out of Tarangire, while Lake Burunge provides habitat for a range of water fowl, including greaterandlesserflamingoes.

MANAGEMENT Board of Trustees of nine men, Authorized Association Council of 25 men and 11 women; Executive Committee of seven men and six women; staff of 30villagegamescouts(fivewomen)andonefemaleofficemanager

ENTERPRISES Trophy hunting (oneoperator);joint-venturetourism agreement with Tanganyika Wilderness Camps; lodging includes Maramboi Tented Camp, Lake Burunge Tented Lodge and Tarangire Osupuku Lodge

DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES Village-initiated development projects

SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS AWF, AAC, Honey Guide Foundation

REVENUE (Nominal, US$)

2006 0 0 0 0

2007 10,380 28,888 0 39,268

2008 17,539 63,401 0 80,940

2009 9,558 48,278 0 57,836

2010 3,685 149,454 0 153,139

2011 6,552 240,098 0 246,650

2012 7,429 293,652 663 301,744

Year Hunting Photographic Tourism

Total Revenue

Other

▲

N

Lake Manyara National Park

Tarangire National Park

Lake Burunge


Chingoli CHINGOLI AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION

YEAR GAZETTED 2012

ADDRESS/CONTACT Jumuiya ya Hifadhi ya Wanyamapori Chingoli, P.O. Box 6, Marumba, Tunduru

AREA 938 km2

REGION Ruvuma

MEMBER VILLAGES 4

POPULATION No data

MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS Wayao

NEAREST PROTECTED AREAS Selous Game Reserve

NATURAL RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE The area is part of the Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor. It is rich in miombo woodlands and wildlife, including elephants.

MANAGEMENT Board of Trustees of eight men; Authorized Association Council of 12 men and eight women; ExecutiveCommitteeoffivemen and three women; staff of 43 village game scouts

ENTERPRISES None at present

DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES None at present

SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS Gauff Engineering, WCST, WWF-Tanzania


2012 0 0 5,600 0


Total Revenue

Other

▲

N

Kisungule WMA

Sasawara Forest Reserve


Enduimet ENDUIMET AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION

YEAR GAZETTED 2007

ADDRESS/CONTACT Jumuiya ya Hifadhi Wanyamapori Enduimet P.O. Box 1, Olmolog – Longido

AREA 1,282 km2

REGIONKilimanjaro

MEMBER VILLAGES 9

POPULATION 47,103

MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS Wamaasai

NEAREST PROTECTED AREAS BordersKilimanjaroNationalPark; near Arusha National Park and Amboseli National Park in Kenya


2007 10,268 0 0 10,268

2008 0 23,337 0 23,337

2009 6,246 29,752 0 35,998

2010 0 51,235 0 51,235

2011 13,718 84,265 0 97,983

2012 5,810 76,086 13,100 94,996


Total Revenue

Other

▲

N

Kilimanjaro National Park

NATURAL RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE Bordering KilimanjaroNationalParkonthesoutheast, Enduimet provides an important ecological link between several key protected areas. A high diversity of wildlife species are found within its borders, including elephant, buffalo, giraffe, leopard, oryx, lesser kudu, eland, gerenuk, klipspringer, hartebeest, bushbuck, wildebeest, bushbuck, hyena, and Thomson’s and Grant’s gazelle.

MANAGEMENT Board of Trustees of seven men and two women; Authorized Association Council of 18 men and nine women; Executive Committee

offivemenandonewoman;42 village game scouts (two women);andtwoofficemanagers

ENTERPRISES Trophy hunting (one operator, Old Nyika Safaris Ltd.);joint-venturetourismagreements with The Monarch Group Limited; Lodging at Hatari Lodge/Shu’mata Camp and Elerai Tented Camp


SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS AWF, AAC, Honey Guide Foundation

KENYA

Village Land


Idodi-Pawaga MBOMIPA AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION

YEAR GAZETTED 2007

ADDRESS/CONTACT MBOMIPA Association, P.O. Box 398, Iringa

AREA 773 km2

REGION Iringa

MEMBER VILLAGES 21

POPULATION 56,724

MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS Wahehe, Wagogo, Wabena, Wakinga, Wasukuma

NEAREST PROTECTED AREAS Ruaha National Park

NATURAL RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE Bordered to the west by Ruaha National Park, the diverse landscape of Idodi-Pawaga WMA supports a wide range of wildlife and provides ideal scenery for game viewing. Key mammal species include elephant, hippo, giraffe, eland, buffalo, zebra, antelope, and greater and lesser kudu. The area boasts a high diversity of birds and the African clawless otter, while key reptiles include the Nile crocodile, monitor lizard, python, black mamba, spitting cobra and puff adder.

