Citation
People and wildlife conservation in Tanzania

Material Information

Title:
People and wildlife conservation in Tanzania three case studies of shifting paradigms from the colonial to independence eras
Creator:
Haslerig, Janet Miliah
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xii, 132 leaves : ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Conservation practices ( jstor )
Environmental conservation ( jstor )
Game reserves ( jstor )
National parks ( jstor )
Natural resources ( jstor )
Protected areas ( jstor )
Villages ( jstor )
Wildlife ( jstor )
Wildlife conservation ( jstor )
Wildlife management ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Wildlife Ecology and Conservation -- UF ( lcsh )
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation thesis, Ph. D ( lcsh )
City of Gainesville ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 2000.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 120-131).
General Note:
Printout.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Janet Miliah Haslerig.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
002674953 ( ALEPH )
46714043 ( OCLC )
ANE2159 ( NOTIS )
AA00004703_00001 ( sobekcm )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text









PEOPLE AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION IN TANZANIA: THREE CASE
STUDIES OF SHIFTING PARADIGMS FROM THE COLONIAL TO
INDEPENDENCE ERAS














By

JANET MILIAH HASLERIG


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2000





























Copyright 2000

by

JANET MILIAH HASLERIG













For my Mama, Miliah Dickerson Haslerig, and with living memories of my Dad, John
Haslerig, and friend, Willie Ryles.












ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Funding for my research was provided through a cooperative effort between

Tuskegee University (USAID grant) and the University of Florida. Academic support

was received from the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, the Graduate Minority

Fellowship program, the Delores Auzenne Fellowship, and the U.S. Geological Survey.

For their assistance and support, I am sincerely indebted.

My sincere thanks go to my advisor, mentor, and friend Dr. Lawrence Harris

whose inspiring vision, enduring commitment, and advice guided me through this

process. I am eternally grateful for the moral support, counsel, and relentless guidance

from my committee members: Richard Bodmer, Michael Chege, Goran Hyden and

Patricia Werner. Thanks also to other faculty members from the Department of Wildlife

Conservation and Ecology, Raymond Carthy and Franklin Percival, who provided

additional support and made important contributions at various stages of my research.

A debt of gratitude is owed to numerous team members, staff, and students at

Sokoine University in Morogoro, Tanzania, who provided the logistical and technical

assistance needed in conducting my fieldwork. I especially thank the many participants

in the villages, Udzungwa and Mikumi National Parks, Mkomazi Game Reserve,

Tanzania National Park Authority, and the Tanzania Wildlife Department for their

invaluable contributions and assistance. Ziyah Mahfoud of IFAS Statistical Consulting

assisted with data analyses of questionnaires. Luther Quinn and the University of

Florida's Electronic and Dissertation consultants provided assistance with scanning and








other computer logistics. Editorial assistance was graciously provided by Carolyn

Horter, whose contribution greatly influenced the success of this endeavor.

Finally, I give many thanks and blessings to current and former staff of the

Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, my colleagues, mentors, friends, and

family for their steadfast support. Through all the frustrations, disappointments, joys and

laughter, I am truly thankful for each of them.














TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOW LEDGM ENTS ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF FIGURES ............... ................................................ x

ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... xi

CHAPTERS

1 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................

Problem Statement ................................................................................................... 1
Changing Conservation Paradigms.................................................. ....................... 5
Conservation M management Approaches .................................. ............................. 7
Objectives ....................................................................................................... .......... 9
Chapter Format ....................................................................................................... 10

2 HISTORICAL SURVEY OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN TANZANIA..................13

Scramble for Eden.... ............................................................................................. 13
M an and Nature in Tanganyika: Colonial Era........................................ ............ .. 16
Conservation Reawakening ................................................................................. 18
Formalizing Conservation................................................................................... 19
Nature of the Land .............................................................................................. 21
M an and Nature in Tanzania: Independence Era.................................................... 29
Political Environment .......................................................................................... 29
Current Nature of the Land .................................................................................. 33

3 STUDY AREAS AND M ETHODS ......................................................................... 40

Study Areas................................................................................................................ 44
Udzungwa National Park..................................................................................... 45
M ikumi National Park........................................................ .................................... 47
M komazi Game Reserve ...................................................................................... 49
M ethodology........................................................................................................... 56
SUA/TU Linkage Project................. .............................................................. 57
Project Villages................................................................................................... 58








Village-Level Activities ...................................................................................... 59
Questionnaires..................................................................................................... 60
Study Tour .......................................................................................................... 63


4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT
APPROACHES IN THREE PROTECTED AREAS ......................................................64

Udzungwa and M ikumi National Parks................................................................... 65
Contemporary Conservation Management Approaches......................................... 65
Current State of Affairs....................................................................................... 68
M komazi Game Reserve......................................................................................... 69
Historical Approaches......................................................................................... 69
Contemporary Approaches ...................................................... ......................... 72
Current State of Affairs................................................................................. ... ...... 77
High Court decision ........................................................................................ 77
Illegal encroachment....................................................................................... 80
Internet............................................................................................................ 81
Discussion............................................................................................................... 83

5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF SURVEYS AND STUDY TOURS:
UDZUNGWA AND MIKUMI NATIONAL PARKS ..............................................85

Questionnaire Surveys ............................................................................................ 85
Household........................................................................................................... 85
Socio-economic and background information...................................................... 86
Knowledge of conservation................................................... ....................... 86
Attitudes toward the park and conservation.................................... ....... .... 88
Crop damage and animal loss ................................... .................................. 94
Village Leaders................................................................................................... 97
Concerns of living near the park............................................. ...................... 97
Suggestions to reduce crop damage and animal loss ......................................... 97
W omen's Group.................................................................................................. 98
Concerns of living near the park................................................................. 98
Suggestions to reduce crop damage and park relations ................................. ... 99
Park Staff .......................................................................................................... 100
Problems facing local communities near the park............................................ 100
Future management priorities ........................................................................... 100
Study Tour ............................................................................................................ 101
Discussion............................................................................................................. 104

6 SUM M ARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................... ...................................106








APPENDICES

A HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE............................................ ....................... 111

B VILLAGE LEADERS QUESTIONNAIRE .............................................................116

C PARK STAFF QUESTIONNAIRE ..........................................................................118

REFEREN CES .......................................................................................................... 120











































viii













LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1. Comparison of conservation management approaches........................................... ..2

2. Internet searches for the Mkomazi Game Reserve ...........................................................82

3. Number of households and summary of socio-economic and background information..87

4. Response to questions concerning the general knowledge and access to conservation
inform ation............................................................................................. ......... 88

5. Attitude toward and benefits from the National Park.......................................................90

6. Views toward poachers and knowledge of trespassing penalties ...................................91

7. General attitude toward the current status, future management, and use of the
Park ............................................................................................................ 92

8. Attitude toward the parks and positive benefits extended to the village ........................93

9. Range of estimated economic loss per household, per growing season, for crop
and livestock (Tanzania shilling)....................................................................95

10. Crop and livestock losses according to species of wild animals ...................................95

11. Measures used to prevent crop and livestock loss and suggested measures to be
taken by Park authorities.............................................................................. .... 96

12. Summary of Village Leaders and Sanje Women's Group opinions about village
concerns; their suggested measures to be taken to reduce crop and animal
losses, and relations with the Park ...................................................... ...........99

13. Summary of Udzungwa and Mikumi National Park staff opinion of village
level problems and park management challenges.............................................. 102














LIST OF FIGURES



Figure Page

1. Conservation management approaches and indicators of compliance and non-
com pliance..................................................................................................... 3

2. M ap of Tanzania..................................................................................... ......................41

3. Map of Udzungwa National Park .................................................................................46

4. Map of Mikumi National Park and Selous Game Reserve Ecosystem............................48

5. Map of Mkomazi Game Reserve .....................................................................................50














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


PEOPLE AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION IN TANZANIA: THREE CASE
STUDIES OF SHIFTING PARADIGMS FROM THE COLONIAL TO
INDEPENDENCE ERAS


By

Janet Miliah Haslerig

December 2000



Chairman: Dr. Lawrence D. Harris
Major Department: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation

Throughout most of Africa a major shift in paradigms has occurred regarding

wildlife conservation. The current global practice of setting aside large tracts of land is

now confronted with the human consequences of strict protectionist policies designed

solely to conserve wildlife.

Originally established to safeguard natural resources, protected areas are now

forced to address a range of social objectives, namely, rural poverty, gender inequality,

plight of indigenous people, market failures, economic and social injustices. From this

perspective, the protectionist model has been judged a failure and is no longer appropriate

within the current contextual setting of East Africa.








Within the last few decades and in light of mounting biodiversity and socio-

political challenges, a "new" approach to conservation has emerged. But unlike its

predecessor, the community-based conservation model calls for community participation,

local decision-making, and equitable means of sharing economic, social, cultural, or

ecological benefits from protected areas. Despite its overwhelming appeal, the

community-based conservation model must not be hailed as a panacea by which to solve

a variety of complex ecological and social challenges facing many developing countries.

Three case studies in Tanzania, Mkomazi Game Reserve, Udzungwa and Mikumi

National Parks are reviewed and analyzed to compare and contrast the advantages and

disadvantages of both the protectionist and community-based conservation models. A

household questionnaire was used to assess local conservation attitudes in four villages

adjacent to Mikumi and Udzungwa National Parks. The results show that local people

were aware of the purpose of the parks and their benefits to their respective communities

and to Tanzania. Although over 90% of the respondents had never visited (93%) nor

worked (95%) for either park, they nevertheless opposed its abolishment (62%) and also

rejected giving the land to those who claimed to need it (81%). They also were averse to

allowing hunting (95%) and other natural resource extractions (77%).

Although the protectionist model has made significant contributions in

safeguarding Tanzania's wealth of biodiversity, current evidence suggests that a

combination of conservation approaches should be reviewed thoroughly for applicability

and long-term sustainability within the current context of local communities and

protected areas.













CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION


Problem Statement

In the twentieth century humankind has made tremendous strides in becoming

aware of the need to conserve natural resources. Despite increased awareness,

conservationists have not been able to agree on a common conservation approach that can

be applied universally at the local, regional, or national levels. The implementation of

these approaches continues to vary worldwide. In particular, in Africa's emerging

nations, the challenge has been to move forward from a colonial past to independent

nation status, with consequent responsibility for managing abundant natural resources

and biological diversity. Specifically in Tanzania, conservation approaches have

oscillated between the top-down, "protectionist" approach to a bottom-up, "community

based" approach (Table 1). This lack of consistence, in part, reflects an increasing

change in attitudes and thoughts that attempt to reconcile local people and natural

resources by coupling conservation with developmental activities that enhance the quality

of rural life.

Today, site-specific conservation approaches have changed as conservation

paradigms have shifted from purely scientific to sociological, political, and economic in

nature. Conservation approaches now embrace a wide range of multidisciplinary

interests, with the assumption that communities must be involved in various levels of

conservation planning, implementation, and enforcement and that their








participation in this process will make a difference. As park officials, scientists, and

others interact with members of the local communities, outcomes may be positive, but

also negative. The difference depends on management, the crucial component in

conservation approaches. How to resolve conflicts between contending views and

interests is a political question as much as it is a technical or scientific one. Compliance

or non-compliance is a function of how well conservation projects are managed (Figure

1). It is no exaggeration, therefore, to argue that the fate of wildlife and biodiversity

conservation in Africa rests as much on how people are treated as on wildlife strategies.


Table 1. Comparison of conservation management approaches
Approach Protectionist


Community-based


Goal

Administration

Basis for decisions

Discipline

Science emphasis

Management emphasis

Method of protection


Preservation/conservation

Top-down

Technical

Science-based

Wildlife

Wild game

Coercion/laws


Conservation/sustainable use

Bottom-up

Socio-political

Multidisciplinary

Biodiversity

People-park relationships

Community participation/laws


Three case studies, as presented in the following chapters, readily identify three

inherent problems associated with the various conservation management approaches as

pursued in the protected areas in this study: (1) participation versus cooperation, (2)

capture of the local peasantry, and (3) linking conservation with development. The

challenge for Tanzania, specifically the three case studies, is how to achieve cooperation








through a gradient of top-down, bottom-up management approaches that will bring about

the compliance of local communities to help achieve conservation goals (Figure 1).



Top-down








(-) Zero sum gain/deadlock Co-mam gement (+) Positive sum gain

Local commit input






Non-compliance Bo Compliance
Bottom-up

Figure 1. Conservation management approaches and indicators of compliance and non-
compliance



The first problem identifies an apparent disparity between the concepts of the

word, "participation" and "cooperation." At first glance, these two words may appear

interchangeable; however, participation is the act of taking part in an activity, whereas

cooperation is the act of working together to achieve a common aim (Encarta 2000). All

too often participation is defined in over simplistic and inaccurate terms that assume that

conservation goals will be accomplished by the mere act of soliciting community

involvement. Getting people to participate is a worthy goal, but it becomes clear that

conservation goals can best be achieved through cooperative efforts of the community.








"Capture" of the local people is the second inherent problem facing

conservationists. "Capture" is a relatively common term used by social scientists to

describe the relations of the state to the peasant population (Hyden 1986). However,

within the context of this discussion, "capture" will refer to efforts made by local and

international conservation authorities (the state), and non-governmental organizations

(NGOs) to achieve compliance through the "cooperation" of the citizenry in biodiversity

conservation efforts within protected areas that are managed through a variety of top-

down, bottom-up approaches (Figure 1). To accomplish conservation objectives,

conservation approaches often unrealistically assume that local communities have been

successfully "captured" by the various wildlife organizations and departments that seek

their support.

Throughout Africa and specially Tanzania, incentives are used to solicit the

participation and thereby "capture" of local people in exchange for their cooperation in

assisting with safeguarding protected area resources. Some of these incentives have

included, building dispensaries, schools, and shallow wells; assisting with transportation,

establishing tree nurseries, assisting with the control of crop-raiding animals; and

organizing revenue sharing opportunities. Other activities have included educational

campaigns aimed at informing communities of the local and global ecological and social

benefits obtained through their cooperative efforts of protection and sustainable use of the

natural resources.

It is widely assumed that once captured, the communities will cooperate more

easily with the conservation of biodiversity within protected areas. However, there are a

number of tactics ("weapons") that local communities and individuals may pursue to








appease or elude wildlife officials and organizations in an effort to obtain specific

products and services, or to avoid conflict, while at the same time managing to avoid

being fully "captured." Compliance is by no means a given, even when incentive

structures are built into the projects or where management is initiated from the bottom-up

(Figure 1).

Linking conservation objectives to community interests is the third problem that

conservationists must address. These links must be clearly stated, strengthened, and

actively pursued in the application of community-based conservation activities. Whether

this link is weak or strong, it must nevertheless hinge upon achieving long-term

biodiversity sustainability. However, one of the critical questions remains unanswered:

Can community support for conservation goals be gained and/or sustained when only

provisionary community services, such as the construction of a dispensary, schools,

roads, etc., are provided; or must conservation activities establish a mechanism or

framework that encourages local community empowerment, active decision-making, and

the devolution of management authority in an effort to obtain the cooperation of rural

communities in protecting biodiversity?




Changing Conservation Paradigms

The paradigm shift alluded to above is the result of several globally significant

events that have occurred within the last few decades. The following chapters note that

these changes are the result of evolving attitudes and beliefs shaped by a variety of

events, policies, organizations, and scientific knowledge.








Throughout history, the conservation movement has undergone gradual changes

in terminology, its professions, and management approaches, largely in response to new

challenges, knowledge, concerns, and attitudes (Western and Wright 1994). First,

conservation terminology underwent a series of vernacular transitions. Terms such as

vermin and game have been replaced with terms such as wildlife and biological diversity

(biodiversity). In addition, new words and phrases such as conservation network,

biodiversity hotspots, ecosystem, landscape, parks-for-people, and etc. have become

increasingly popularized.

Second, conservation as a profession has evolved. This transition took the form

of changing the game manager and wildlife biologist to conservation biologists, natural

resource managers, and landscape or ecosystem specialists. Today, conservation is no

longer confined to zoological or botanical gardens, the laboratory, the field, the

classroom, or the academically-trained conservation professional. The "new"

conservationists include anthropologists, political scientists, economists, lawyers,

engineers, human-rights activists, sociologists, scores of nonprofit organizations, and

private individuals (McNeely et al. 1990).

