Skip to main content

Community-Based Conservation and Maasai Livelihoods in Tanzania

  • Chapter

Part of the Studies in Human Ecology and Adaptation book series (STHE,volume 5)

Keywords

  • Wildlife Conservation
  • Game Reserve
  • Wildlife Management Area
  • Village Land
  • Ngorongoro Conservation Area

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-87492-0_8
  • Chapter length: 35 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-0-387-87492-0
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 8.1
Fig. 8.2
Fig. 8.3

Notes

  1. 1.

    1 We use the term ‘pastoralist’ to mean people who herd cattle as a central part of their livelihood, but who may also varyingly complement their livelihoods with farming and other activities.

  2. 2.

    2 The Maasai themselves have occupied the region for only about 200–300 years, however.

  3. 3.

    3 These include community-based natural resource management (CBNRM), community-based conservation (CBC), integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs), adaptive co-management (ACM), participatory forest management (PFM), and community-based wildlife management (CWM).

  4. 4.

    4 This latter undertaking has for many years been reneged upon, both through successive amendments to the law increasingly extinguishing customary rights and also through extra-legal actions taken by the managing Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority (Shivji and Kapinga, 1998).

  5. 5.

    5 The depopulation of west Liwale District was only brought to an end when it was realized during the mid-1940s that the remaining human population comprised a useful labour reserve for what was to become the ill-conceived and infamous ground-nut scheme (Neumann, 2001, pp. 658–660; see also Iliffe, 1979, pp. 440–442).

  6. 6.

    6 Created in about 1937 (Jennings, 1994).

  7. 7.

    7 ‘Ujamaa’ means community-hood and is used to circumscribe Tanzania's collectivist and socialist socio-economic policies of 1967–1986.

  8. 8.

    8 Maa for permanent settlements.

  9. 9.

    9 Game Controlled Areas (GCAs) were originally established during colonial times as a way of increasing regulatory controls over hunting outside of reserved lands, and have never involved restrictions on land use or livelihood activities by local people, unlike in game reserves and national parks.

  10. 10.

    10 This legislation classifies such lands as ‘village lands’ and places them under the authority of village council, which is the lowest level of administration and governance in Tanzania.

  11. 11.

    11 These were the African Wildlife Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund.

  12. 12.

    12 The Ilparakuyo form one of the 22 associated sections of the wider Maa-speaking peoples of eastern Nilotic origin (Sommer and Vossen, 1993, p. 30).

  13. 13.

    13 Although the Ilparakuyo were present in what is now southern Dodoma District by the end of the nineteenth century, they only moved more permanently into Pawaga and what is now the periphery of north-eastern Iringa District in the early part of the twentieth century (Redmayne, 1964, p. 392). The first official reports of Ilparakuyo pastoralists migrating into the Pawaga area occurred in 1928 and 1934. By 1953, Ilparakuyo pastoralists had reached Idodi (Lemu Lebere, personal commnication) and the Usangu (Charnley, 1997). It is likely that the Ilparakuyo initially may only have been seasonal transhumant residents in north-eastern Iringa District, but by the late 1930s they had become more permanently established in the area. Redmayne (1964, p. 396) remarks that the Ilparakuyo were allowed to utilize the rangelands by the resident Hehe on the condition of refraining from stock raiding, and paying tribute to the Vanzagila (Sub-Chief) of Pawaga (Redmayne, 1964, p. 360).

  14. 14.

    14 Prior to the creation of the Lunda–Mkwambi Game Controlled Area (LMGCA), there had been an ‘Iringa Controlled Area’ (ICA) probably created in 1951 or 1952, under the Fauna Conservation Ordinance of 1951. It is thought that the ICA became defunct after a number of years. Certainly there is no mention of the ICA during the gazettement process for the Ruaha National Park in 1964 (M. Walsh, personal communication). The LMGCA was created by Government Notice No. 33 published on 1st February 1985 under the ‘Wildlife Conservation (Game Controlled Area) (Declaration) (Lunda–kwambi) Order, 1984’.