MANAGEMENT Board of Trustees of seven men and zero women; Authorized Association Councilof36menandfivewomen; Executive Committee of 12 men; staff of 36 village game scouts (including one woman)

ENTERPRISES Trophy hunting

DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES School tuition for orphans

SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS WCS, WWF and AAC


2007 0 34,427 34,427

2008 16,172 26,679 42,851

2009 11,603 51,383 62,986

2010 14,208 91,924 106,132

2011 4,333 0 4,333

2012 2,478 52,245 54,723


Total Revenue

▲

N

Ruaha National Park

Lunda-Mkwabi Game Controlled Area


Ikona JUHIWAIKO AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION

YEAR GAZETTED 2007

ADDRESS/CONTACT CBO Ikona, P.O. Box 176, Mugumu Serengeti

AREA 242 km2

REGION Mara

MEMBER VILLAGES 5

POPULATION 21,067

MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS Waikoma, Wakurya, Wanata, Wajaluo,Wazanaki

NEAREST PROTECTED AREAS Bordered by Serengeti National Park, Ikorongo-Grumeti Game Reserves and Sasakwa Concession Area.

NATURAL RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE Ikona WMA harbors many key large wildlife species, including elephant, lion, buffalo, giraffe, hartebeest, waterbuck, wildebeest, warthog, leopard, topi, roan antelope, lesser and greater kudu, klipspringer, zebra, hippopotamus, black and white colobus monkey, and crocodile.

MANAGEMENT Board of Trustees of six men; Authorized Association Council of 17 men and eight women; Executive Committee of eight men and four women; staff of 22 village game scouts (two women); officesupportstaffoftwomenand two women

ENTERPRISES Game viewing, photography, lodging (seven lodging investors and one safari investor)


SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS FZS and AAC


2007 13,110 0 13,110

2008 42,992 85,798 128,790

2009 26,274 172,381 198,655

2010 31,422 190,065 221,487

2011 61,722 416,005 477,727

2012 10,677 492,922 503,599


Total Revenue

▲

N

Serengeti National Park

Grumeti Game Reserve

Ikorongo Game Reserve

Village Land


Ipole JUHIWAI AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION

YEAR GAZETTED 2006

ADDRESS/CONTACT Jumuiya ya Hifadhi Wanyamapori ya Ipole, P.O. Box 171, Sikonge – Tabora

AREA 2,540 km2

REGION Tabora

MEMBER VILLAGES 4

POPULATION 8,884

MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS Wanyamwezi, Wasukuma, Waha,Wanyaturu,Wafipa

NEAREST PROTECTED AREAS Ugalla River Game Reserve; Ugunda, Ngongwa, Nyonga, Mpembapazi and Hulu Hill Forest Reserves .

NATURAL RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE Surrounded by a number of important game and forest reserves, Ipole WMA is dominated by open woodland and hosts a rich diversity of wildlife, including sable and roan antelopes, kudu, hartebeest, lion, giraffe, impala, elephant, leopard, warthog, monkey, aardvark, baboon, hyena, buffalo, waterbuck, hydrax, and porcupine.

MANAGEMENT Board of Trustees of three men and two women; Authorized Association Council of 21 men and four women; Executive Committee offivemenandtwowomen;staff of 40 village game scouts (six women) and one female officemanager

ENTERPRISES Trophy hunting (one investor)


SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS Africare, WWF and AAC


2006 0 0 0

2007 12,336 0 12,336

2008 17,821 0 17,821

2009 1,804 0 1,804

2010 2,834 0 2,834

2011 23,409 0 23,409

2012 13,382 0 13,382


Total Revenue

▲

N

Nyonga Forest Reserve

Ugalla River Forest Reserve

Mpembapazi Forest Reserve

Itulu Hill Forest Reserve

Ugunda Forest Reserve

Ugalla River Game Reserve


Kimbanda KIMBANDA AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION

YEAR GAZETTED 2012

ADDRESS/CONTACT Jumuiya ya Wanyamapori Kimbanda, P.O. Box 24, Namtumbo

AREA 2,150 km2

REGION Ruvuma

MEMBER VILLAGES 5

POPULATION 22,185

MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS Wayao, Wangoni


NATURAL RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE The area is part of the Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor. It is rich in miombo woodlands and wildlife, including elephants.