Finally, as the conservation profession has diversified, so have approaches to

management. Increasingly different perspectives on conservation problems are

incorporated into new multidisciplinary management approaches that attempt to consider

the legal, social, economic, biological, and political aspects of natural resource policies,

their costs and benefits, and their ultimate implementation and enforcement (Neumann

1998). These shifting perspectives extend worldwide and for this study (Table 1).








Conservation Management Approaches

Throughout the world several laws and natural resource policies have been

established. Laws were enacted and actions taken to ensure that wildlife, natural

resources, forests, and water catchment areas would be managed sustainably. For

Tanzania, the result has been a patchwork of laws and regulations at the national,

regional, and district levels that were often inappropriate, conflicting, overlapping,

unenforceable, and antagonistic (PERM 1995).

Uncoordinated policies and ineffective enforcement have gradually led to

increased concerns and heightened awareness in several key environmental areas that

include (1) land degradation, (2) environmental pollution, (3) deterioration of marine and

freshwater aquatic systems, (4) lack of access to clean water supplies, (5) habitat loss, (6)

loss of species, (7) deforestation, (8) global climate change, and (9) desertification

(Mugabe 1998, PERM 1995, Serageldin and Martin-Brown 1999).

These global environmental concerns are encountered throughout Tanzania (Berry

et al. 1982) and have developed over a long period of time. Many of these concerns may

be attributed, in varying degrees, to inadequate coordination of natural resource policies

between and within different governmental sectors, inadequate enforcement of existing

laws, underfunded and weak institutions, animosity held by local communities, and the

exclusion of local participation in natural resource management approaches. These

concerns present new challenges to the long-term sustained use of biodiversity and thus

call for innovative approaches to their management (McNeely et al. 1990, Neumann

1998).

Protectionist model. In Tanzania, the protectionist conservation model, which

included setting land aside as protected areas, made significant contributions in terms of








safeguarding representative samples of this country's biodiversity wealth until the

present. Overall, the implementation of these initial models was socially insensitive and

in many cases cruel and unjust. People were often displaced to give room for wildlife

conservation. Experience over the years has shown the inadequacy of this approach. In

circumstances of poverty, people will not comply with rules and regulations that threaten

their livelihoods. This "exclusionary" model of protecting wildlife has become

increasingly inappropriate in the post-independence period in East Africa. People and

their elected representatives as well as voluntary organizations have articulated a

determined opposition to this paternalist approach (Neumann 1995). The mere act of

setting boundaries has brought changes only within those boundaries, while long-term

problems outside these areas have remained unchanged or have deteriorated with the

passage of time.

Another shortcoming recently identified with the protectionist model is the result

of new expectations placed upon protected areas today; this is true not only in Africa but

also worldwide. Originally established to conserve nature, protected areas must now

address a range of social objectives, such as "rural poverty, social injustice, gender

inequality, plight of indigenous people" (Neumann 1998:57), market failures, economic

injustices, administrative incompetence, corruption, and the like (Brandon 1998). As

such the protectionist model has been judged a failure for not meeting these new

expectations. In some cases, this model has been unjustly identified, accused, convicted,

and condemned. Although the protectionist model may have been correct regarding the

biological aspects of wildlife conservation, it has failed to address the human-dimension

aspects of biodiversity conservation.








Community-based models. Within the last few decades and in light of mounting

biodiversity and social challenges, a "new" set of approaches to conservation has

emerged, commonly referred to as community-based conservation (CBC). These new

conservation approaches, unlike their predecessors, call for community participation,

local decision-making, and equitable means of sharing economic, social, cultural, or

ecological benefits accrued through protecting biodiversity. In return, however, local

communities are expected to assist with the protection of designated protected areas and

refrain from unsustainable and "illegal" natural resource practices. Communities form

partnerships with park administrators to protect biodiversity through sustainable

management practices that ultimately provide for their livelihood, health, and well-being.

For many countries, including Tanzania, CBC has become that last glimmer of

hope that may provide the answer to conserving natural resources around the world while

simultaneously providing socio-economic benefits to an ever-increasing human

population and its demands. Whatever vernacular term or phrase used, be it CBC or

integrated conservation development projects (ICDP), it is clear that active community

participation and cooperation is the key element in the success of most long-term

conservation programs.




Objectives

My study has two components, a comparison and a survey. I have presented a

comparison of conservation management approaches for three protected areas in

Tanzania: Udzungwa National Park, Mikumi National Park, and Mkomazi Game

Reserve. These case studies represent a unique opportunity in which to review a gradient








of conservation management approaches and their subsequent implementation challenges

and accomplishments.

The second phase of this study focuses on the analyses of questionnaire surveys

for two (Udzungwa and Mikumi National Parks) of the three protected areas. The

purpose of these surveys was to ascertain local conservation attitudes, knowledge,

challenges, and benefits of the National Park as well as to elicit future management

suggestions.

For both the comparison and the surveys, the objectives are to review issues of

conservation by:

1. Assessing the legacy of colonial policies on natural resources in Tanzania. This

provides an historic basis for understanding how conservation policies were

initiated by colonial German and British administrators.

2. Using historical and contemporary biodiversity conservation approaches and local

community conservation attitudes in an attempt to frame twenty-first century

management options for parks and protected areas in Tanzania.

3. Identifying indicators of compliance and non-compliance of various conservation

management approaches.




Chapter Format

The dissertation is organized into six chapters: (1) Introduction, (2) A Historical

Survey of Natural Resources in Tanzania, (3) Study Areas and Methods, (4) Results and

Discussion: Management Approaches in Three Protected Areas, (5) Results and








Discussion: the Case of Udzungwa and Mikumi National Parks, and (6) Summary and

Conclusions.

Chapter 1. The general problem of implementing various conservation

management approaches is presented as well as a brief overview of changing

conservation paradigms and a continuum of management approaches (protectionist and

community-based), followed by objectives and chapter format.

Chapter 2. A historical overview of natural resources and early land stewardship

in Tanzania is provided, including a review of colonialism, post-colonialism, the

beginning of a conservation ethic, and the subsequent expansion of protected areas and

policy influences on the nature of the land.

Chapter 3. The study areas are described for Tanzania and the three case studies:

Udzungwa National Park (UNP), Mikumi National Park (MNP), and Mkomazi Game

Reserve (MGR). The methodology section provides a general description of major

methodological points and research tools used. The Sokoine University of Agriculture

and Tuskegee University (SUA/TU) Linkage project, a USAID-funded collaborative

project between Tuskegee University, Alabama, and Sokoine University of Agriculture in

Tanzania, is discussed. Objectives and goals are given for the overall project, along with

specific village-level program activities for four local communities (Maharka, Msongozi,

Kisawasawa, and Sanje) where proximity to protected areas presents various natural

resource challenges. These challenges, as well as local community conservation attitudes

and knowledge are assessed through household, village leader, women's group, and park

staff surveys.








Chapter 4. Results and discussion of historical and contemporary conservation

management approaches are presented. The current state of affairs discusses recent

events and challenges facing the three protected areas.

Chapter 5. Results of household, village leaders, women's group, and park staff

questionnaire surveys for UNP and MNP are presented. Questionnaires were used to

ascertain community level conservation attitudes and knowledge, while the analyses were

used to suggest future management options, challenges, and accomplishments. This is

followed by results of a study tour for both parks.

Chapter 6. A summary of conservation challenges and concluding remarks are

presented.













CHAPTER 2
HISTORICAL SURVEY OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN TANZANIA



Scramble for Eden

For purposes of the temporal use of natural resources, I chose the European

Renaissance as my benchmark referent. This period was not chosen because of any

mystical event, or for that matter any regional phenomenon. Instead, it is a familiar

period for most European and Anglo-Americans with which to relate their insights,

attitudes, and motives behind the vast cultural and political changes that followed.

Near the turn of the fifteenth century, gaining control of natural resources (e.g.,

gold, ivory, spices, timber, porcelain, etc.) had become a highly competitive global

phenomenon (Hale 1977). With Christopher Columbus's "discovery" of 'The New

World' in 1492 (Shillington 1989:173), the "reconquista" of formerly Moorish-controlled

southern Europe in the same year was not a simple coincidence (Harris and Eisenberg

1989). This period has often been referred to as a turning point in the history of Western

Civilization (Potter 1964) and thus the "beginning of all real progress" (Ralph 1973:2).

Moreover, it was the single most defining point underlying the flourishing of colonialism

around the world and for the subsequent arguments that followed by both admirers and

detractors of the colonial period (Ralph 1973).

By the late eighteenth century and in the wake of the emergence of "legitimate

commerce" in place of commerce such as the unmonitored slave and ivory trade, a

massive colonial onslaught swept through most of Africa (Mwalyosi 1993a, Shillington








1989:302). Interested in gaining control over the natural resource-based trading systems

in Africa and securing a "captive" market for their products (Coulson 1982), commonly

referred to as the "Scramble for Africa," European colonial powers descended upon the

continent (Nangoli 1986, Shillington 1989). Captivity, disease, famine, religion, and

guns played essential roles in advancing foreign imperialism across the African continent

(Crosby 1986, Kjekshus 1977a, Iliffel979, Nangoli 1986, Shillington 1989, Temu 1969).

What was left of the natural resources and the people is still being discovered, and

consequent histories revised.

Early land stewardship. It is commonly believed, yet sharply debated, that

indigenous cultures had achieved an equilibrium or balance with the native biota (de Blij

and Capon 1969) and as such were considered responsible stewards of the land (Johnson

and Anderson 1988). Throughout recorded history every culture has had some form of

customary beliefs that were/are used to manage, control, or moderate the distribution and

exploitation of their natural resources (Englehardt 1962, Grzimek 1962, Olindo and

Mbaelele 1994). These have, for the most part, been effective, either intentionally or

otherwise (IIED 1994). Generally, these beliefs evolved over many generations and were

based on traditional religion, mystical laws, taboos, rituals, etc. (Western and Wright

1994). Such beliefs forbade hunting in specific areas and/or the taking of certain wildlife

species and the eating of certain foods (Olindo and Mbaelele 1994). Moreover, some

indigenous cultures were believed or imagined to have maintained a harmonious relation

with wildlife and nature (Neumann 1998, Olindo and Mbaelele 1994). For example, the

Maasai, in East Africa are often championed as "friends" to wildlife because their

traditional culture forbade hunting wild game for food, and they generally did not








cultivate (IUCN 1963, Kabigumila 1992). As a result, it was widely assumed that their

traditional culture (transhumance pastoralism) not only did not interfere with, but actually

protected wildlife and natural resources (Carr 1964, IUCN 1963, Kaiza-Boshe et al. 1998,

Neumann 1998). Contrary to this belief, wildlife and man have always competed for

resources, often to the detriment of both wildlife and its habitat (Kjekshus 1977a); the

balance was probably dynamic at best and tenuous at worst.

There are two main schools of thought about the ecological balance maintained by

"indigenous" cultures: first, that the "noble savage," was capable of managing his/her

own resources while living in harmony with the environment (Johnson and Anderson

1988); second, that the lack of technology prevented many of the indigenous groups from

completely liquidating their natural resources (Western and Wright 1994). The degree to

which indigenous groups were or were not in control of managing their resources is a

debate that I choose to eschew.

Although not necessarily significantly pronounced in East Africa, the late 1800s

was a period of "ecological imperialism," a term coined by A.W. Crosby (1986) to

denote "the biological changes which follow contact but precede political domination"

(Johnson and Anderson 1988:4). However, for Tanganyika and most of East Africa, the

end of the nineteenth century meant the end of black Africans' control over balanced, co-

evolved ecological systems (de Blij and Capon 1969). This native control came to an

abrupt end because of the breakdown of native land tenure systems, reduced labor force,

resettlement schemes, disease, famine, cultural erosion, and colonial pacification that

swept through the country during this period (Iliffe 1979, Kjekshus 1977a, Mwalyosi

1993a). Moreover, the sustainable use of common natural resources became increasingly








threatened by the deterioration of customary rules governing their use as colonial policies

contributed to the transformation of indigenous cultures and traditional range

management practices (IUCN 1963, Mwalyosi 1993b).

In addition, centuries of ecological expertise and strict biologically-based taboos

and customs for regulating natural resource use (IUCN 1963, Johnson and Anderson

1988) were shattered in large part when Christian missionaries descended upon the

country (Englehardt 1962, Grzimek 1962). Some of these missionaries, under the guise

of a religious order to "save the heathens from the everlasting fires of purgatory, began

the task of stealing the culture from the very souls of indigenous peoples in the name of

Christian rightenous and piety" (Maser 1999:217, Nangoli 1986, Shillington 1989). This

is recognized as one of the greatest ironies of religion (Maser 1999) and the beginning of

cultural homogenization around the globe. Finally, directly or indirectly, Christian

missions paved the way for the assertive European imperial control that was to follow

(Nangoli 1986, Shillington 1989).




Man and Nature in Tanganyika: Colonial Era

The earliest known written reference to the East African coast was recorded in

100 A.D. in a Greek handbook entitled "The Periplus of the Erythrean Sea" (The Voyage

of the Indian Ocean) (Alpers 1969:35, Shillington 1989:122). During this period Greek

and Roman traders referred to the East African coast as "Azania" (Shillington 1989:122).

The East African region is undoubtedly rich in historical details and events, but not until

foreign domination (e.g., Arab, Portuguese, Spanish, and European) in the nineteenth

century was this history explicitly captured and described in written format and made








accessible in the West. Suffice it to say, modem written history of the East African

coastal region did not begin in the nineteenth century, but it is at this point that I begin

my synoptic history of the region.

In February 1885, Germany declared the status of protectorate over an East

African region that was subsequently referred to as German East Africa and is now

known as the nation state of the United Republic of Tanzania (Berry et al. 1982, Coulson

1982, Shillington 1989). Although administered by the German East African Company

(Deutsche Ostafrikanische Gesellschaft) prior to 1891, full administrative authority was

later transferred to the Imperial German Government (Coulson 1982, Gwassa 1969).

After the defeat of Germany in WW I at the hands of Britain, United States, and France,

German East Africa was converted to a British "Mandated Territory" and was

subsequently referred to as Tanganyika Territory [Tanganyika] in 1920 (Biermann 1998,

life 1979, Neumann 1998). From 1920 to 1946, Tanganyika was administered by a

mandate of the League of Nations (predecessor of the United Nations) whereby the

British were "to safeguard the interests of African inhabitants and prepare them for

eventual self government" (Shillington 1989:315), which required Britain "to promote

the material and moral well-being and the social progress of [the] inhabitants" lifee

1979:247).

After WW II, Tanganyika became a "trusteeship territory" of the United Nations

(officially organized on June 26, 1945) but officially administered as a British colony

(Biermann 1998, Coulson 1982:44, NYPL 1993:891, Nyenzi 1998, Uiowa 1999). In

other words, Tanganyika remained a British colony (Biermann 1998). Tanganyika

gained independence in December 1961. Subsequently, it became the United Republic of








Tanzania when the mainland of Tanganyika was united with the People's Republic of

Zanzibar on April 26, 1964 (Berry et al. 1982, Shillington 1989).



Conservation Reawakening

Before the emergence of formalized conservation throughout the world, the

wanton destruction of natural resources proceeded toward complete annihilation of

several species and habitats (Carr 1964, Heck 1962); no species or habitat seemed to be

immune to the raw destructive forces of humans of alien ethnic values and new

technologies (Heck 1962). This was not restricted to Africa by any means, but was more

or less a widespread global phenomenon. In the historical blink of an eye, the onslaught

was over and cultures, states, economies, and indeed ecology were vastly transformed

forever (Carr 1964, Pringle 1982).

Extreme measures were necessary to stop the senseless destruction of wildlife and

natural systems that had been used primarily to satisfy the demands of distant

industrialized countries for "luxury" items (e.g., slaves, ivory, feathers, furs, hide, etc.).

With the realization that these and other potentially deleterious environmental changes

could affect human health and threaten the very essence of human existence (Maser 1999,

McNeely et al. 1990), the general mentality of the world appeared to shift toward a

conservation ethic or consciousness (Anderson 1998).