  15. 15.

    15 Pastoralist and farmer evictions in the Pawaga Lunda North section of the LMGCA have continued to occur over the years. More recently, the authorities have targeted Barabaig herders who take advantage of seasonal grazing in the Ruaha National Park.

  16. 16.

    16 ODA is now the Department for International Development.

  17. 17.

    17 REWMP was designed from a traditional protected area conservation perspective to work with Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA) to support park planning and to strengthen anti-poaching.

  18. 18.

    18 Resident hunting licences are sold according to a pricing schedule that greatly subsidizes citizens' and residents' access to wildlife. A buffalo costs between $600 and $900 on a tourist hunting licencse, while a citizen can purchase a resident hunting licensce for a buffalo for only 10,000 Tshs., or less than $9 at current exchange rates.

  19. 19.

    19 As part of the Serengeti Regional Conservation Strategy which began in 1986.

  20. 20.

    20 The concept and impetus for the new CWM project, MBOMIPA arose in part from the District Steering Committee made up of District, ward and other stakeholder representatives – including resident hunters. Established in 1996, and although falteringly at first, the committee's members increasingly came to recognize a commonality of interests and a joint vision for the future management of wildlife of Lunda-Mkwambi south. Notably, the committee played a central role in negotiating the auction system with resident hunters in 1997 and then played a key role in helping resist continued pressure for cheap hunting by some resident hunters, with the strong backing of the WD (Walsh, 2000).

  21. 21.

    21 Most of the other early CWM pilot areas had also failed to achieve WMA status despite over 10 years' investment in the process; the consensus in Tanzania by 2006 was that the political will required to devolve management responsibilities to local communities simply did not exist (see Baldus et al., 2004; Baldus, 2006).

  22. 22.

    22 The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in Tanzania provided a relatively substantial grant through WCS for the MBOMIPA Association to support its institutional development. WWF is currently undertaking a larger project in the area that is trying to address the complex and difficult issues relating to the sustainable management of the Greater Ruaha river basin.

  23. 23.

    23 In recent years, a more accommodating stance has been adopted in that grazing boundaries have been agreed between pastoralists and village natural resource committees in the Lunda section, facilitated by the World Wildlife Fund and the Ruaha–Rungwa Landscape Conservation Programme of the Wildlife Conservation Society of New York. With continued relatively high levels of seasonal herder immigration, the rangelands are coming under increasing pressure, and understandably villages are keen to ensure that parts of the rangeland remain less affected by heavy grazing. But the high level of pressure on the Idodi and Pawaga rangelands is symptomatic of local failures in natural resource governance, coupled with rising local human populations relying on an ever-more limited resource-base. The situation is compounded by inappropriate countrywide policies and attitudes to pastoralism and agro-pastoralism.

  24. 24.

    24 A result of operation Uhai (a large scale anti-poaching operation carried out in the late 1980s), most firearms in the villages were confiscated, resulting in an anecdotal increase in localized populations of ‘vermin’ such as baboon, vervet monkey and bush pig.

  25. 25.

    25 In September 2007, the Minister of Natural Resources and Tourism signed regulations that now totally control all investor partnerships with communities, and appropriate what may be up to 75% per cent of all revenues from these agreements.

  26. 26.

    26 This project is one of the longest-running WMA pilot initiatives in Tanzania, and was started by the Selous Conservation Programme in the early 1990's. For background on this programme and its impacts in Morogoro District, see Baldus et al., (1994); Baldus and Siege (2001); and Ashley et al., (2002).

  27. 27.

    27 This area is administratively the Gonabis Game Controlled Area.

  28. 28.