MANAGEMENT Board of Trustees of six men and zero women; Authorized Association Council of 15 men and 10 women; Executive Committee of seven men and one woman; staff of 60 village game scouts


DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES Villagegovernmentoffices, VGSandAAoffices*

SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS Gauff Engineering, WCST, WWF and ACC


2012 0 0 0


Total Revenue

* Financed through Selous-NiassaWildlifeCorridorProject

▲

N

Tunduru WMA

Mbarang’andu WMA

Kisungule WMAVillage

Land

Village Land


Kisungule KISUNGULE AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION

YEAR GAZETTED 2012

ADDRESS/CONTACT Jumuiya ya Hifadhi ya Jamii Kisungule, P.O. Box 24, Namtumbo

AREA 1,345 km2

REGION Ruvuma

MEMBER VILLAGES 3

POPULATION 11,813

MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS Wayao, Wangoni


NATURAL RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE The area is part of the Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor. It is rich in miombo woodlands and wildlife (e.g., elephants).

MANAGEMENT Board of Trustees of six men and zero women; Authorized Association Council of 12 men and six women; Executive Committee of four men and four women; staff of 36 village game scouts


DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES Villagegovernmentoffices, VGSandAAoffices*

SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS Gauff Engineering, WCST, WWF and AAC


2012 0 0 0


Total Revenue


▲

N

Sasawara Forest Reserve

Kimbanda WMA

Chingoli WMA

Village Land

Village Land


Liwale MAGINGO AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION

YEAR GAZETTED 2009

ADDRESS/CONTACT Jumuiya ya Magingo, P.O. Box 86, Liwale

AREA 3,442 km2

REGION Lindi

MEMBER VILLAGES 8

POPULATION 15,688

MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS Wangindo



2009 15,732 0 15,732

2010 15,907 0 15,907

2011 8,416 0 8,416

2012 4,814 0 4,814


Total Revenue

NATURAL RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE Located in the Lindi region on the southeastern edge of Selous Game Reserve, Liwale WMA is composed of open woodland. It harbors a range of birds, reptiles and mammals, including elephant, lion, leopard, zebra, buffalo, eland, hartebeest, wildebeest, pangolin, wild dog and greater kudu.

MANAGEMENT Board of Trusteesoffivemenandtwowomen; Authorized Association Council of 25 men and seven women; Executive Committee of 12 men and two women; staff of 14 village game scouts (including one woman)

▲

N

Nyera Kiperere Forest Reserve

Selous Game Reserve

ENTERPRISES Hunting

DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES Carpentry workshop, crop storage

SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS WWF and AAC


Makame INDEMA AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION

YEAR GAZETTED 2009

ADDRESS/CONTACT Jumuiya ya Hifadhi Wanyamapori ya Makame, P.O. Box 153, Kiteto – Manyara

AREA 3,719 km2

REGION Manyara

MEMBER VILLAGES 5

POPULATION 10,664

MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS Wamaasai

NEAREST PROTECTED AREAS Mkungunero Game Reserve

NATURAL RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE Tanzania’s largest WMA, Makame WMA is composed primarily of open woodlands and mixed shrubland. It contains an important assemblage of wildlife, including elephant, lion, buffalo, giraffe, leopard, oryx, lesser kudu, eland, gerenuk, klipspringer, hartebeest, bushbuck, zebra, waterbuck, wildebeest, reedbuck, hyena, Thomson’s and Grant’s gazelle, warthog, impala, dik-dik, and wild pig.