The evolutionary process of man's attitude toward his environment is briefly

summarized as follows. Early in the evolution of modem humans, man respected nature

(IUCN 1963). Rituals, customs, and rules evolved with the passage of time along

intergenerational lines. Man, for the most part, was simply an element of and paid

allegiance to his natural environment; his environment satisfied his basic needs and








provided for his security (Heck 1962). Eventually, man adapted to his environment and

gained self-confidence, and greater awareness about changes in his surroundings. This

period was followed by man's aggressive, exploitative behavior, which ultimately led to

his divorce from nature (Heck 1962). As a species, man set himself outside of and above

nature (IUCN 1963). A state of unbalance accompanied by the extinction of species and

the destruction of the land followed thereafter. Finally, we are at the point of responsible

readjustment and environmental reawakening (Heck 1962). Man has entered the stage of

reconciliation, renewed responsibility, and respect for the environment by providing for

the long-term, sustained use of its natural resources (IUCN 1963).



Formalizing Conservation

Throughout most of the world a formalized conservation approach did not emerge

until the end of the nineteenth century. Fortunately, this process was rapid and/or

simultaneous around much of the globe. This process was not the result of one culture or

nation but perhaps a coincident or a simultaneous realization that although earth's

resources could provide enormous goods and services as well as economic benefits, they

were otherwise limited and their depletion was increasingly threatened (Serageldin and

Martin-Brown 1999).

In 1872, the United States established its first National Park, Yellowstone

National Park. This is hailed as the world's first modern effort of conservation (Milne

and Waugh 1994, Neumann 1998, Western et al. 1994, Wyant 1982) (although President

Abraham Lincoln transferred Yosemite Valley Park to the state of California in 1864, it is

rarely paid respect as the first national park in the United States). A predominant theme

was that "in the absence of cultural nationalism" the United States should focus on








protecting its natural history in search of an American identity (Neumann 1998, Runte

1987:282). This was to be accomplished by preserving the more rich and dramatic of her

national natural resources. By the early 1960s, the U.S. National Park model based upon

the ideals of enclaves of pristine nature (exclusion of people, restrictions on hunting, and

extraction of timber products, etc.), served as a blueprint for the establishment of national

parks around much of the world (McNeely et al. 1994, Neumann 1998).

In Africa, the movement to set-aside designated protected parks and preserves had

its effective start in 1897 with the gazettement of the Hluhluwe, Umfolozi, Umdhletshe

and St. Lucia Reserves in South Africa (Harris and Sullivan 1980, Pringle 1982). The

subsequent establishment of other African protected areas followed rapidly, with South

Africa's establishment of Kruger National Park (previously the Sabi Reserve) in 1898

(Carr 1964, Olindo and Mbaelele 1994). Today, Kruger National Park is hailed as the

prototype for most other national parks in Africa (Carr 1964, Neumann 1998) and

Africa's "first modern conservation area" (Olindo and Mbaelele 1994:49). This concept

was readily embraced because of Westerners' growing concern over the loss of Africa's

free-roaming wildlife and thus "wild Africa" (Carr 1964, Neumann 1998). Today,

modern Africa is facing many of the same environmental challenges that Europe,

America, and Asia faced years ago -- the rapid degradation of natural lands (Grzimek

1962), the realization of limiting resources, increased human demands for utilization

(Bennett 1993), all too rapidly rising human populations (Carr 1964), heightened human-

rights concerns, and the centuries old human-wildlife conflicts.








Nature of the Land

Land alienation. Initially, physical displacement, either voluntarily or through

forced eviction, and confinement of the local people to marginal lands were tactics

pursued by German and British colonial administrators to combat sleeping sickness

throughout the region (Carr 1964, Kjekshus 1977a). These resettlement schemes resulted

in huge areas devoid of human population. In addition, diseases, natural, man-made, or

induced calamities also contributed to the depopulation of specific areas (Iliffe 1979,

Kjekshus 1977a). Once devoid of people, these lands were often reclaimed by bush,

dangerous species of wildlife, tsetse fly, and ultimately even appropriated by European

immigrants (Iliffe 1979).

By 1939 there were 6,514 Europeans unofficially in Tanganyika, which included

2,100 British and 2,729 Germans (Iliffe 1979). From the period between 1913 to 1938,

the total acres alienated to European immigrants increased from one million to over two

million (Biermann 1998). Although, this only constituted approximately 1.3% of the

country's total land, rights of occupancy were appropriated for up to 99 years (Iliffe 1979)

and, without surprise, included much of the more productive, fertile lands (Iliffel979,

Mwalyosi 1993b, Neumann 1998). Taken together, this had the effect of pushing local

people to marginal areas and thus resulted in the loss of large areas of important seasonal

pastures for livestock (Mwalyosi 1993b).

Settlement schemes. According to Kjekshus (1977a), tsetse fly eradication

programs, along with centuries of "intertribal" warfare, slave raiding, a number of disease

outbreaks, famine, and colonial pacification, cumulatively depopulated the interior of

Tanganyika and initiated the breakdown of man-controlled ecological systems. Of

particular interest in this discussion are the policy measures associated with combating








the tsetse fly (Glossina spp.), which was responsible for epidemics of sleeping sickness

(trypanosomiasis) across Tanganyika and elsewhere in East Africa at the beginning of the

nineteenth century (Coulson 1982, Kjekshus 1977a).

As part of a committee recommendation in 1914, the colonial government

embarked upon a program of mass evacuation of the population which "led to the

establishment of permanent population concentrations and clearings" (Kjekshus

1977a: 168). Although the German policy was largely focused on bush clearing and

eradication of wildlife, it pursued an aggressive program of establishing a number of

treatment centers whereby the sick could be attended in isolation from the general

population (Kjekshus 1977a). The British continued the initiatives of expanding

resettlement schemes beyond disease control to an even larger scale, ostensibly

concentrating groups of people in order to improve the general internal economy and

services provided to the rural areas. These "concentrations were intended to facilitate

internal development as centres of education, health, water and conversion" as well as

introduce new agriculture methods (Kjekshus 1977a:169).

Although the settlement schemes were initially advocated as a "single purpose

health measure at the time of their inception," their goal later changed "to multi-purpose

developmental units in the terminal days of British Administration" (Kjekshus

1977a: 178). Efforts to move people into sleeping sickness settlements continued until the

1950s, although the full magnitude and number of people concentrated was incomplete.

In general, these settlements were successful in their efforts in controlling

trypanosomiasis and the establishment of a number of social infrastructures, but they did

not fully develop into the anticipated economic centers of achievement and progress, due








largely to the lack of local support, heavy reliance on government assistance, increasing

expenditures, and strong bureaucratic supervision (Mushi 1977).

Land degradation. In terms of land-use, colonial biases perceived Africans as

unskilled farmers that caused the general destruction of the habitat (e.g., soil erosion)

because of their primitive farming practices (Leach and Mearns 1996, Mwalyosi 1993b).

Peasants were looked upon as being uncooperative and unwilling to accept "progress."

Because of their low level of formal education (if any), their traditional beliefs,

"primitive" culture, and "backward" land-use practices, they were assumed to be ignorant

and unable to comprehend their own environmental problems (IIED 1994, IUCN 1963,

Leach and Mearns 1996, Neumann 1998).

Since the turn of the century the resultant colonial policies have been the

reduction of nomadism and greatly increased sedentary land-use practices (Johnson and

Anderson 1988, Longhurst and Heady 1968, Mwalyosi 1993a). For whatever reasonss,

either out of ignorance and/or prejudice, the local farming systems in Tanzania, when

compared to European standards, were viewed in a negative light. Shifting cultivation

was thought of as a wasteful, backward, primitive, and destructive farming system

(Mwalyosi 1993b). Soon sedimentary agriculture became equated with a more advanced

civilization and thus recognized as a significant indicator of progress (Johnson and

Anderson 1988). The expansion of settled cultivation was also championed and

"promoted as a panacea for a multitude of rural ills" (Johnson and Anderson 1988:11).

The response from the government and international aid organizations also "fostered

development policies to encourage pastoralists to settle and reduce their dependence on

livestock by taking up cultivation" (Anderson 1988:241). Subsequently, confinement of








indigenous people to relatively small areas of land with low agricultural potential (where

traditional land-use practices may not have been applicable) has contributed to localized

overpopulation and ultimately led to serious concerns of land degradation ( whether

scientifically substantiated or not) as well as human impoverishment (Mwalyosi 1993b).

Because of their restricted range and confinement in some cases to defined boundaries

(Johnson and Anderson 1988, Kiss 1990), local people soon adopted a "number of

desperate survival strategies" (Ahmed 1988:133) such as shortened fallow periods

(Mwalyosi 1993b), the illegal clearing of forested lands for production of charcoal

(Ahmed 1988) and building supplies, and the eventual overstocking of livestock beyond

the capacity of the land (partly as a result of improved veterinary services and the

addition of water sources) (Carr 1964, Johnson and Anderson 1988). These activities

further exacerbated the problem of land degradation. The threat of encroachment upon

idle fallow lands persuaded perhaps even the most reluctant farmer to continuously

cultivate their plot of land or risk losing it (Schoepf 1983). Furthermore, the penetration

of western capitalism, in the name of "progress," provided powerful economic incentives

for farmers to abandon their subsistence system in favor of anticipated long-term profits

and immediate momentary gains (Johnson 1988, Warren 1992).

Wildlife. There is now increasing evidence that the superabundant wildlife

populations described to exist in Africa around 1900 were not in fact representative of the

long-term norm nor the wildlife paradise generally perceived (Harris and Sullivan 1980,

Kjekshus 1977a). In fact, historical accounts suggest that wildlife populations were

considerably lower prior to 1890s (Kjekshus 1977a). Moreover, the ecological processes

that prevailed were part of a highly dynamic system of ecological changes influenced by








human occupancy and land-use practices (Kjekshus 1977a). Adaptive activities such as

burning, dispersed settlement patterns, traditional agricultural methods and hunting

practices, livestock husbandry, diseases, tsetse fly, and range management systems,

dramatically influenced wildlife populations and their distribution (Harris and Sullivan

1980).

Indirect conservation efforts were the mode by which wildlife was conserved.

Wildlife was approached with little direct management effort because of its wide spread

abundance and the belief that management was antithetical to wilderness (IUCN 1963).

Commonly, illicit and not uncommonly explicit, "management" was synonymous with

the reduction or elimination of wild animals, especially outside designated protected

areas and where they presumably posed a threat to surrounding communities (IUCN

1963, Neumann 1998). Outside these areas, wildlife was condemned and seen as an

obstacle to future development (IUCN 1963) and in potential conflict with economic

activities in the area (Marks 1994). As such, the destruction of game was deemed

justified to protect domestic crops, human life, and personal property.

The early colonial years of Tanganyika were marked by massive campaigns

aimed at controlling and ultimately eliminating the tsetse fly (Glossina spp.) (Iliffe 1979,

IUCN 1963). In addition to hunting, other methods to combat the tsetse fly included,

abandoning the infested land, grass burning, establishment of flight barrier zones, and

selective destruction of vegetation (Iliffe 1979). Since game species were known

repositories of trypanosomes of the tsetse fly, which also infected livestock, large herds

of wildlife were destroyed (Carr 1964, IUCN 1963). Elsewhere, the magnitude of one

such campaign is depicted in an example from South Africa's Umfolozi Game Reserve,








wherein 26,162 animals were killed from May 29 -November 30, 1929 (Pringle 1982).

The loss of a "mere" hundred or thousand wild animals was no cause for alarm since their

inherent reproductive nature would replenish the numbers (IUCN 1963).

For the most part, game was viewed by Westerners in strict sporting terms, meant

for a leisurely past time of fulfilled enjoyment and pleasure (Prins 1993). But black

Africans held a different view of wildlife (Kiss 1990). To them, wildlife provided food

(Carr 1964, Kiss 1990, Neumann 1998) clothing, (Longhurst and Heady 1968), and was

intimately a part of their traditional culture (IIED 1994, Kiss 1990). They also, however,

were aware of wildlife threats because of crop raiding and disease transmission (e.g.,

rinderpest and trypanosomiasis) (Mwalyosi 1993b).

Although wildlife conservation in Tanganyika dates back to the German

administration, colonial laws that regulated hunting and trade were rarely enforced

(TWPF 1998). But amidst political pressures from international conservation

organizations over the marked declined of a number of game species, more attention

increasingly focused on their preservation (Kiss 1990). Gradually, direct conservation

efforts emerged whereby protected areas, namely game controlled or game management

areas, game reserves, national parks, and conservation areas were created and the

regulation of hunting, and poaching was actively pursued (Neumann 1998).

Protected areas. Formal exclusionary game reserve laws were first introduced in

Tanganyika in May 1891 by German colonial administrators (TWPF 1998). These early

attempts of "protection" were aimed at controlling wildlife and legislating a set of

regulations that prohibited or strictly limited hunting, burning, grazing, and African

settlement and cultivation in a number of designated reserves (Neumann 1998). Since








their inception, these efforts have been surrounded by controversy (Harris and Sullivan

1980), local resistance, and lack of administrative or financial support. In essence, many

of these protected areas existed in law books only, and were commonly referred to as

"paper parks" (Brandon et al. 1998). Defined by the World Conservation Monitoring

Center (WCMC) (2000) as "an area of land and or sea especially dedicated to the

protection and maintenance of biological diversity and of natural and associated cultural

resources, and managed through legal or other effective means," some protected areas

were established after they were cleared of human occupancy in order to combat sleeping

sickness (Grzimek 1962) or overlapped with other government agendas (e.g.,

villigazation, ujamaa, etc.) that also resulted in depopulating specific areas (Neumann

1998). As a result, thousands of local people were permanently displaced (Neumann

1998). Other areas were chosen because of special scenery, an important dry or wet

season grazing area (Russell 1968), barren conditions with insufficient water supplies,

relatively abundant game populations, or the desire to protect declining species (Kjekshus

1977a). Still other areas were created out of "lands with [a] history of occupancy and

use" by "indigenous" people (Neumann 1998:4). Rarely were these areas established on

"sound scientific information on the nature of species and the ecosystem as a whole"

(Mugabe 1998: 12). It was generally assumed that the areas set aside for protection were

a small inconvenience in light of the future social, aesthetic, cultural, and economic

advantages to be bestowed upon the country (IUCN 1963). Furthermore, the

conservation of wildlife and nature was considered a cultured interest and a sign of a

highly advanced civilization (IUCN 1963).








The stated purpose for these reserved areas was to protect and prevent the

extinction of declining wildlife species, although their protection was often championed

by the elite hunting enthusiast for providing a reservoir of abundant game (IUCN 1963,

Neumann 1998, Pringle 1982). Despite being a low priority within the colonial

administration, and usually competing with other government sectors and priorities (e.g.,

agriculture, veterinary, tsetse, and etc.), wildlife preservation flourished within the British

administration in Tanganyika, whereby the game reserve network was expanded

throughout the territory (Neumann 1998, Olindo and Mbaelele 1994).

Local resistance. Throughout history, most colonial powers have experimented

with tactics to engage [capture] the "participation" of the peasant population in various

development schemes that included the establishment and protection of parks and

protected areas. However, peasant populations have generally eluded government

authorities, both locally and internationally, implicitly and explicitly, by employing a

number of "weapons" [tactics] used to deceive, evade, and even appear to be in

compliance with authorities that sought their assistance (Scott 1985). For the most part,

peasant population strategies have been passive, small in nature, and unorganized, but

they are pursued continuously by a number of individuals in the community (Scott 1985).

Peasant resistance has taken the form of covert tactics such as illegal

encroachment, poaching, setting illegal fires for clearing land, foot dragging, pleading

ignorance of the law, and employing deceptive behavior (Neumann 1998, Scott 1985).

On the other hand, more open, overt behavior may result in public confrontation and lead

to violence. Rarely are these incidents documented with the exception of a major

uprising that threatens the political stability or power structure of the state (Neumann








1998). However, one such example comes from Tanganyika, the Maji Maji rebellion,

where the German attempt to control East Africa was met by armed resistance and a

defiant African population. Although many smaller and more localized acts of defiance

have occurred, the Maji Maji rebellion of 1905, is hailed as the single most effective and

widespread resistance to colonial rule in Africa (Coulson 1982, Temu 1969). In spite of

or in addition to their superior fire-power and shear force, the Germans also adopted a

"scorched-earth" policy, whereby their militia tactics included the destruction of crops,

confiscation of livestock and foodstuff, and the burning of villages and shops (Kjekshus

1977a:145, Shillington 1989:308). The direct impacts of this resistance movement

resulted in an enormous loss of African life (approximately 75,000) as well as the

secondary effects of a three year famine that followed (Coulson 1982, Iliffe 1979).