    28 The amount of revenue generated by JUKUMU has been limited (see Ashley et al., 2002) and barely suffices to cover the operational costs of the association. The core problem in this area, as with MBOMIPA, has been that formal gazettement of a WMA that would allow the community to develop income streams from lucrative tourist hunting activities has not been possible. JUKUMU submitted a formal WMA application several times to the Wildlife Division during the pilot phase of 2003–2006, but was rejected due to technicalities each time (see Baldus et al., 2004). By 2006, the lead donor to the entire Selous Conservation Programme, GTZ, had ended its long-running support to CWM in Tanzania due to an increasingly contentious relationship with the Wildlife Division over WMA implementation, leaving the prospects of JUKUMU and other pilot CWM initiatives around the Selous highly uncertain.

  29. 29.

    29 Tanzania's Local Government Act of 1982 allows village councils to formulate and pass their own by-laws, which are legally binding and enforceable in courts of law. These village by-laws have been widely used during the past ten 10 years to support local natural resource management in both forestry and wildlife sectors.

  30. 30.

    30 The founder of FZS, Bernhard Grizmek, wrote the internationally acclaimed book Serengeti Shall Not Die, in the late 1950s, and was a staunch proponent of protection of the Serengeti and eviction of resident peoples.

References

  • Alcorn, J., Kajuni, A., and Winterbottom, B., 2002, Assessment of CBNRM Best Practices in Tanzania. Final Report for USAID/Tanzania and USAID/Africa Bureau, Office of Sustainable Development, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anon, 2002, Choosing between a mess of pottage and natural heritage. Business Times, March 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arhem, M., 1985, The Maasai and the State: The Impact of Rural Development Policies on a Pastoral People in Tanzania. IWGIA Document.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, C., Mdoe, N., and Reynolds, L., 2002, Rethinking Wildlife for Livelihoods and Diversification in Rural Tanzania: A Case Study from Northern Selous . LADDER Working Paper No. 15. London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Awimbo, J., Barrow, E.G.C., and Karaba, M., 2004, Community-based Natural Resource Management in the IGAD Region. Nairobi, Kenya: IUCN-EARO and IGAD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldus, R., 2006, Case Study: The Crucial Role of Governance in Ecosystem Management – Results and Conclusions of the Selous Conservation Programme, 1987–2003. Paper presented to the Serengeti Conference, Seronera, Tanzania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldus, R., Kibonde, B., and Siege, L., 2003, Seeking conservation partnerships in the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania . Parks 13(1): 50–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldus, R.D. and Cauldwell, A.E., 2004, Tourist Hunting and It's Role in Development of Wildlife Management Areas in Tanzania . Paper presented to the Sixth International Game Ranching Symposium (July 6–9, 2004), Paris, France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldus, R.D. and Siege, L., 2001, Experiences with Community Based Wildlife Conservation in Tanzania . Tanzania Wildlife Discussion Paper No. 29. Wildlife Division and GTZ, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldus, R.D., Krischke, H., Lyamuya, V., and Ndunguru, I.F., 1994, People and Wildlife: Experiences from Tanzania . Selous Conservation Programme Discussion Paper No. 16. SCP, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldus, R.D., Kaggi, D.T., and Ngoti, P.M., 2004, Community based conservation (CBC): Where are we now? Where are we going ? Miombo 27: 3, 7, 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrow, E. and Murphree, M., 2001, Community conservation: From concept to practice. In: African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation edited by D. Hulme and M. Murhpree, pp. 24–37. Oxford, UK: James Currey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrow, E., Gichohi, H., and Infield, M., 2000, Rhetoric or Reality? A Review of Community Conservation Policy and Practice in East Africa . Evaluating Eden Series No. 5. International Institute for Environment and Development and the World Conservation Union, London and Nairobi, UK and Kenya.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaikie, P., 2006, Is small really beautiful? Community-based natural resource management in Malawi and Botswana . World Development 34(11): 1942–1957.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Charnley, S., 1997, Environmentally-displaced peoples and the cascade effect: Lessons from Tanzania. Human Ecology 25(4): 593–618.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dorobo Tours and Safaris and Oliver's Camp Ltd, 1996, Potential Models for Community-based Conservation among Pastoral Communities Adjacent to Protected Areas in Northern Tanzania. In: Community-Based Conservation in Tanzania , edited by N. Leader-Williams, J. Kayera, and G. Overton, pp. 100–105. Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 15. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerton, L., 2001, The nature of benefits & the benefits of nature: Why wildlife conservation has not economically benefited communities in Africa . In: African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation, edited by D. Hulme and M. Murhpree, pp. 208–226. Oxford, UK: James Currey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C.C., 1999, Politicians and Poachers: The Political Economy of Wildlife Policy in Africa Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. and Marks, S., 1995, Transforming rural hunters into conservationists: An assessment of community-based wildlife management programs in Africa . World Development 23: 941–957.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, H. St. J., 1954, Report on Human Habitation of the Serengeti National Park (20 pp.). Unpublished Report to Trustees of Tanganyika National Parks. Published 1957 by Government Printer Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, D.L., 2001, Once Intrepid Warriors: Gender, Ethnicity and the Cultural Politics of Maasai Development. Indiana: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homewood, K.M. and Rodgers, W.A., 1991, Maasailand Ecology: Pastoralist Development and Wildlife Conservation in Ngorongoro, Tanzania. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Honey, M., 1999, Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulme, D. and Murphree, M., 2001, African Wildlife & Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation. Oxford, UK: James Currey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyden, G., 1980, Beyond Ujamaa in Tanzania: Underdevelopment and an Uncaptured Peasantry London: Heinemann Educational.