MANAGEMENT Board of Trustees of nine men and one woman; Authorized Association Council of 37 men and 13 women; Executive Committee of nine men and three women; staff of 18 village game scouts andtwoofficesupportstaff

ENTERPRISES Hunting

DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES Unreported

SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS AWF and AAC


2009 0 0 0

2010 0 0 0

2011 0 0 0

2012 0 0 0


Total Revenue

▲

N

Mkungunero GameReserve Village

Land

Village Land

Village Land

Village Land


Makao JUHIWAPOMA AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION

YEAR GAZETTED 2009

ADDRESS/CONTACT Jumuiya ya Hifadhi Wanyamapori ya Makao, P.O. Box 44, Meatu, Shinyanga

AREA 769 km2

REGION Shinyanga

MEMBER VILLAGES 7

POPULATION 2,928

MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS Wasukuma, Watatoga

NEAREST PROTECTED AREAS Serengeti National Park, Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Maswa Game Reserve

NATURAL RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE Located in north-central Tanzania, Makao WMA serves as an important ecological linkage between Maswa Game Reserve and Serengeti National Park.

MANAGEMENT Board of Trustees of two men and one woman; Authorized Association Council of 12 men and two women; Executive Committee of two men and one woman; staff of 14 village game scouts (no females)

ENTERPRISES Hunting


SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS FZS and AAC


2009 0 0 0

2010 0 0 0

2011 15,729 0 15,729

2012 17,994 0 17,994


Total Revenue

▲

N

Serengeti National ParkMaswa

Game Reserve


Mbarang’andu MBARANG’ANDU AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION

YEAR GAZETTED 2006

ADDRESS/CONTACT Jumuiya ya Maliasili Mbarang'andu, P.O. Box 15, Songeaa

AREA 2318 km2

REGION Ruvuma

MEMBER VILLAGES 7

POPULATION 75,170

MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS Wandendeule, Wayao, Wamakua, Wanindi

NEAREST PROTECTED AREAS Selous Game Reserve, Northern Undendeule and Liulinde Forest Reserves

NATURAL RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE Bordered by Selous Game Reserve to the north and Mozambique to the south in southern Tanzania, Mbarang’andu harbors many notable wildlife species, including elephant, hippopotamus, leopard, buffalo, Iion, hyena, zebra, bush pig, warthog, hartebeest, wildebeest, sable antelope, reedbuck, wild dog, aardvark, silver-backed jackal,python,andavarietyof small mammals, reptiles, amphibians and birds.

MANAGEMENT Board of Trusteesoffivemenandonewoman; Authorized Association Council of 21 men and 14 women; Executive Committee of seven men and three women; staff of 21 village game scouts andtwoofficesupportstaff

ENTERPRISES Hunting (one Investor)

DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES VGS Posts*, medical dispensaries, school tuition, classrooms and desks

SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS Gauff Engineering, WCST, ACC and WWF


2006 0 0 0

2007 0 0 0

2008 13,221 0 13,221

2009 22,679 0 22,679

2010 4,648 0 4,648

2011 4,909 0 4,909

2012 2,808 0 2,808


Total Revenue

* Financed with donor assistance

▲

N

Selous Game Reserve

North East Undendeule Forest Reserve

Tunduru WMA

Kimbanda WMA


Ngarambe-Tapika MUNGATA AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION

YEAR GAZETTED 2006

ADDRESS/CONTACT Jumuiya ya Hifadhi ya Wanyamapori Mungata, P.O.Box28,Rufiji

AREA 731 km2

REGION Pwani

MEMBER VILLAGES 2

POPULATION 2,514

MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS Wangindo, Wamatumbi, Wapogoro

NEAREST PROTECTED AREAS Selous Game Reserve, Kichi and Lung'onya Forest Reserves

NATURAL RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE Located in Tanzania’s Coastal Region at the southeastern edge of Selous Game Reserve, Ngarambe-Tapika WMA is a healthy and productive ecosystem dependent on freshwater inputsandannualfloodcycles.The area’s pristine miombo woodland and surrounding Kichi hill forests and Lung’onya plains serve as a critical dry season refuge for a range of important wildlife, including elephants.