Man and Nature in Tanzania: Independence Era

When Tanzania gained independence from Britain in 1961, many of the natural

resource policies adopted by the new independent government remained substantially

unchanged from the colonial bureaucratic structure that had dominated the country

(Neumann 1998). Moreover, the general conservation ideology that had accompanied

these policies also remained relatively intact (Neumann 1998).



Political Environment

The continuation of population concentration development schemes remained a

core idea well into the present independent administration (Kjekshus 1977a).

Immediately preceding and shortly after gaining independence, the Tanzanian








government pursued two alternative models for rural development, namely villagization

and ujamaa (Berry et al. 1982, Coulson 1982). Both of these strategies were attempts to

transform the rural sector by raising their level of production (Coulson 1982), and

standard of living through a framework of grassroot participation (Berry et al. 1982).

These policies, as well as nationalization and decentralization, profoundly influenced the

nature of the land in Tanzania.

Villagization. The villagization settlement scheme, initiated in the early 1960s,

was a "mechanized and capital intensive resettlement program aimed at new levels of

production" (Berry et al. 1982:75). The government provided the new sites with a

number of social services that included schools, health services, housing, water supplies,

and emergency food provisions (Hyden 1980), as well as credit for equipment purchases

(Berry et al. 1982, Coulson 1982).

Ujamaa. Coinciding in some areas with villagization, was the establishment of

ujamaa villages. By 1966 the villagization policy was abandoned in favor of the

alternative ujamaa policy of rural development (Coulson 1982, Makere 1971). But unlike

villagization, the ujamaa "familyhood" approach was "conceived as part of a radical

political transformation" that used existing technologies (Hyden 1980:104), and was

labor-intensive rather than capital intensive (Mushi 1977). This concept was rooted in

the tradition of African societies' concern for one another and formerly used as a guiding

philosophy in traditional African societies before the colonial era (Berry et al. 1982). As

described by Coulson (1982:239), these villages would involve "a small group of

politically committed farmers who worked together on a communal farm, using their

savings to purchase equipment that would benefit the group." It was anticipated that the








policy ofujamaa would "lead to many economic and social benefits including the

complete eradication of all forms of exploitation and the attainment of full socio-

economic and political equality" (Makere 1971:22). These villages, however, also

received substantial governmental support in terms of social services, capital investment,

and food provisions (Coulson 1982).

Compulsory villagization. Directly on the heels ofujamaa was another attempt

of villagization. In 1973, a compulsory villagization policy was enacted, whereby all

Tanzanians in rural areas were ordered to live in villages by the end of 1976 (Mushi

1977). By February 1977, approximately 13 million people (Coulson 1982) were

reported to be living in 7684 villages (Mushi 1977). Although total numbers may be

exaggerated, this was nevertheless the "largest resettlement effort in the history of

Africa" (Hyden 1980:130).

While these efforts can be credited in large part for saving thousands or perhaps

millions of lives in terms of disease and famine, these settlements, as described by

Kjekshus (1977b:282), also caused the "destruction of the ecological balance maintained

under the traditional settlement pattern." Furthermore, these nucleated settlement

patterns increasingly led to overcrowding of people and livestock, increased demands on

natural resources (e.g., timber and fuelwood), and contributed to soil erosion (Berry et al.

1982, Kjekshus 1977a).

Finally, at least two legacies are readily apparent from the settlement schemes

previously described. First, the failure of the Tanzanian government to transform the

rural sector, and second, the failure of the ruling class to capture the peasants (Hyden

1980, 1986).








Nationalization. The colonial government was organized on a hierarchical

structure with administrative management based upon sectoral ministries (e.g., health,

education, agriculture, water and etc.) (Berry et al. 1982). But shortly after independence

in 1961, the majority of the government offices and businesses were Africanized and

Nationalized composed and largely operated by black Africans and the state. The call

for nationalization came shortly after independence but vehemently pursued after the

Arusha Declaration in 1967 (Coulson 1982). The guidelines presented in the Arusha

Declaration were hailed as a blueprint from which President Nyerere had hoped to guide

his country's development (Hyden 1979,1980) based upon "communal living, rural

development, and self-reliance" (Berry et al. 1982:11). This philosophy was manifested

in the immediate nationalization of commercial banks, grain milling companies, import-

export houses, insurance businesses, oil refineries, sisal industry, co-operative unions,

transportation services, farms, and manufacturing companies (Berry et al. 1982, Coulson

1982, Hyden 1980). In some instances this meant that the state would have 100% of the

assets, while in other cases the government asked only for majority control or a

controlling interest (Coulson 1982). As described by Coulson (1982:180), "in less than

ten years from the Arusha Declaration, the state had taken a controlling interest in

virtually all productive institutions that could easily be nationalized."

Decentralization. The traditional hierarchical structure of the government, in

which the administration came from the top downward, was ultimately poorly suited for

the type of development that President Nyerere envisioned following the Arusha

Declaration in 1967 (Berry et al. 1982). Therefore in 1972, decentralization was

officially adopted as a policy by the government (Mushi 1977, Kleemeier 1981). In








theory this meant the end of local or central government, which was subsequently

replaced by a branch of the central civil service to administer the region and district

(Coulson 1980, Hyden 1980). The decentralization policy's main tenet was that planning

should start at the village level (Berry et al. 1982) where the "objective was to lessen the

burden on the central ministries in the execution of routine work by having field offices

play a larger role in local development projects" (Kleemeier 1981:64). This objective

was to be accomplished by the transfer of authority and responsibility to the regional and

district administrations (Kleemeier 1981). Decentralization, however, did not refer to the

decentralization of power but the physical transfer of staff (Coulson 1982). In this

regard, Coulson (1982) refers to decentralization as "centralization" whereas Hyden

(1980) identifies it as "deconcentration."

In summary, the overall policy environment during the colonial and post-colonial

eras, either directly or indirectly, intentionally or otherwise, and often linked to other

developmental motives and policies (Neumann 1998), contributed to the subsequent

abandonment of large tracts of previously cultivated and settled lands. Where some of

these lands were not allocated to the state or villages for small-scale production, the result

was the reclamation of bush and the eventual invasion of tsetse fly and wildlife (Coulson

1982, life 1979).



Current Nature of the Land

Land degradation. Today environmental degradation in Tanzania is "partly the

consequence of national policies [that have] divorced local people from the

responsibilities for conservation ..." (Mwalyosi 1993b:14). This has in turn created a

negatively reinforced attitude that has, in part, discouraged the pursuit of sound








conservation ethics and practices among indigenous people (Mwalyosi 1993b). Local

people continue to function in a traditional farming and livestock system that no longer

appears ecologically applicable or workable, based upon either present advances in

technology and medicine, or a political, economic, and social contextual setting that is

rapidly evolving (Parker 1969). For the subsistence, resource-poor farmer or pastoralist

there are very few incentives or compensating alternatives available for him to change a

system that has literally kept him alive (Johnson and Anderson 1988, Longhurst and

Heady 1968).

However, there are still situations where some forms of migratory pastrolism are

ecologically suited to the resource limitations of East Africa (Bennett 1993). These areas

may still provide a maximum yield with minimum resource degradation but only for a

modest number of people and for a limited amount of time (Bennett 1993); that is, until

such time as climatic factors (e.g., global warming, ozone effect, acid rain,

desertification, etc.) overwhelm the situation.

Inevitably the whole environment of the smallholder farmers in East Africa has

changed and in some cases collapsed under the combined disruptive pressures of a

modernizing society (Johnson 1988). Throughout the modernizing world we continue to

witness the exile of indigenous people, forced into a modernized world which they are ill-

equipped or prepared to accept, all in the name of progress and development (Carr 1964).

Wildlife. There is mounting pressure on wildlife that increasingly threatens its

survival, such as poaching, habitat destruction through the conversion of land to other

land-uses (agriculture schemes and etc.), increasing human population, illegal fires,

grazing by domestic stock, disruption of seasonal migration routes, fencing, and etc.








(WCMC 2000). It has been estimated that over half of the original wildlife habitat in

Africa has already been lost to extractive logging, charcoal burning, conversion to

agricultural use, livestock grazing, and other land-uses (Kiss 1990).

Today, the views held by a majority of Africans towards wildlife may be

described as resentful and antagonistic at best (Davis 1968). In their eyes wildlife is seen

as the "government's cattle" to be protected at all costs, even to the detriment of the rural

people (Western 1997). For the African farmer, his management objectives have been

avoidance, control, and sometimes eradication of wildlife species that threaten his crops

(Carr 1964), property, and personal safety (Mwalyosi 1993b).

Appeals based solely on the aesthetic, recreational, or scientific value of wildlife

have fallen short of offering complete protection and providing for a secure future for

rural communities (IUCN 1963). A struggle between the welfare of wildlife and a

vanishing wilderness against the rights and needs of an emerging African population

(Carr 1964) has persisted throughout the course of time and will continue to play an

increasing role in future management efforts. New policy and management philosophies

that seek to reduce these conflicts and provide for a secure future for wildlife and people

must be found.

Protected areas. Today, the present framework of protected areas in Tanzania

arose from a number of forest reserves, namely the sanctuaries or former German settler

estates that were placed under protection by the colonial powers, and subsequently

expanded to other areas and continued by the independent government (Neumann 1998,

Olindo and Mbaelele 1994, TWFP 1998).








Because protected areas are artificially, human-imposed boundaries (Russell

1968) on otherwise wild expanses of earth, they require tremendous expenditures simply

to maintain within a tropical setting (L.D. Harris, pers. com.). The difficulties of

safeguarding protected areas impose a large burden on emerging countries that are

continuing to struggle for economic survival (TWPF 1998). Large expenditures are

required for their upkeep, especially in light of the tremendous competing budgetary

constraints faced in most developing countries, such as Tanzania (TWPF 1998). Once

hailed as a small price to pay for international prestige and conservation commitment

(IUCN 1963), protected areas continue to be managed as a national and global asset, but

yet impose undue hardship (direct and indirect) on the local people (e.g., anti-poaching

programs, roads, camps, fire control, restrictive use of natural resources, and etc.)

(Longhurst and Heady 1968, Mwalyosi 1993a).

Protected areas are coming under increasing pressures to meet the growing

demands to provide for the long-term security of an ever-increasing and demanding

human population (Olindo and Mbaelele 1994). They are under insurmountable

pressures to provide fuel, food, timber, and economic returns for the local people. The

government has fallen short or failed to provide sufficient socio-economic benefits

(Coulson 1982) or incentives for those participating in protected area management, or

those directly affected by the establishment, and maintenance of these areas (Olindo and

Mbaelele 1994). In addition, officials in various branches of government, local, regional,

and national have come under increased pressure to convert land set-aside for

conservation to be used for short-term land use options, such as large-scale commercial

agriculture, or grazing areas (WCMC 2000).








International interests have always influenced and been a strong advocate for the

protected area approach in conserving the natural fauna in Africa (IUCN 1963, Neumann

1998). Under national and international pressures, protected areas are still hailed by

some as vital approaches to maintaining in perpetuity a representative sample of the

world's biological, physical, and cultural wealth (Attwell 2000). To a certain point this

objective has met some success in the sense that it has formed a partial barrier (weak or

strong) against subsequent development in the area (IUCN 1963, Olindo and Mbaelele

1994). However, today protected areas have come under considerable scrutiny from a

number of activists, social scientists, local peasants, and politicians questioning the

relevance of protected areas to rural communities and thus their livelihood (Neumann

1998). As a result, policy makers increasingly recognize that a more flexible, multi-

faceted, and integrated approach to managing strict natural areas is needed.

Consequently, a series of protected area classifications with varying degrees of

regulations and management regimes specifically pertaining to human occupation, and

use of the natural environment have been designated (Schoepf 1983). In an early attempt

to bring a degree of uniformity into the use of various, and often confusing terms applied

to the various land-use classifications throughout the world, the World Conservation

Union (IUCN) in 1978 established ten categories of protected areas based upon specified

management objectives (McNeely et al. 1994). In 1992, at the IV World Congress on

National Parks and Protected Areas, this system was modified and reduced to six

categories: strict nature reserve/wilderness area, national park, natural monument,

habitat/species management area, protected landscape/seascape, and managed resource

protected area (Brandon et al. 1998, WCMC 2000).








Focusing on the results of Tanzania's natural resource efforts, there where only

three National Parks, nine Game Reserves, and one Conservation Area at the time of

independence in 1961 (Kaiza-Boshe et al. 1998, TWPF 1998). However, after

independence, the new government significantly increased the number of protected areas

(Neumann 1998, TWPF 1998). Thus, Africanization not only embraced but amplified

ideologies of the colonial era (Neumann 1998). Today the total of protected areas

approximates 28% of Tanzania's land area, which includes 12 National Parks, 31 Game

Reserves, 38 Game Controlled Areas, and one Conservation Area. Several of these are

designated as world heritage sites and/or biosphere reserves (Coe et al. 1999, TWPF

1998, Zacharia 1990). Each category is unique and varies accordingly in its legal,

administrative, and degree of biodiversity protection (Coe et al. 1999, WCMC 2000) as

described under the present IUCN classification system.

Today's African nations feel increasing pressures to evaluate protected areas in

monetary terms. Sadly for biodiversity conservation, many countries are rapidly

approaching a point where humans are "unable to envisage humanity except in terms of

profit, development, exploitation, and planning at every economic level" (IUCN

1963:242), whereby protected areas are used as a "valid strategy for economic

development" (Kjekshus 1977a:79). Until now, biodiversity and renewable natural

resources have fallen victim to these monetary motives (Mugable 1998). This is in large

measure because there are no rules, conventions, or international mechanisms that are

effectively enforced to guarantee the survival of wildlife resources in the lesser developed

countries so long as economic incentives provide the strongest and easiest motive for

their destruction (IUCN 1963).








Local resistance. Today in Tanzania, local community resentment and

antagonistic feelings towards protected areas, and conservation policies continue to

culminate in various forms of local resistance.

Although everyday forms of resistance (Scott 1985:32) persist and may include

illegal hunting and natural resource extractions, grazing trespass, unauthorized burning,

and encroachment (Neumann 1998, Scott 1995), some of these "weapons" have

nevertheless remained consistent and unchanged. However, other changes in part, reflect

a growing grassroot movement with local and often global challenges surrounding the

establishment and administration of protected areas in Tanzania (Neumann 1998). From

ordinary weapons of relatively powerless groups to a formal process of due process

through the judicial system, years of unorganized defiant behavior have incrementally

moved towards an organized progress of peasant political mobility (Scott 1995).

But still, efforts to "capture" (engage) the peasant population in natural resource

management activities continues unabated. Within recent years these efforts have

increasingly involved community-based conservation initiatives that attempt to forestall

local opposition to conservation (Neumann 1998, Western and Wright 1994). Some of

these initiatives include the provision of social services, alternative employment

opportunities or other income generating schemes, benefit sharing opportunities, and

alternative resource management methods. These "alternatives" are aimed at providing

incentives (directly or indirectly) to the local communities for adhering to biodiversity

conservation objectives (IIED 1994).













CHAPTER 3
STUDY AREAS AND METHODS



Tanzania is a large and exceptionally diverse country, encompassing about

942,800 km2 (Kaiza-Boshe et al. 1998), thus making it the largest country in Eastern

Africa (Foster 1994) (Figure 2). Located just south of the equator, it borders Kenya and

Uganda on the north and northeast, respectively; Zaire, Rwanda, and Burundi on the

west; and Zambia, Malawi, and Mozambique on the south (Foster 1994, Nyenzi 1998).

Tanzania's population of approximately 30 million people is growing at an annual

rate of 2.8% (Nyenzi 1998, TWPF 1998). Although 80-85% of the population (Nyenzi

1998) lives in rural areas, the urban population of 4.5 million is growing at a rate of 7-8%

per year (PERM 1995) and dominates most of the news and political decisions. Native

Africans account for 99% of Tanzania's population with the remainder 1% composed of

Asia, Arab, and European peoples (Uiowa 1999). Kiswahili and English are the official

languages of the country, although there are several regional languages among

Tanzania's 120 "tribes" (Nyenzi 1998). Religious freedom is commonplace in Tanzania.