    Google Scholar 

  • Igoe, J., 2004, Conservation and Globalization: A Study of National Parks and Indigenous Communities from East Africa to South Dakota. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iliffe, J., 1979, A Modern History of Tanganyika. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), 1994, Whose Eden? An Overview of Community Approaches to Wildlife Management . Report to the Overseas Development Administration. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, S.L., 1994, Village Oral Histories Mini-study. Msembe, Ruaha Ecosystem and Wildlife Management Project, ODA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsall, T., 2002, Shop windows and smoke-filled rooms: Governance and the re-politicisation of Tanzania. Journal of Modern African Studies 40(4): 597–619.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kjekshus, H., 1996, Ecology Control and Economic Development in East African History: The Case of Tanganyika, 1850–1950. 2nd Edition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koponen, J., 1994, Development for Exploitation: German Colonial Policies in Mainland Tanzania, 1884–1914 . Finnish Historical Society and Lit Verlag, Helsinki and Hamburg, Finland and Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leader-Williams, N., Kayera, J.A., and Overton, G.L., 1996, Community-based Conservation in Tanzania . Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 15. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livestock and Wildlife Advisory Group (LWAG), 2002, Wildlife and Poverty Study . DfID Rural Livelihoods Department.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, S.A., 2001, Back to the future: Some unintended consequences of Zambia's community-based wildlife program (ADMADE) . Africa Today 48(1): 121–141.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mattee, A.Z. and Shem, M., 2006, Ambivalence and Contradiction: A Review of the Policy Environment in Tanzania in Relation to Pastoralism . Drylands Issue Paper No. 140. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT), 1998, The Wildlife Policy of Tanzania. Dares Salaam: Government Printer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ndagala, D.K., 1982, ‘Operation imparnati’: The sedentarisation of the pastoral Maasai in Tanzania. Nomadic Peoples 10: 28–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, F., 2004, The Evolution and Impacts of Community-Based Ecotourism in Northern Tanzania . Drylands Issue Paper No. 131. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, F., 2005, Wildlife Management and Village Land Tenure in Northern Tanzania. Paper presented to the Land Symposium held in Dar es Salaam (March 1–2, 2005), Tanzania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, F., 2007, Emergent or Illusory? Community Wildlife Management in Tanzania. Drylands Issue Paper No. 146. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, R.P., 1998, Imposing Wilderness: Struggles over Livelihood and Nature Preservation in Africa. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, R.P., 2001, Africa's ‘last wilderness’: Reordering space for political and economic control in colonial Tanzania . Africa 71(4): 641–665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nshala, R., 2002, Village Rights Relating to Land, Tourism, and Tourist Hunting. Unpublished Report. Dar es Salaam: Lawyers' Environmental Action Team.