MANAGEMENT Board of Trustees of three men and two women; Authorized Association Council of 12 men and eight women; Executive Committee of six men and two women; staff of 16 village game scouts (all men)


DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES School tuition, diesel generator, deep well, oil mill



2006 0 0 0

2007 15,376 0 15,376

2008 34,109 0 34,109

2009 25,023 0 25,023

2010 23,920 0 23,920

2011 24,006 0 24,006

2012 15,783 0 15,783


Total Revenue

▲

N

Lungonya Forest Reserve

Selous Game Reserve

Kichi Hill Forest Reserve

Village Land

Village Land


Tunduru NALIKA AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION

YEAR GAZETTED 2007

ADDRESS/CONTACT Jumuiya ya Nalika, P.O. Box 6, Tunduru, Ruvuma

AREA 1,391 km2

REGION Ruvuma

MEMBER VILLAGES 10

POPULATION 8,941

MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS Wayao, Wandendeule


NATURAL RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE Located in Tanzania’s Ruvuma Region and bordering several game reserves and forest reserves, Tunduru WMA is home to many species of reptiles, birds, amphibians and mammals, including elephant, hippopotamus, leopard, buffalo, lion, hyena, zebra, bush pig, warthog, hartebeest, wildebeest, sable antelope, reedbuck, wild dog, aardvark, silver-backed jackalandpython.

MANAGEMENT Board of Trustees of six men; Authorized Association Council of 20 men and 10 women; Executive Committee of seven men and three women; staff of 54 village game scouts (all men)


DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES Village government, VGS and AAoffices*

SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS Gauff Engineering, WCST, WWF and AAC


2007 0 0 0

2008 11,861 0 11,861

2009 17,067 0 17,067

2010 2,875 0 2,875

2011 4,620 0 4,620

2012 2,643 0 2,643


Total Revenue


▲

N

Selous Game Reserve

Muhuwesi Forest ReserveMbarang’andu

WMA

Kimbanda WMA

Village Land


Ukutu JUKUMU AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION

YEAR GAZETTED 2010

ADDRESS/CONTACT Jumuiya ya Hifadhi Wanyamapori ya Ukutu, P.O. Box 1880, Morogoro

AREA 640 km2

REGION Morogoro

MEMBER VILLAGES 21

POPULATION 58,020

MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS Wakutu, Waluguru

NEAREST PROTECTED AREAS Mikumi National Park, Selous Game Reserve, Mkulazi Forest Reserve

NATURAL RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE Bounded on the north by Ruvu River and bordering several protected areas, Ukutu WMA is mostly open woodland and harbors a high density of mammals,


2010 0 0 0

2011 27,758 0 27,758

2012 28,923 0 28,923


Total Revenue

including wildebeest, elephant, buffalo, zebra, giraffe, impala, common waterbuck, bohor reedbuck, red duiker, sable antelope, hyena, lion, leopard, wild dog, cheetah, hippopotamus, hartebeest, bushbuck, dik-dik, bush pig and warthog.

MANAGEMENT Board of Trustees of seven men and one woman; Authorized Association Council of 29 men and four women; Executive Committee of three men; staff of 22 village game scouts (19 men and three women)andoneofficesupportstaff

ENTERPRISES Trophy hunting (one investor)



▲

N

Mikumi National Park

Vigoregoro Forest Reserve

Selous Game Reserve

Mkulazi Forest Reserve


Uyumbu UWIMA AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION

YEAR GAZETTED 2006

ADDRESS/CONTACT Jumuiya ya Hifadhi ya Wanyamapori ya Uwima, P.O. Box 44, Usoke, Urambo, Tabora

AREA 870 km2

REGION Tabora

MEMBER VILLAGES 4

POPULATION 17,075

MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS Wanyamwezi, Wasukuma

NEAREST PROTECTED AREAS Ugalla Game Reserve, Ugalla North and Wala River Forest Reserves

NATURAL RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE Located in northwestern Tanzania, Uyumbu is dominated by open woodlands and hosts a variety of wildlife, including elephants, lion, buffalo, zebra, warthog, eland, giraffe, hartebeest, waterbuck, hippopotamus, leopard, common duiker, kudu, reedbuck, sable and roan antelope, hyena, bushbuck, and impala.