Muslims and Hindus make up 33%, while Christians comprise 33%, and those who

adhere to traditional African beliefs 34% (Uiowa 1999).

Agriculture employs over 80% of the adult work force (PERM 1995), accounts

for about 75% of the country's foreign exchange earnings (Kaiza-Boshe et al. 1998,












600km
300mi


Ngorongoro
Crater


TANZANI


Morogoro
0


Lake
V:Rukwa


1 Pemba Island Game.
2 Zanzibar Island 'Reserve'.
3 Mafia Island Lake.
Malawi
ZAMBIA oIa
MALAWI ,.
MOZAMBIQUE

Figure 2. Map of Tanzania

Adapted from: Crystal, D. editor. 1993. Cambridge FactFinder, updated edition. Pages
195-358 in Human geography (the Map of Tanzania, page 325). Cambridge University
Press, New York.








PERM 1995), and 50% of the country's Gross Domestic Product (Biermann 1998, Kaiza-

Boshe et al. 1998). Agriculture, therefore, dominates and stereotypes the economy of

country as a whole. It is a country of smallholder farmers who average less than two

hectares of land, and are characterized by low productivity, and per capital income.

Because of the caprice of climate, foreign exchange, and availability of international

goods and supplies, most people can make only marginal moves away from subsistence

agricultural levels and towards a profit-oriented farming system. Although commercial

agriculture is the objective of the economic sector (Biermann 1998, Mugabe 1998), the

critical importance of raw natural resources to people's livelihood can not be

underestimated (PERM 1995).

Tanzania's biological diversity (biodiversity) is one of the country's greatest

assets (Coe et al. 1999, Mwalyosi 1993a, TWPF 1998) remaining to be tapped in a

sustainable and profitable mode (Mwalyosi 1993b). One estimate suggests that at least

25% of the world's global diversity occurs in Tanzania (in terms of species, ecosystem,

and genetic variety) (Mugabe 1998). The diversity of habitats, topographical features,

plants, and animals found in Tanzania make the country one of the richest areas on earth

in terms of natural resource endowment and spectacular scenery (Mwalyosi 1993a,

TWPF 1998): the Great Rift Valley, a vast fault-line through the interior of Tanzania and

the precursor to several ecological wonders, such as the Ngorongoro Crater, the largest

unbroken caldera in the world; Lake Tanganyika, the world's second deepest lake (Foster

1994, Nyenzi 1998); the Central Plateau (1200 m above sea level), a huge expanse of

savannah and sparse woodland and home to the Serengeti, arguably the most photogenic

and best known wildlife area in the world (Foster 1994). On the northern Tanzania-








Kenya border, rises the ice-capped mountains of Mount Kilimanjaro (19,340 ft- 5895

m), the tallest freestanding mountain in the world is sharply juxtaposed to a wondrous

marine and coral reef system only 161 km to the east (Nyenzi 1998). This, in turn, is

dotted by the culturally renowned islands of Zanzibar, Mafia, and Pemba.

In terms of wildlife, Tanzania is the fourth most diverse country in Africa for

amphibians, reptiles (Kaiza-Boshe et al. 1998, McNeely et al. 1990), and swallowtail

butterflies (McNeely et al. 1990). It ranks third for birds (Kaiza-Boshe et al. 1998) and

mammals (McNeely et al. 1990) and second most diverse for plants (Kaiza-Boshe et al.

1998, PERM 1995). This rich fauna and flora diversity is supported by an equally rich

mosaic of habitats that is a reflection of its climatic, topographic, and altitudinal

variations (Coe et al. 1999, Mwalyosi 1993a). Although there are seasonal variations in

temperatures and rainfall throughout the region, on the whole, the country's hottest

months are from October to February, and the long rainy season is from mid-March to

late May with short rains occurring between October and December (Nyenzi 1998,

TWPF 1998).

Although much of the country is semi-arid, characterized by low rainfall and

dominated by either savannah grassland, Acacia woodland, or Comiphora-Acacia scrub,

there are also wetlands, flood plains, coastal mangrove forests, coral gardens, tropical

forests, and montane belts (Coulson 1982, Mwalyosi 1993a, TWPF 1998). Moreover,

there are several world-renowned areas of significant natural, cultural, and economic

importance, which include World Heritage sites such as Mt. Kilimanjaro, Selous Game

Reserve, Serengeti National Park, and Ngorongoro Crater (Coulson 1982, Kaiza-Boshe

et al. 1998, TWPF 1998), as well as a number of Africa's great lakes (Victoria,








Tanganyika, and Nyasa) (Coulson 1982, Mwalyosi 1993a, TWPF 1998), rivers (Rufiji,

Pangani, Ruaha, and Ruvuma) (Berry et al. 1982, Coulson 1982), and soda lakes (Natron,

Eyasi, Blangida, and Manyara) (Mwalyosi 1993a, TWPF 1998).




Study Areas

Because Tanzania has a well-documented history of conservation programming

activities, several of its National Parks and protected areas provide an excellent

opportunity for reviewing the legacy of colonial natural resource policies, changing

paradigms, human-wildlife conflicts, human rights concerns, and conservation

management approaches. This is especially important now after a century of

experimentation with conservation approaches in the face of unrelenting human

population growth.

For these discussions, I present three case studies: Udzungwa National Park

(UNP), Mikumi National Park (MNP), and Mkomazi Game Reserve (MGR). These three

study areas were chosen because they provide fairly distinct conservation management

approaches for comparison and contrast. Despite a common colonial legacy and similar

political environments, these three protected areas have subsequently pursued different

conservation management approaches. Their management decisions have been greatly

influenced by local park managerial attitudes and philosophies as well as varying degrees

of technical and financial support (e.g., local government, international NGOs, and

private donations). Furthermore, the ecological attributes, community relations, and

historical context have come to distinctly shape these three protected areas' conservation

approaches, management challenges, and natural resource policies.








Udzungwa National Park

Udzungwa National Park (UNP) is located in the Iringa and Morogoro Regions of

South Central Tanzania (Figure 3). Bordered on the north by the Ruaha River, on the

east by the Selous Game Reserve, on the south by the TAZARA (Great Uhuru) railway,

and on the west by the West Kilombero Scarp Forest Reserve (Hoyle 1997, Johannes

1996).

The total area of UNP is 1900 km2, gazetted (established) in 1992 from the

Mwanihana, Iwonde, and parts of Matundu, Nyanganje and West Kilombero Scarp Forest

Reserves (originally established in 1958), making it Tanzania's twelfth national park and

sixth largest (Johannes 1996). UNP forms part of the chain of mountains known as the

"Eastern Arc" mountains of East Africa (TANAPA n.d.). These mountain ranges include

Usambara, North and South Pare, Uluguru, Mahenge, Rubeho, Nguu, Malundwe, Nguru,

Ukaguru, and Udzungwa in Tanzania (Johannes 1996, Mwalyosi 1993a), and Taita in

Kenya (Johannes 1996). These mountain ranges stretch across eastern Tanzania from the

Kenya border to Malawi and are among the richest biodiversity hotspots in the world

with exceptionally high fauna and flora species richness and endemism (Myers et al.

2000, TWPF 1998). The UNP constitutes the greatest altitidunal range of forests in East

Africa (TANAPA n.d.). The eastern escarpment is the only place in East Africa with a

relatively unbroken forest cover, with a variety of forest types with altitudinal ranges

from 250 m above sea level to 2000 m. Estimated annual rainfall is 500-2500 mm

(Hoyle 1997, Johannes 1996).












MAP OF UDZUNGWA
MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK,
TANZANIA


Mikumi@



Kidalu


Figure 3. Map of Udzungwa National Park

Source: Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA), n.d. Brochure for Udzungwa National
Park. Arusha, Tanzania.








Udzungwa National Park is an exceptionally rich forest. It provides habitat for

many rare and endemic flora and fauna species, a very diverse large mammal community,

the richest forest bird habitat in Tanzania, and spectacular mountain scenery with

rainforest, wooded grasslands, rock faces, rivers, and waterfalls (TANAPA n.d.).



Mikumi National Park

Mikumi National Park (MNP), gazetted in 1964, is the third largest national park

after Ruaha and Serengeti, with an area of 3,230 km2 (TANAPA n.d.). MNP is located in

North Central Tanzania and shares its boundary in the extreme east with the Selous Game

Reserve (Figure 4). Together they form a continuous ecosystem for migrating animals.

The park lies in a horseshoe of towering mountains and forested foothills. To the east

rises the 2743 m massif of the Uluguru ranges; to the southwest are the peaks of the

Lumango mountains, while the Mbesera, Madizini, and Mazunyungu hills sweep around

northward and westward (TANAPA n.d.).

The park headquarters is located 96 km2 from Morogoro town, along the

Tanzania-Zambia Highway (which transverses the park for 50 km2), 288 km2 from Dar es

Salaam, and 80 km2 from UNP (TANAPA n.d.), making it one of Tanzania's most

accessible national parks. The major attraction at MNP is the Mkata flood plain that rises

approximately 548 m above sea level and is an area of high concentration of the plains

variety animals, including four of the "big five" species in Africa elephant, buffalo, lion

and leopard- as well as over 300 species of birds (Foster 1994, TANAPA n.d.).


















































Figure 4. Map of Mikumi National Park and Selous Game Reserve Ecosystem

Source: Siege, L. editor. 1996. Financial potential of the Selous Game Reserve and its
buffer zones. SCP Discussion Paper No. 21. Selous Conservation Programme. Selous
Game Reserve-Wildlife Division. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Map of Mikumi National
Park and Selous Game Reserve, cover page.








Mkomazi Game Reserve

The Mkomazi Game Reserve (MGR) is located in Northeast Tanzania and lies

along the Kenya border approximately midway between the Indian Ocean and Mt.

Kilimanjaro (Figure 5). The MGR is bordered on the northwest by the North Pare

Mountains, with the westernmost highest point of the Reserve, Kinondu Hill, reaching an

elevation of 1594 m (Coe et al. 1999, Harris 1972, McWilliam and Packer 1998). The

Umba Steppe, comprising the open plains area of the Reserve, borders the Reserve in the

east with an elevation of 230 m above sea level and rising to 600 m above the plain

(Harris 1972). To the south lies the Umba River and Tsavo (West) National Park in

Kenya to the North, where it forms an integral part of the greater Tsavo ecosystem (Coe

et al. 1999, Mangubuli 1992). The foothills of the North Pare Mountains and the

extensive plains of the Umba Steepe are two main physiographic features of the Reserve

(Harris 1972).

MGR is characterized as semi-arid with an east to west annual rainfall gradient

varying between 35 cm to 65 cm (Harris and Fowler 1975). The vegetation is

categorized into four major types: (1) dry montane forest, (2) bushed and wooded

grassland, (3) seasonally inundated grassland, and (4) bushland (Coe et al. 1999, Harris

1972). Today, bushland accounts for less than 50% of the Reserve (Coe et al. 1999). A

complete description of the physiography and geology of MGR is extensively given

elsewhere (Harris 1972).

The MGR was established in October 1951 and encompasses a total area of

3234.4 km2' with an approximate maximal length of 130 km and maximal width of 41 km

(Harris 1972). Since establishment, however, its borders have been altered at least twice,





























Figure 5. Map of Mkomazi Game Reserve

Source: Coe, M.J., N.C. McWilliam, G.N. Stone, and M.J. Parker, editors. 1999.
Mkomazi: the ecology, biodiversity, and conservation of a Tanzania savanna. Royal
Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers), London. Map of
Mkomazi Game Reserve, back cover inset map. (Reprinted with permission of the
publisher)




































I K


.Ei


E

-J


I I


LU
LU
L
LU






0
LLJ <
52z

N
z


'


J ,








once in 1957 and again in 1966 (Harris 1972, Zacharia 1990). This has resulted in a

reduction of the original 3584 km2 to the present day total area. Under the Wildlife

Conservation Act No. 12 of 1974 and Government Notice No. 275 of 8th November the

MGR (the western part) was administratively reestablished under the decentralization

policy as the MGR, and the Umba Game Reserve (UGR) (the eastern half) (Zacharia

1990). Today, the MGR (2010.3 km2) and UGR (1224.1 km2) lie in the Pare and Lushoto

Districts of the Kilimanjaro and Tanga regional administrative boundaries, respectively

(Mangubuli 1992). Throughout this paper, however, the MGR/UGR will be collectively

referred to as the Mkomazi Game Reserve (MGR) or Reserve unless otherwise stipulated.

Historical overview of MGR. During the last 30 years the administrative

capacity to manage protected areas in Tanzania has declined to a point where the MGR

has suffered considerable biodiversity losses (D. Anstey pers. com., Mangubuli 1992).

This came about as a result of declining social foundations and decision-making capacity

in conservation institutions. The problems of the Reserve have been blamed on

insensitive colonial policies that failed to consider people's needs, rights and the

traditional practices that maintained a reasonable environment before colonial

intervention.

The political ideology that led to these losses is now being addressed by more

recent administrations, and alternative management steps are underway to relieve the

natural resource base of numerous stressors. During the last few years, the Reserve has

been a focal point for a new ideology. A major report on the Reserve (Homewood et al.

1997) maintains that all can be well if control of the natural resources would be given to

the local village authorities. Without a detailed analysis here, this report appears to








misrepresent and misstate major historical facts of the MGR. As such, this dissertation

suggests extreme caution in basing any critical decisions or advocating new ones on

untested claims, as the effects could be irreversible. Moreover, in the interest of pursuing

equitable future management options, it is imperative that a correct, objective, and

unbiased narrative be told one which considers the historical developments which led to

the gazettement and the current ecological, social, and political challenges.

The following is a historical overview of MGR based upon detailed interviews

with David Anstey and Lawrence Harris, supplemented with other reports and

documents.

Ruvu Game Reserve. In 1904, during the German administration, an area of

country along the Ruvu River was set aside as a game reserve and was referred to by the

Germans as Wildreservat Wilhemstal. This area lay along the Ruvu (Pangani) River in

what later became Upare District.

During the Second World War, however, the lack of inadequate supervision, led

to severe degradation of the area because of increased pressures from the Maasai and

their cattle (Mangubuli 1992). Eventually, the Ruvu Game Reserve lost its ecological

value as a nature reserve and was subsequently degazetted (abolished) in 1950 (Anderson

1967, Parker 1969).

Ethnic conflict. During the withdrawal of German authority in Tanganyika in

1916, a group of a Maasai clan, resident around Losongoni, engaged in battle with a

group of the WaKwavi clan in the lower Kitwai mbuga. The purpose of this struggle was

to gain additional grazing land (later, this conflict will be at the heart of the current legal

battle over the MGR). As a result of the defeat, the WaKwavi moved from the








Kitwai/Saunyi area towards the Usambara Mountains. In 1926, because of past

connections to this area, this small group of WaKwavi arranged with the Sambaa chief to

take up residence at the foothills of the Northwest Usambara Mountains. This was

roughly the Mnazi/Lelwa area, which lies outside the MGR.

During the 1940s and 1950s, there was movement by the Maasai from Maasailand

into the lowlands on the western side of the Upare and Usambara Districts. Their influx

raised concerns among the respective African District Councils (ADC) in this area. They

were concerned that the Maasai would take grazing land needed for WaPare and

Wasambaa who were encouraged to bring their livestock down from the overgrazed hill

in the mountains to the lowlands for grazing. In response, the District Commissioners of

Upare and Usambara issued administrative orders for the Maasai to remain west of the

Tanga-Moshi railway line.

Gazettement of MGR. About 1949, after two years of discussion with the ADC

and village chiefs, it was agreed that the MGR would be established as a "quid pro quo"

for the degazettement (abolishment) of the Ruvu Game Reserve (Harris 1972,

Kabigumila 1992). The proposed area was uninhabited and offered a good example of a

semi-arid ecosystem (Anstey 1956). The Kisiwani village had no direct contact with the

proposed reserve boundary as it was composed of thick bush. A sisal estate in this area

also provided a buffer zone between the village and the reserve. This area offered good

prospects for a biodiversity reserve without conflicting with other national development

interests.