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odhiambo, N., 2000, Tanzanian Maasai protest Arab eco-destruction. Environmental News Service. May 26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkipuny, M.S. ole, 1979, Some Crucial Aspects of the Maasai Predicament. In: African Socialism in Practice: The Tanzanian Experience, edited by A. Coulson, pp. 136–157. Nottingham, UK: Spokesman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redmayne, A., 1964, The Wahehe People of Tanganyika. PhD Thesis, University of Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shackleton, S., Campbell, B., Wollenberg, E., and Edmunds, D., 2002, Devolution and community-based natural resource management: Creating space for local people to participate and benefit? Natural Resource Perspectives No. 76. Overseas Development Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shivji, I.G., 1998, Not Yet Democracy: Reforming Land Tenure in Tanzania . IIED/ HAKIARDHI/ Faculty of Law, University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam and London, Tanzania and UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shivji, I.G. and Kapinga, W.B., 1998, Maasai Rights in Ngorongoro, Tanzania. IIED/HAHIARDHI, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommer, G. and Vossen, R., 1993, Dialects, sectiolects or simply lects? The Maa language in time perspective. In: Being Maasai: Ethnicity and Identity in East Africa, edited by T. Spear and R. Waller, pp. 25–37. London: James Currey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Songorwa, A.N., 1999, Community-based wildlife management (CBWM) in Tanzania: Are the communities interested? World Development 27(12): 2061–2079.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Swai, I., 1996, The effect of villagisation and other policies on wildlife conservation in Tanzania. In: Community-Based Conservation in Tanzania , edited by N. Leader-Williams, J.A. Kayera, and G.L. Overton, pp. 51–54. Occassional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 15. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomlinson, C., 2002, Big game hunting threatening Africa. http://espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/news/2002/0320/1354979.html.

  • United Republic of Tanzania (URT), 2005, State of the Public Service Report 2004. President's Office – Public Service Management, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, M.T., 2000, The Development of Community Wildlife Management in Tanzania: Lessons from the Ruaha Ecosystem . Paper presented to the conference on African Wildlife Management in the New Millennium , College of African Wildlife Management, Mweka, Tanzania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wanitzek, U. and Sippel, H., 1998, Land rights in conservation areas in Tanzania. GeoJournal 46: 113–128.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Wildlife Sector Review Task Force, 1995, A Review of the Wildlife Sector in Tanzania. Volume 1: Assessment of the Current Situation . Dar es Salaam: Ministry of Tourism, Natural Resources and Environment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeager, R. and Miller, N., 1986, Wildlife, Wild Death: Land Use and Survival in Eastern Africa Albany, NA: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge and thank the people who have contributed to these case studies. We are not able to mention all of them, but we especially thank Dr Martin Walsh, Dr Peter Coppolillo, Maanda Ngoitiko, Daniel Ngoitiko, Makko Sinandei, Edward Loure, Dismas Meitaya, Mike, David and Thad Peterson, and the many residents of the villages in the case study areas who shared their views and experiences. The authors take full responsibility for the views expressed in this chapter, together with any factual errors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science + Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nelson, F., Gardner, B., Igoe, J., Williams, A. (2009). Community-Based Conservation and Maasai Livelihoods in Tanzania. In: Homewood, K., Kristjanson, P., Trench, P.C. (eds) Staying Maasai?. Studies in Human Ecology and Adaptation, vol 5. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-87492-0_8

Download citation