MANAGEMENT Board of Trustees of three men and zero women; Authorized Association Council of eight men and four women; Executive Committee of four men and two women; staff of 39 village game scouts (35 men and four women)

ENTERPRISES Hunting


SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS Africare (2003–2010), WWF (2010 to date) and AAC


2006 0 0 0

2007 0 0 0

2008 0 0 0

2009 0 0 0

2010 1,312 0 1,312

2011 2,860 0 2,860

2012 1,636 0 1,636


Total Revenue

▲

N

Ugalla North Forest Reserve

Ugalla River Game Reserve Wala River

Forest Reserve


Wami-Mbiki WAMI-MBIKI AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION

YEAR GAZETTED 2007

ADDRESS/CONTACT Wami-Mbiki Society, P.O. Box 1238, Morogoro

AREA 4,000 km2

REGION Morogoro

MEMBER VILLAGES 24

POPULATION 65,935

MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS Wakwere, Wazigua, Wamasai, Wagogo

NEAREST PROTECTED AREAS Saadani National Park

NATURAL RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE Among Tanzania’s largest WMAs, Wami-Mbiki has a high density and diversity of wildlife. In addition, the cultural diversity of the 24 surrounding villages makes Wami-Mbiki a prime location for walking safaris and photo tourism.

MANAGEMENT Board of Trustees of four men and zero women; Authorized Association Council of 42 men and six women; Executive Committee of 10 men and two women; staff of 22 village game scouts (18 men and four women) and oneofficesupportstaff


DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES Classroom,teacherofficesandhousing, medical dispensaries, dam, wells, village government offices*



2007 0 10,000 10,000

2008 0 10,000 10,000

2009 0 10,000 10,000

2010 0 0 0

2011 0 0 0

2012 0 0 0


Total Revenue

* Financed by donors

▲

N

Gwami Forest Reserve

Pagale Forest Reserve


WMA SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS


Government of TanzaniaWILDLIFE DIVISION Director of Wildlife, Ministry of Natural Resources & Tourism, Wildlife DivisionP.O. Box 9372, Dar es SalaamTel: +255 22 2866408 | Email: [email protected] | Website: www.mnrt.go.tz

PMO – RALG Environment and Natural Resources Sector Coordinator, Prime Minister’s OfficeRegional Administration and Local Government, P.O. Box 1923, DodomaTel: +255 26 2321234 | Email: [email protected] | Websites: www.pmoralg.go.tz

WMA Support OrganizationsAFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION (AWF) Plot No: 27 Old Moshi Road, P.O. Box 2658, ArushaTel: +255 27 2509616 | Website: www.awf.org Area of Operation: Northern Tanzania (Burunge, Enduimet and Makame)

AFRICAREPlot No: 116 Ada Estate, Galu Street, P.O. Box 63187, Dar es SalaamEmail: [email protected] | Website: www.africare.org Area of Operation: Western Tanzania (Ipole and Uyumbu)

AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATION CONSORTIUM P.O. Box 13685 Mikoroshoni Street Msasani, Dar es SalaamTel: +255 22 2668615 / +255 78 8389039 | Website: www.twma.co.tz Area of Operation: National

FRANKFURT ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY (FZS)Africa Regional Office, Serengeti National ParkP.O. Box 14935, ArushaTel: +255 68 6175263 | Website: www.fzs.org Area of Operation: Northern Tanzania (Ikona and Makao)

HONEY GUIDE FOUNDATIONP.O. Box 2657, ArushaTel: +255 27 2542946 | Email: [email protected] | Website: www.honeyguide.org Area of Operation: Northern Tanzania (Enduimet and Burunge)

JBG GAUFFP.O. Box 4351, Dar es SalaamTel: +255 78 4988838 Area of Operation: Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor

PAMS FOUNDATIONP.O. Box 16556, ArushaTel: +255 76 4807889 | Email: [email protected] | Website: http://pamsfoundation.org Area of Operation: Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor

TANZANIA NATURAL RESOURCE FORUM (TNRF)Plot No. 10, Corridor Area, P.O. Box 15605, ArushaTel: +255 75 5022267 | Email: [email protected] | Website: www.tnrf.org Area of Operation: Northern Tanzania

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY (WCS)P.O. Box 1654, IringaTel: +255 78 6090940 | Website: www.wcs.org/where-we-work/africa/tanzania.aspx Area of Operation: South-Central Tanzania (Idodi-Pawaga)

WORLD WILD FUND FOR NATURE (WWF) Plot 350 Regent Estate, Mikocheni, P.O. Box 63117, Dar es SalaamTel: +255 22 2700077 | Website: www.wwf.org/wh0_we_are/wwf_offices/tanzania Area of Operation: National


Documents

TWMA Status Report 2012