Observations from 1880 to the early 1950s suggest that wildlife was well

distributed in the area (Anstey 1956, Harris 1972). Willoughby (1889) referred to it as








offering "excellent and varied sport." A 1932 annual report by the Tanganyika Game and

Tsetse Division indicated that the Pare (i.e., Ruvu) Reserve (immediately south of the

present MGR) was listed as "one of the four most valuable." This was followed by

another report in 1934, that stated "with closer protection ... the Same District can

become one of the most attractive game areas in the territory", later it was described in

1950 as carrying "large concentrations of game" (Tanganyika Game and Tsetse Division

1935).

In an effort to verify that the proposed area for the game reserve was uninhabited,

tax collection records from the ADC were extensively checked. Finally after two years

of negotiations, the ADC and the two District Commissioners, Mr. Thorne and Mr.

Smithyman, certified that according to the tax records, there were no taxpayers of their

districts living in the proposed area. Both of the District Commissioners were agreeable

for the land to be made into a game reserve. The proposal was approved, and the MGR

was included in the Flora and Fauna Conservation Ordinance published in 1951.

David Anstey, the Reserve's first Game Ranger, undertook extensive safaris in

the game reserve between 1952-55 to survey the area for any occupants and to verify the

ADC tax statements. He found that the pastoralists based near Lake Jipe and Toloha at

the foot of the North Pare Mountains (outside the Reserve) were concerned about Maasai

herders encroaching into their grazing areas. At Maji Kununua Mountain in the Central

Pare Mountains, he encountered two families. They requested David Anstey's assistance

in moving to an area outside of the reserve to the North Pare Mountains so that they

could have access to schools and medical clinics. In the Tussa Mountains there was

evidence of two or three huts in which, according to his Kambaa guide, two men had








lived after being expelled from their village because of antisocial activities. But before

the reserve was gazetted, these men had left the area and returned to their village. In the

Usambara District area of the Reserve there were no permanent residents. However,

there was a small group of WaKwavi living at a village on the northern side of the

Usambara Mountains. During the rainy season they utilized the Katamboi waterhole in

Kenya and grazed back to the Umba River during the dry season (Mangubuli 1992).

Unfortunately, the original government records referring to this group of WaKwavi have

not been located, but references have been made showing there were 69 people (including

men, women and children) and about 3000 head of cattle. David Anstey agreed to let the

WaKwavi continue their grazing pattern, since they had been there before the Reserve

was established. At this time the presence of the WaKwavi and their grazing practices

did not interfere with or cause damage to the wildlife population or the flora (Kabigumila

1992). With further investigation of the area, David Anstey found a group of detribalized

individuals in an area called Kalemawi (downstream towards Gonja Maore), just inside

the Reserve boundary. They were engaged in salt production and were also herders for

WaPare cattle owners. Consequently, in 1957 the government excised this area,

approximately 89 square miles, from the reserve to provide these people with a sufficient

area outside the Reserve for salt production and grazing (Harris 1972).

Influx of migrants. In the 1950s a small group of Maasai with significant

livestock herds emigrated from Maasailand to the Upare District. This created tension

with the local people currently in the area. The Maasai moved into the Lake Jipe area,

where there had been only limited Maasai cattle. From there they continued to move

along the Kenya-Tanzania border (on the Kenya side) towards the Katamboi waterhole








which was then being used in the rainy season by the WaKwavi. The WaKwavi sent

news to the administration that influx of Maasai threatened their grazing.

The Usambara lowland was also threatened with overgrazing by the Lsongoni

Maasai herds in the 1950s and 1960s. These Maasai originated in the Ruvu area and had

migrated via Kilometa-Upare to Ngulu Gap-Upare to Toloha-Upare and subsequently to

the WaKwavi grazing areas near Mnazi. These invasions upset the whole ecological

system of grazing outside the Reserve and ignited a chain reaction of land degradation

that threatened the natural habitat in the Reserve as well. It further threatened the

collapse of the planned utilization of the lowland area by the Wapare and Wasambaa and

their livestock. In response to this threat, Igoma, a section of land fringing the South Pare

Mountains, was excised from the Reserve in 1965 to provide additional land for the

Kisiwaini agriculturists. At the same time a small section of land in the Pangaro Valley

was added as it included an important dry season habitat for wildlife and was near the

Reserve's Dindira watering point (Harris 1972, Mangubuli 1992). In light of past

management challenges, MGR remains an ecologically important protected area in

Tanzania. As such, current management efforts continue to cautiously pursue

conservation objectives within the context of historically (and current) political, and

social complexities.




Methodology

For my study of the three protected areas in Tanzania, I used a variety of methods,

including archival sources found in Tanzania and the University of Florida Special

Collection Library. In addition, face-to-face, personal interviews (informal, unstructured,








and semi-structured) were conducted with National Park and Game Reserve staff,

Tanzania Wildlife Division, Tanzania National Park (TANAPA) authorities, and two

former Mkomazi Game Reserve employees (David Anstey and Lawrence Harris). Other

methods included on-site observations, semi-structured questionnaire surveys (open and

closed ended), including households, village leaders, a women's group, and park staff

(Udzungwa and Mikumi National Parks only). Also I conducted a thorough review of

Tanzanian government's published and unpublished historical reports, and contemporary

literature.



SUA/TU Linkage Project

In 1990 Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA) in Morogoro, Tanzania, and

Tuskegee University (TU) in Tuskegee, AL (USA), signed a memorandum of

understanding (MOU) to link and collaborate in teaching, research, and outreach with the

purpose of positioning themselves to take advantage of emerging opportunities for

institutional development (SUA/TU report 1998). This agreement subsequently became

the SUA/TU Linkage Project. The first phase of this project, entitled "Enhancing

Teaching, Research, and Outreach Capabilities of Sokoine University of Agriculture",

was funded by United States Agency for International Development (USAID) at

$2,385,754 for five years (October 1, 1990 to September 30, 1995) (SUA/TU report

1996). In addition, the second phase of this project, entitled "Capacity Building for the

Development of Sustainable Agriculture Through Community-Based Management of

Natural Resources in Tanzania," was also funded by USAID on October 1, 1995, for a

five year period (October 1, 1995 to September 30, 2000) at a total cost of $2,714,943

(SUA/TU report 1996). This project is as a cooperative agreement between TU and








USAID to benefit SUA's efforts in capacity building for outreach in community-based

natural resource management at the village level in Tanzania.

Specifically, the second phase of this project, which is the focus of the following

discussions and research activities, was designed to produce seven "outputs": (1)

improved project management skills at SUA, (2) strengthen land management practices,

(3) improved management of resource use in horticultural production, (4) increased use

of sustainable crop production practices, (5) increased production of poultry, goats and

cattle, 6) increased technical services for community well-being, and (7) improved

community services to increase the use of tractor/animal power in agriculture (SUA/TU

report 1996).



Project Villages

The project activities focused on sustainable agricultural production, management

of natural resources, and environmental conservation. The implementation strategies,

therefore, involved a series of activities (e.g., consultation, baseline surveys, and etc.)

geared towards social and ecological needs, problem discovery, intervention, and impact

assessment (SUA/TU report 1996).

Consultation with USAID (Tanzania) resulted in the selection of three districts to

participate in the SUA/TU Linkage Project, namely Kilosa, Morogoro rural and

Kilombero. The respective district authorities subsequently narrowed the choices of

specific rural communities or target villages to benefit from the project activities and

assistance. As a result, 17 villages were selected throughout the three districts, five each

in Morogoro and Kilombero, and seven in Kilosa district.








Dedicated teams. Implementation of the proposed activities was carried out

through the use of "dedicated teams." These are core teams formed on the basis of

discipline and activity requirement for each of the 17 target villages. One of the teams

implemented a mini-project called, "Promotion of sound coexistence between protected

areas and neighboring rural communities." I participated directly in this mini-project

whose activities focused on two villages, Kisawasawa and Sanje, adjacent to Udzungwa

National Park, and two villages, Maharaka and Msongozi, adjacent to Mikumi National

Park.

Other dedicated teams provided assistance to select villages regarding

horticulture, vegetable production, food and cash crop production, poultry and goat

keeping, agriculture inputs and implements, milling machinery, construction of

dispensary building, and dairy farming.



Village-Level Activities

Designated team members from the SUA/TU Linkage Project conducted two

types of initial data collection exercises between January and March, 1996. The first was

entitled, "Baseline Study for the SUA/TU Linkage Project Villages" (SUA/TU report

1996). A standard USAID (Tanzania) questionnaire was used in this exercise to sample

eight villages in the targeted district. Five of these sample villages fell within activities

of the SUA/TU Linkage Project. The questionnaires were comprehensive, covering the

socio-economic aspects of the villages. The second data collection exercise, entitled,

"Village Profiles" was conducted by the project in all of the 17 SUA/TU targeted

villages. This comprehensive study employed participatory rural appraisal techniques to

obtain information on the focus areas of the project, sustainable agriculture, and








management of the natural resources (SUA/TU report 1996). In each village a uniform

format was employed. A multidisciplinary team of SUA, TU, and local village leaders

conducted the study with the following chronology of activities: meeting with village

government, a field appraisal of the village, and separate discussions with groups of

women and men in the respective rural communities. The outcome of these data was a

profile of all collaborating villages and a useful document to gain insight into specific

village-level planning activities.

A one-day workshop and planning seminar was conducted in February and

March, 1996, in an effort to discern needed village-level activities (SUA/TU report

1996). The respective village chairperson, village executive officers, divisional

secretaries, and SUA/TU personnel attended these meetings. During the meetings,

proposed village activities were discussed, critically analyzed, and prioritized. The

output was a five-year program document that elaborated on specific activities or "mini-

projects" and the roles of SUA/TU customers in the Linkage Project.



Questionnaires

Household. In an effort to provide more effective assistance to the villages in the

study area (Maharaka, Msongozi, Kisawasawa, and Sanje), a structured, face-to-face

household survey was conducted over a two-week period in August 1997 (Appendix A).

It included both open-ended and fixed or closed-response questions (Bernard 1994).

Through these surveys, respondents were asked questions relating to household

education, employment status, age, family size, conservation attitudes, wildlife

perceptions, park management strategies and suggestions, access to conservation

materials, and experiences with crop and livestock damage from wild animals.








Individual households were randomly selected from a list of residents prepared by

the village secretary. A total of 178 households in the four villages were randomly

selected for the questionnaire survey. Whenever possible, the head of the household was

interviewed with supplemental information provided by other household members who

were also present. The response time of respondents and the location of the households

dictated the total number of surveys administered. As a result, only subvillages located

close to the National Park headquarters and/or boundary were included in the field

survey. Enumerators, employed by the SUA/TU Linkage Project, were well-versed in

English and the local language, they administered the survey in Kiswahili. It is possible,

however, that because local people may have viewed the interviewers as being affiliated

with USAID or the National Park, they did not freely express their opinions. Although it

is difficult to evaluate the response bias, I believe the results accurately reflect local

opinion because of the nature of the responses.

In our effort to ensure the effective delivery of the survey instrument, a pre-test

was conducted in a nearby village (Dodoma) several weeks prior to the administration of

the actual survey. These results were then used to improve the survey, in terms of clarity,

deletion, or addition of specific questions, as well as to gauge the approximate time of

administration, and the comprehension level of the respondents to the questions.

The results of these surveys were presented to the village assembly in the

following year and were subsequently used to reprioritize project activities for the local

villages. The results were also presented to both UNP and MNP.

Village leader survey. Face-to-face structured questionnaire surveys were

administered to an assembled body of individuals (focus group) that represented the








village leaders or village government for each of the four respective villages, Maharaka,

Msongozi, Kisawasawa, and Sanje (Appendix B). The questionnaire was read to an open

forum of participants and administered by members of the dedicated team in Kiswahili.

The focus groups were asked to respond to a series of open and closed-end questions and

to rank order some of their responses. The purpose of this type of survey was to

stimulate open discussions among village leaders about their perception of major

concerns of their respective constituents.

The results of these surveys were ultimately used to assist in prioritizing village

concerns and provide appropriate SUA/TU Linkage Project guidance. In areas outside

the scope of our dedicated teams, village concerns were forwarded to members of the

appropriate SUA/TU dedicated team.

Park staff survey. Questionnaires were distributed to a number of Park Staff

employees at UNP and MNP: park warden, community conservation warden, ecologist,

conservation education and law enforcement officers (Appendix C). Followed by a brief

overview of each of the questions, ample time was allowed for the respondents to

individually complete the survey form. The survey instrument was self-administered

whereby responses were either ranked or open-ended. The completion of the survey by

the park staff presented an excellent opportunity for the Linkage team to gain feedback

on activities that could assist them with their community outreach programs and

management objectives.

Sanje women's group. Since women's issues were assumed to differ from

men's, special efforts were made to interview women separately, in each village.

However, only Kisawasawa and Sanje had organized women's groups. The Sanje








women's group was able to organize a forum for discussion; however, scheduling

logistics precluded the participation of the Kisawasawa women's group. Questionnaire

surveys used for the village leaders were also used to collect information for this focus

group. These discussions led to a series of concerns and requests for assistance from the

SUA/TU Linkage Project and/or the National Park.



Study Tour

Based upon the previous year's request from the villages, a visit to MNP and

UNP was organized in August 1998. The villages requested to visit the National Park in

their area for the purpose of viewing wildlife, establishing a dialogue with park officials,

and obtaining educational information on the National Park. The SUA/TU Linkage

Project provided transportation, lunch, and snacks for all participants.

During a preliminary visit to each of the four villages and to both National Parks,

the Linkage team members established the logistics of the study tours: number of

participants, departure/return times, and a tentative program of activities. Furthermore,

each village leader was asked to select an equal number of men and women, as well as a

wide array of age groups for participation in the study tours of the National Park.













CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
IN THREE PROTECTED AREAS



Since the emergence of formalized conservation throughout the world, protected

areas have rapidly expanded. However, a variety of conservation management

approaches have been initiated that have attempted to answer the challenges posed by the

increasing demands placed on natural resources in protected areas. Some of these

approaches have met with success, others failure, and still others continue to evolve and

build upon lessons learned from previous approaches. These approaches have typically

ranged from the strict protectionist or classical approach of top-down management, to a

multitude of innovative, multidisciplinary, site-specific, and bottom-up, participatory

approaches.

This chapter presents the results of a case study that reviews a gradient of

conservation management strategies for Udzungwa (UNP) and Mikumi National Parks

(MNP), and Mkomazi Game Reserve (MGR). The framework for this approach

identifies and briefly reviews conservation management strategies that have subsequently

been abandoned and others that are currently being implemented.

For MGR, several published and unpublished government reports, and a review of

the University of Florida special collection archives were used to document past activities

and management recommendations. For the three protected areas, current management








options were obtained from various published and unpublished reports, articles,

interviews, and the world wide web.



Udzungwa and Mikumi National Parks

Unlike MGR, supportive financial resources, administrative flexibility and local

community relations have made it possible for UNP and MNP to employ a number of

innovative, site-specific management strategies that address community needs as well as

natural resource management.



Contemporary Conservation Management Approaches

Community Conservation Service. At a seminar held in 1985 at Serengeti

National Park, participants expressed the need to involve local people in conservation

activities (Chengullah 1998, Neumann 1998). Following the recommendations of the

seminar, Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA) officially established a unit called,

Community Conservation Service (CCS), to provide linkage between park management

and local communities surrounding National Parks (Chengullah 1998).

CCS is an outreach program with two fundamental functions, support of extension

and benefit sharing. The objectives of the CCS are (1) to improve relations between

individual National Parks and local communities, (2) to ensure that the interests of

National Parks with regard to natural resources and community welfare are represented at

all levels of the government, (3) to facilitate the planned sharing of benefits to target

communities, (4) to assist communities in gaining access to information, resources, and

services which promote sustainable development, and (5) to encourage community

conservation initiatives by different interested parties (Chengullah 1998).








Since its inception as a pilot project in Serengeti National Park in 1988, CCS has

slowly expanded to other National Parks, including Tarangire, Arusha, Lake Manyara,

Ruaha, and Kilimanjaro National Parks. Currently, the program covers all twelve

National Parks in Tanzania.

Funding for CCS enables local communities and National Parks to work together

on community development projects. Each park receives 7.5% of its recurrent budget to

assist communities with their self-initiative projects. Using Community Conservation

Wardens (CCW) appointed to each National Park to coordinate this program, CCS

provides support for community initiated projects (SCIP). TANAPA uses the SCIP

program as a direct benefit sharing mechanism for its communities. Some of the

achievements (completed and on-going) of the SCIP programme include the

following:(funding totals are in Tanzania shillings)

Mikumi National Park. (a) two classrooms constructed for Mikumi Mpya

Primary School (774,400), (b) contribution to Doma Village dispensary and repair of

doctor's housing quarters (5,488,842), (c) construction of Maharaka Village dispensary

(3,592,192), (d) construction of Ruhembe Village dispensary (4,307,538), and (e) two

classrooms built for Mikumi Secondary School (5,509,708). Other on-going projects

include the construction of Gomero and Idogobasi Village dispensaries, Masanze

Secondary School, Kilangali Primary School, and a chemistry laboratory for Mikumi

Second School (Ochinal998).

Udzungwa National Park. (a) Msolwa Dispensary (5,981,220), (b) laboratory

constructed for Mang'ula Udzungwa Secondary School (6,404,539.20), (c) Mlimani

Primary School desks (129,900), and (d) Kisawasawa Women's group fuel efficient








restaurant and toilet (1,959,886). In addition, there are several on-going projects which

combine with the completed projects to total 37,148,349.90 (Chengullah 1998).

Conservation Committees. UNP, through CCS, is currently assisting villages by

establishing a more formalized mechanism for integration into park management. With

the establishment of Village Community Conservation Committees (VCCC), it is

expected that a more successful partnership between the community and their park can be

achieved (Chengullah 1998). It is also hoped that the committees will help develop

programs for sustainable management of forest resources still remaining outside the park.

To date, 14 surrounding villages, out of 17 total (including two of the SUA/TU Linkage

Project villages, Kisawasawa and Sanje) have already formed these village committees

and names of nominees have been submitted to the CCS staff (Chengullah 1998). MNP

has not yet implemented conservation committees.

Memorandum of Understanding. Despite UNP's legal status as a National

Park, it is unique because it allows extractive use of the park's resources. Through a

memorandum of understanding between UNP and the District Council, this agreement

allows for the extraction of firewood and the collection of medicinal plants (Chengullah

pers. com., Hoyle 1997). A strict procedure of implementation (e.g., permits), allows

villagers to enter the park two days per week (Friday and Sunday), for the purpose of

collecting firewood (Chengullah 1998, Hoyle 1997). However, no cutting tools are

allowed. Firewood collection is only a temporary provision that will be discontinued

once the agro-forestry program (initiated in 1991) is well established to satisfactorily

provide alternative firewood to the communities (Chengullah 1998). In addition,

TANAPA also issues special permits for the collection of medicinal plants for traditional








healers, the collection of grass, and entry for traditional religious ceremonies (Chengullah

1998, Hoyle 1997). MNP does not currently have a mechanism in place that would allow

for the legal extractive use of the park's natural resources.

Education. UNP has an extensive environmental education program. These

activities, coordinated through CCS, are conducted for various age levels throughout the

community. A number of teaching materials have been prepared (the majority are printed

in Kiswahili), distributed, and made readily available to the local communities. Materials

available have included posters, books, and audio-visual presentations. Guided study

tours are also offered to the local schools at no charge. Guided study tours for local

schools are also currently provided by MNP. Because of the lack of educational

materials, they have not effectively conducted educational outreach programs.



Current State of Affairs

With the pending withdrawal of the SUA/TU Linkage Project and thus USAID

financial support in the four study villages adjacent to UNP and MNP, the long-term

sustainability of community development and park relationships is questionable. The

Linkage Project was instrumental in providing a variety of community development

projects which theoretically should reduce local community animosity and conflicts with

park management and conservation objectives. However, the extent to which this and

other conservation objectives were accomplished is not known. In addition, the

sustainability of village-level activities in light of the withdrawal of financial and

technical assistance and support remains to be seen.








Mkomazi Game Reserve

Since it's gazettement in 1951, there have been a number of suggestions for

alternative uses of the Mkomazi Game Reserve (MGR), other than wildlife conservation

(Anderson 1967, Harris 1972, Watson 1991). Recommendations have included National

Park status, free range grazing, multi-purpose game reserve, cattle ranching and game

cropping, and professional hunting.



Historical Approaches

National Park. In an April 10, 1965 report, entitled "The Potential of the MGR

as a National Park," Phillip Thresher (member of IUCN) assessed MGR's capacity to

achieve National Park status (Thresher 1965). In his report he recognized the importance

of MGR as an important wildlife refuge, particularly for the oryx, gernuk, elephant,

rhino, and klipspringer. He also recognized the shortcomings of MGR in terms of scenic

value that did not compare to other east African National Parks (e.g., Serengeti and Lake

Manyara) and thus could not attract a steady flow of tourists.

The report recommended that Tanzania National Parks should give no immediate

further consideration to the creation of a new National Park in place of the MGR unless

maintenance and operating expenditures could be met from funds not likely to be

available to it at that time. Another reason for not becoming a National Park was the lack

of available water for human and wildlife consumption. If funding and water supply

concerns could be addressed, MGR may be able to attain National Park status. However,

today it remains a Reserve and a National Park.

Grazing land. Professor Leslie Robinette, an instructor from the College of

African Wildlife Management in Mweka, directed a team of instructors, 33 students, and








representatives from the Tanzania Game Division to complete an assessment of range

conditions and trends within the MGR from March 14-19, 1996 (Robinette et al. 1966).

This report is entitled, "Appraisal of Range Conditions on the Kalimawe Controlled

Area." The study area was that portion of the Kalimawe Control Area (KCA) which

covers approximately 92,000 acres and was a part of the MGR up until 1957 when it was

excised in response to demands for grazing land by the local people (Anderson 1967,

Harris 1972, Robinette et al. 1966).

The findings of this report confirmed the poor to very poor vegetation condition

classifications for the Kalimawe region. It also noted that the only good grazing area

remaining in the KCA lay in the mbugas north and south of Semtula Hill and could

therefore sustain no more than 5,000 cow months of grazing annually. Finally, this report

stopped short of offering a solution to MGR current land-use concerns; it recommended,

however, that "providing additional grazing inside the MGR is not the answer, because

given time it would be overgrazed and denuded also" (Robinette et al. 1966:4).

Multi-purpose game reserve. The "Anderson Report" as it has been commonly

referred to, is more formally entitled, "A Reconnaissance Survey of the Land Use

Potential of Mkomazi Game Reserve and an Appraisal of Factor Affecting Present and

Potential Land Use and Productivity in its Environs" (Anderson 1967). G.D. Anderson

conducted this survey in 1967, under the authority of the Ministry of Agriculture with

assistance from the Research Unit and Land Planning Team of the Ministry at Tengeru.

The objective of the report was to present a factual account of the factors affecting

the present and potential land-use of the MGR. This report provided a list of

recommendations, while the overall concluding points stated that "the Mkomazi must








remain a workable unit with its present boundaries; it must also be developed as a multi-

purpose Reserve with game cropping and visitors contributing to the Reserve..."

(Anderson 1967:37). This report has since become one of the most widely recognized

documents on the land use of the MGR.

Cattle ranching and game cropping. A.C. Parker, Wildlife Services Limited,

Kenya, completed a report that presented the results of two elephant cropping projects in

the MGR in 1969 along with an assessment of the Reserve's overall economic potential.

This report, "Results of Two Elephant Harvests in the MGR, accompanied by

Considerable Background Information Extracted from Previous Research and Synthesis

Efforts," concluded that the "foreseeable monetary returns from cattle far exceed the

wildlife possibilities" (Parker 1969:1). This reports further recommends that a

"detailed assessment of the cattle ranching potential of the MGR should be
undertaken immediately ..., if the results of such assessment were to confirm the
feasibility of beef production, the MGR be degazetted as such and redesignated as
a multiple use area for the exploitation of cattle and game" (Parker 1969:58).

In addition, this report recommended that elephant cropping be maximally exploited on a

sustainable yield basis.

Professional hunting. J. Barry Turner, a Canadian University Services Overseas

(CUSO) volunteer, served a two-year term as Game Management Officer of the MGR

starting September 1, 1969. A review of Turner's monthly and annual progress reports

shows that he supported and possibly advocate professional hunting in the MGR, which

was subsequently introduced on an experimental basis on February 1, 1970 (Turner

1970a, 1970b).








Contemporary Approaches

Today the MGR's scientific and aesthetic values have practically become

overshadowed by extraneous demands placed upon it (Mangubuli 1992). Recently, the

Reserve has been thrust into the international spotlight and is at the center of an ever-

increasing and volatile scientific, and human-rights debate.

In comparison to many of the more well-known protected areas in East Africa, the

MGR remains a relatively unknown tourist destination, in large part because it does not

support many of the major megafauna species, and it suffers from a lack of aesthetic

appeal compared to other more "stereotypical" images of parks in the region (Coe et al.

1999). Nevertheless, for reasons unrelated to its ecological significance, the MGR has

become a valuable tool for those championing the rights of indigenous people and those

aspiring to protect its threatened ecosystem. Heated debates fueled by local and

international players, using highly questionable reports, papers and websites, pit

misconceptions and hostility surrounding the best land-use of the Reserve against local

communities' customary land right claims.

In light of its past management difficulties, MGR has now embarked on

community-based initiative projects. The details are described below.

Rehabilitation project. In 1989 the Tanzanian government designated MGR as a

National Priority Project (Fitzjohn 1998, MGR 1999a, Mangubuli 1992, Zacharia 1990).

Such designation committed the government to implement and support activities aimed at

restoring the MGR as a significant wildlife area. In light of this recognition, the

Tanzanian government invited Tony Fitzjohn, under the auspices of the Tanzania

Wildlife Division, to lead a program of habitat restoration (MGR 1999a, 1999b, Watson

1991). This was the start of a new partnership that would include the difficult task of








revitalizing a damaged ecosystem. As such, the MGR Rehabilitation Project (Project)

was launched (Watson 1991). This Project has been generously supported by an

extensive network of fundraising efforts on behalf of the George Adamson African

Wildlife Preservation Trusts (Trusts), whose networks extend throughout the United

States, Canada, Europe, and Tanzania. Contributors include small groups of individuals,

corporate sponsors, and charitable institutions. To date, the Trusts have invested over a

million dollars in this undertaking and continues to contribute financial support and

technical assistance to the Project.

This important, yet unique endeavor began the tedious task of rebuilding the

Reserve's infrastructure, reintroducing wildlife, and establishing the MGR Outreach

Programme (MGR 1999a, 1999b). The components of this Project are described below

in greater detail.

Infrastructure. By the late 1980s the Reserve's infrastructure was in a desperate

state of disrepair and neglect (MGR 1999a). During this time, the Tanzanian government

lacked adequate financial resources and was hard pressed to meet the demands of

competing claims on its meager resources (Watson 1991). As a result, MGR was given

low priority and suffered from the lack of manpower, transportation, equipment, and

financial support.

With Field Director Tony Fitzjohn at the helm of the Project, however, rebuilding

of the infrastructure proposed: clearing roads and airstrips, installing a radio network,

recruiting and equipping game rangers, repairing the electric and solar powered

equipment, remarking portions of the Reserve boundary, identifying and pumping water

sources, and organizing aerial and ground anti-poaching patrols (Fitzjohn 1998).








Endangered species reintroduction. By 1988 the Reserve's wildlife population

was severely threatened by poaching, illegal encroachment, land degradation, and

deliberate burning (MGR 1999a). Poaching in the mid to late 1960s, in part, was led to

the total extermination of the Black Rhino (Diceros bicornis) and the decline of several

other wildlife species in the Reserve (MGR 1999a).

To reintroduce the rhino, in November 1997 the MGR translocated four East

African Black Rhinos from Addo National Park in South Africa, with an additional six

expected (MGR 1999d). In actuality, the Black Rhinos obtained from South Africa were

descendants from a group of seven animals that had been shipped there from Tsavo

National Park in Tanzania in the early 1960s and thus belonged to the subspecies,

Diceros bicornis michaeli (Coe et al. 1999). Shortly after their arrival they were released

into a holding compound within the newly constructed Rhino Sanctuary (Fitzjohn 1998,

MGR 1999a). The Sanctuary, constructed in 1995, covers an area of 43 km2 and is

equipped with an electric fence and security patrol (MGR 1999d). All animals were

subsequently fitted with telemetry transmitters prior to their release from the holding

compound into the sanctuary (Coe et al. 1999, MGR 1999d). To date, the Rhinos are

reported in excellent health and security remains a high priority.

The second reintroduction program was that of the African Wild Dog (Lycaon

pictus lupinus) (Fitzjohn 1998). It was launched in 1997 through a joint program with the

Kenya Wildlife Service (MGR 1999e). Twenty-five wild dogs (15 males and 10 females)

were captured from Maasai Steppe (approximately 100 km from MGR) and placed in

three breeding compounds, one each at Kisima, Lendenai, and Sangito (Coe et al. 1999,

MGR 1999e). Before their release all of the adult dogs were radio-collared, and








subsequent intermittent aerial flights tracked their approximate locations (MGR 1999e).

Also during their first year of captivity, all of the dogs received intensive medical

attention, including on-going vaccinations, blood and serum samplings, and feces

analysis (Fitzjohn 1998). Six adult dogs were released in Tsavo National Park in Kenya,

while the others, including pups, will be used to maintain a breeding stock and released in

a series of staged reintroductions (Coe et al. 1999).

Outreach programme. Also included among the Project's priority was the

establishment of a community-based initiative to assist with conserving biodiversity of

the Reserve through a series of village outreach projects (MGR 1999b).

In 1993, the MGR Outreach Programme (Programme) was launched at the request

of the Tanzanian government (MGR 1999a). The original idea of the Programme was

developed and coordinated by Harrie and Truus Simons; later this responsibility was

assumed by the Tanzanian government and assisted by the Trusts. The goal of this

Programme is to establish community programs for the residents of the villages

surrounding the Reserve. These efforts are a long-term commitment to provide local

communities an opportunity to derive benefits from the Reserve. Needless to say, this is

a major task at hand, especially considering that there are 41 villages and three districts

bordering the Reserve (MGR 1999b).

With funding obtained from the Trusts, several projects have been completed and

include the following: roofing of a regional secondary school, rehabilitation of several

primary schools, expansion of women's groups, improvement of medical dispensaries,

establishment of outreach offices, provision of physiotherapy equipment for disabled

children, employment of a District Game Officer, salary of a teacher, sponsorship of a








teacher to attend a Wildlife College, payment of secondary school fees, and the

sponsorship of the MGR football team (Fitzjohn 1998, 1999, MGR 1999b). The Trusts

have contributed funds to build a secondary Technical and Environmental College in

Kisiwani village. Additional funding is being sought for the completion of school

buildings, construction of the main office and "headmaster's" house, and provision of a

clean water supply for the school facilities and laboratories (Fitzjohn 1998, MGR 1999a).

Future plans include a coordinated effort to focus on literacy and natural resource

education programs and the construction of a local hospital (MGR 1999a).

Ecological research programme. In 1989 the Ministry of Natural Resources and

Tourism and the Tanzania Wildlife Division invited the Royal Geographical Society

(London) to conduct an ecological inventory survey of the MGR (Coe et al. 1998, Habari

za Mkomazi 1995). This request came as a result of increasing concerns about land

degradation, and loss of biodiversity, as well as National Priority Project status given to

the MGR, designating the area for rehabilitation (Coe et al. 1999). In 1994 the Mkomazi

Research Programme was officially established. This was a five-year study with the goal

"to describe the habitats of the MGR in both floral and fauna terms, in order to generate

models which will delineate the factors responsible for their observed patterns of

distribution, abundance and species diversity" (McWilliam and Packer 1998:3). The

ecological inventory of the MGR, including a pilot survey, was conducted between 1993

and 1997, and involved "surveying, sorting, cataloguing, quantifying and mapping of a

variety of ecosystem components" (Coe et al. 1999). Research activities collected

baseline data on the floral and fauna diversity of the MGR (Habari za Mkomazi 1995).








This included collecting data on climate, soil, vegetation, arthropods, vertebrates, and

human aspects of the MGR (Coe et al.1999).

The main objective of the study was to develop a viable management plan to

provide for the long-term conservation and sustainable use of the Reserve, incorporating

both ecological concerns and anthropogenic pressures (McWilliam and Packer 1998).

This project was a large collaborative endeavor with financial investments and other

support obtained from British Airways, British Petroleum Tanzania, British Council,

Land Rover, Sheraton Hotel (Dar es Salaam), Friends of Conservation, Darwin Initiative,

and the Trusts (Habari za Mkomazi 1995).



Current State of Affairs

During the past three years, several events have and probably will continue to

have a dramatic impact on future conservation management decisions, approaches, and

policies for the MGR.



High Court decision

In 1997 consolidated Civil Cases No. 33 of 1994 and No. 33 of 1995 were filed

in the High Court of Tanzania at Moshi (High Court of Moshi 1998, Mustafa 1997). This

suit was filed on behalf of 38 plaintiffs, represented by S.E. Mchome and I.H. Juma of

the University of Dar es Salaam Legal Aid Clinic against the Ministry of Tourism,

Natural Resources and Environment, Director of the Tanzania Wildlife Division, Project

Manager of Mkomazi Game Reserve, and the Attorney General (Mustafa 1997). After

several delays, this case was finally heard before the High Court on June 19, 1998.








According to the judgement filed, the plaintiffs claim: (1) the customary residents

of the MGR are not subordinate to the rights of the wildlife in the MGR, (2) the forceful

eviction or otherwise of the residents of the MGR was not done in accordance with the

law, (3) neither the Fauna Conservation Ordinance Cap. 302 nor the Wildlife

Conservation Act 1974 expressly or implicitly extinguished the customary pastoral land

rights of the Alalilai Lamwasun (expansive plains) pastoral Maasai residents of the MGR,

(4) the exorbitant compounded fines imposed on the evicted pastoral Maasai by the third

defendant were unlawful and unconstitutional, and (5) any other relief deemed fit by the

Court (High Court of Moshi 1998). In this suit the pastoral Maasai asserted their

respective customary land rights over the MGR and testified that their eviction from the

Reserve in 1988 kept them from living where their ancestors had lived. The defendants

represented by the Principal State Attorney denied the plaintiffs' claims. The following

are excerpts of the findings from the Civil Court Case (High Court of Moshi 1998):

First issue. Whether the plaintiffs and their families had customary land rights in

the MGR prior to their eviction.

Finding. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs did have customary land rights in the

Umba Game Reserve (eastern half), the portion of the MGR located in the Lushoto

District, Tanga Region. This was corroborated by a list ofpastoralists compiled by the

former Game Warden, Tanga and Same. However, the testimony provided by David

Anstey (former MGR Game Ranger) was upheld to which evidence on the Same District

of the MGR indicated that there were no customary land rights in this area as the

boundary was altered to exclude them. The judged advised the plaintiffs that the case








should have therefore been pleaded before the High Court of Tanzania at Tanga as the

customary land rights were in the UGR located in Lushoto District.

Second issue. Whether the eviction of the plaintiffs and their families from the

UGR was lawful.

Findings. The judge ruled that the eviction of the plaintiffs and their families

from the Umba section of the MGR was unlawful in that customary land rights were not

properly extinguished within the provisions of the 1967 Land Acquisition Act and Land

Ordinance Cap. 113 before the Reserve's gazettement (establishment) in 1951. In

addition, although the eviction was unlawful, their plea was time barred since the eviction

took place more than ten years previously.

Third issue. Whether by virtue of the forceful eviction the plaintiffs and their

families suffered damages.

Findings. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs were seriously inconvenienced, had

suffered a crisis, and had been evicted from the Reserve without resettlement assistance

in terms of providing alternative land. However, the claim for damages was time barred

under the Law of Limitation Act No. 10/71.

Fourth issue. Whether the plaintiffs and their families were entitled to

alternative land and compensation.

Findings. The judge ruled that they were entitled to alternative land and

compensation. The compensation would redress for the inconvenience, hardship, and

dislocation of the plaintiffs as well as for provide new shelter, foodstuff, domestic gear,

and etc. The judge awarded each of the 38 plaintiffs compensation of 300,000 Tanzanian

shillings.








Fifth issue. What reliefs were the parties entitled to.

Findings. The judge ruled that the complaint regarding the exorbitant fines for

compounded offences was not proved, since the plaintiffs could have appealed to the

Director of Wildlife. The judge denied a request by the plaintiffs to be returned as lawful

residents of the MGR, for the suit has been overtaken by events.

Finally, the judge issued no declaration regarding whose rights were superior,

customary land rights or rights of wildlife in the MGR (plaintiffs plea for compensation

that their customary land rights had been made subordinate to the rights of wildlife in the

MGR). She also ruled that MGR is a Reserve for wildlife and therefore any customary

land rights had ceased to exist. She ruled that the defendants should relocate the

pastoralist plaintiffs in an area with sufficient grazing land for plaintiffs to resettle on a

self-help basis. A set compensation was paid to the plaintiffs to enable and facilitate their

resettlement, while others who found alternative settlement were not bound to take up

any new settlement offer.



Illegal encroachment

Following the gazettement of MGR in 1951, illegal encroachment concerns have

steadily increased from about the mid 1960s to the present day (Harris per comm.).

Official Tanzanian written reports as well as unofficial documents (e.g., field notes,

diaries, and personal communication) provide definitive information on the increasing

difficulties faced by former Reserve officials and employees in combating illegal

encroachment of people and their livestock.

Reported difficulties include, the lack of available transportation for routine patrol

of the Reserve, low priority given to illegal encroachment cases by the local judicial








officials and game department administrators, and extremely low fines for offenders.

With this backdrop, it is frustrating to report that illegal encroachment continues today,

although the level and thus frequency of occurrence is uncertain. But nevertheless, there

has been personal observation of people with livestock within the Reserve boundary

despite the 1988 eviction ofpastoralists and livestock (pers. corns., D.Anstey 1999 and S.

Canney 1998).



Internet

During the current Information Age, use of the World Wide Web (www) has

experienced phenomenal growth. The technological advances made via the Internet have

become an almost indispensable tool for many individuals seeking pertinent information

on conservation and a multitude of other topics (Collins 2000). Despite the

overwhelming benefit provided via the Internet, determining the accuracy of the

information on the www can be quite difficult. Unfortunately, some of the information

obtained is erroneous, misleading, and based upon unsubstantiated claims.

Today the Internet has become a playground for many advocacy groups who seek

to "inform" the masses. For instance, within the last five years, the Internet has exploded

on the scene for MGR and has since become a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it

has served as an invaluable medium, reaching massive worldwide audiences that were

inaccessible in the past. While on the other hand, the Internet has served as a volatile

battleground where the MGR has become a cause celebre for those advocating human

rights and those wishing to retain its protected status as a game reserve (Coe et al. 1999).

The result is a war of words, often distorted by questionable motives, erroneous truths,

and exaggerated "facts."








In an attempt to comprehend this powerful tool, I summarized a list of "hits" (the

number of web sites encountered) for the MGR. Five search engines were used to review

sites for MGR and Mkomazi, respectively. The results for each search engine are

presented as follows (Table 2). The relevance of this brief analysis highlights how

emerging technologies (via Internet) can thrust a relatively unknown area and issue (e.g.,

MGR) into the global spotlight where its future can be examined, and debated by an

international audience. The resulting benefits and potential negative consequences are

difficult to measure. The impacts of such technology may be fully realized or understood

only after a considerable expanse of time when such impacts can reasonably be assessed,

that is, after the dust has settled. The challenge, however, will be to achieve a defined

level of creditability and sustained quality of information (Collins 2000).



Table 2. Internet searches for the Mkomazi Game Reserve

Search engine MGR Mkomazi

AtlasVisa.com 200 20
Go.com 32 46
GoTo.com 26 48
Lyso.com 14 14
Msn.com 79 138





For MGR, past management problems, development activities, unresolved human

occupancy issues, competing land-use potentials, and internet implications have all

contributed to the current state of affairs. Therefore, taken together, the current political,








ecological, and economic situation can best be described as a "mess." According to the

Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2000), "mess" when used as a noun, is defined as a

"disorderly mass or accumulation, jumble, a confusing state of affairs." By no means is

the use of this term meant to be derogatory or offensive in nature, but when used

properly, it accurately defines the current state of affairs of the MGR.




Discussion

These three case studies were selected because they provided a discernable

continuum of conservation approaches that incorporated varying degrees of park

management strategies, implementation, enforcement, and community-level participation.

Along this continuum of top-down and bottom-up approaches, the three case studies are

arranged midway between the top-down and community level co-management approach

(Figure 1), with MGR being closer to the top. This is followed by MNP, with UNP being

closer to the co-management approach than the other two.

Along this gradient, co-management can be viewed as a "compromise" or middle

ground for meeting conservation and development goals that involve either local

community input, participation and/or cooperation. The idea behind this approach is to

move beyond the paternalistic approach ofprovisionary services and strict enforcement

to a system whereby immediate tangible benefits are provided to local communities

through their cooperative efforts of sustainable biodiversity conservation.

One of the goals behind this analysis was to provide evidence to suggest that these

three protected areas are making an earnest attempt to move past the rhetoric of

community-based conservation to actual implementation. Although it is too early to





84


speculate about their success or failure, it is clear that all three of the protected areas are

approaching their individual management challenges with creativity, flexibility,

optimism, and caution.













CHAPTER 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF SURVEYS AND STUDY TOURS: UDZUNGWA
AND MIKUMI NATIONAL PARKS




Questionnaire Surveys

This chapter presents the results of surveys taken to assess local attitudes and

conservation awareness among the population adjacent to Udzungwa and Mikumi

National Parks. Participants in the surveys included, park staff, household, village

leaders, and women's group from four communities adjacent to the parks; specifically,

Maharaka, Msongozi, Kisawasawa, and Sanje.

This portion of the study compliments the previous chapter (chapter 4) for in

addition to quantitative data, it provides community-level insight that can be used by each

National Park to review the effectiveness of their current management approaches. Such

a review can be used to guide future management strategies and conservation policies.



Household

A structured face-to-face household survey was conducted in four villages in the

study area, Maharaka, Msongozi, Kisawasawa, and Sanje. Through these surveys, 178

households were asked questions relating to their socio-economic status, knowledge of

conservation, attitude towards the park and conservation, and estimates of crop damage

and animal loss.








Socio-economic and background information

Overall, 44% of all the local people surveyed stated that they had always lived in

their respective village. On average, 29% of the respondents had lived in their present

village at least 21-30 years, while 23% had lived there for more than 40 years (Table 3).

Male-dominated households accounted for 83% of the respondents, with an

average household size of 5 (22.5%), composed typically of two adults and 3 children.

The combined highest education level attained per household was 5-8 years (77.5%),

while over 97% had traveled from their local community to either other villages or cities

(Table 3). Finally, although present employment occupations varied, only 5% had ever

been employed by either National Park (Table 3). However, over 13% of the respondents

in Maharaka had previously worked for Mikumi National Park.



Knowledge of conservation

Each respondent was asked to define the word "conservation." There were no

correct or incorrect answers; the question was used merely to determine if this was a

familiar term. Seventy-five percent defined conservation, whereas 25% did not recognize

the term (Table 4). Access to audio or printed conservation materials was available to

58% of the overall respondents; this information was more readily available to

Kisawasawa and Sanje villages than the other two. While only 15% stated that there was

a conservation group or organization in their area, 43% of the respondents in Kisawasawa

associated the local women's group with conservation efforts in the community.














000000
t~-\V\00


0000000
oq oooqoo
0 C 00 0 b d








oo (- N

v- m-4 ""( (^


r 00 oo
- 00


- WU,

) 0 0


0l 0



4)4) a
aug


00\O0 00
00oo


81
0


('4




.9
U


03
4- 4
4)


NC 0 mr- tn















\0 Oc 00040N




0 oo m so
o 8f ~ 'mo
co

n C000
C .
-o I I


oo









c












00 (
(w


0\ -
oo
-00











eo
00


.0
S1


z
CC t ;~

I
0
Z
L3

I


a00 N0


00

0\


00
rj


00
00
o0
ct


1p 0 I T- 0w 0= 0
\c re- e
03 mmoo
id'orj o o




Full Text

PAGE 1

PEOPLE AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION INT ANZANIA: THREE CASE STUDIES OF SHIFTING PARADIGMS FROM THE COLONIAL TO INDEPENDENCE ERAS By JANET MILIAH HASLERIG A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2000

PAGE 2

Copyright 2000 by JANET MILIAH HASLERIG

PAGE 3

For my Mama, Miliah Dickerson Haslerig and with living memories of my Dad, John Haslerig, and friend Willie Ryles.

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Funding for my research was provided through a cooperative effort between Tuskegee University (USAID grant) and the University of Florida. Academic support was received from the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, the Graduate Minority Fellowship program, the Delores Auzenne Fellowship, and the U.S. Geological Survey. For their assistance and support, I am sincerely indebted. My sincere thanks go to my advisor, mentor, and friend Dr. Lawrence Harris whose inspiring vision, enduring commitment, and advice guided me through this process. I am eternally grateful for the moral support, counsel, and relentless guidance from my committee members: Richard Bodmer, Michael Chege, Goran Hyden and Patricia Werner. Thanks also to other faculty members from the Department of Wildlife Conservation and Ecology, Raymond Carthy and Franklin Percival, who provided additional support and made important contributions at various stages of my research. A debt of gratitude is owed to numerous team members, staff, and students at Sokoine University in Morogoro, Tanzania, who provided the logistical and technical assistance needed in conducting my fieldwork. I especially thank the many participants in the villages, Udzungwa and Mikumi National Parks, Mkomazi Game Reserve Tanzania National Park Authority, and the Tanzania Wildlife Department for their invaluable contributions and assistance. Ziyah Mahfoud of IF AS Statistical Consulting assisted with data analyses of questionnaires. Luther Quinn and the University of Florida's Electronic and Dissertation consultants provided assistance with scanning and lV

PAGE 5

other computer logistics. Editorial assistance was graciously provided by Carolyn Horter, whose contribution greatly influenced the success ofthis endeavor. Finally, I give many thanks and blessings to current and former staff of the Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, my colleagues, mentors, friends, and family for their steadfast support. Through all the frustrations, disappointments, joys and laughter, I am truly thankful for each of them. V

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... ........... ....... .... ...................... ............ .................................. iv LIST OF FIGURES X ABSTRACT ............................. ................. ...................... ........ ..... ..................................... xi CHAPTERS 1 INTRODUCTION .......... .................................... ..................... ... ................................... 1 Problem Statement ........ .... ..................................... ........................................ ... .............. 1 Changing Conservation Paradigms ......................... ............. .................. ...... .................. 5 Conservation Management Approaches ........... .......... ... .... ......................................... ... 7 Objectives ... ... .... .. ............... ...... .... ...... ...... ........ .. ............. ...... ...... ...... ....................... .... 9 Chapter Format .............................................................................. .. .......... ................... 10 2 HISTORICAL SURVEY OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN TANZANIA .................. 13 Scramble for Eden ............ ............... ... .... ....................................................................... 13 Man and Nature in Tanganyika: Colonial Era .............................................................. 16 Conservation Reawakening ...................................................................................... 18 Formalizing Conservation ......................................................................................... 19 Nature of the Land ...................................... ..... ..... ........ ................... ..... ............. ...... 21 Man and Nature in Tanzania: Independence Era ........................... ....... ........................ 29 Political Environment ............................................................................................... 29 Current Nature of the Land ....................................................................................... 3 3 3 STUDY AREAS AND METHODS .............................................................................. 40 Study Areas ... ... ..... ..... .... ... .......... ........ ............................................................... .......... 44 Udzungwa National Park .......................................................................................... 45 Mikumi National Park ..................................................................................... .......... 47 Mkomazi Game Reserve ................................................ ... ... .... ........ ..... ... .... ....... .... 49 Methodology ................................................. ............................................................... 56 SUA/TU Linkage Project. ........... ..... ..... ........ .... ............................. ........... ............. 57 Project Villages ............. .................................... ....... .................. . .... ..... ................... 58 Vl

PAGE 7

Village-Level Activities ............................................................................................ 59 Questionnaires ........................................................................................................... 60 Study Tour ............................. .................................. .. ................. ................. ... ... .. ... 63 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT APPROACHES IN THREE PROTECTED AREAS ........................................................ 64 Udzungwa and Mikumi National Parks ...... ... ... .. .... .. .... .. .................. ... ..... .. .. ..... ... .... 65 Contemporary Conservation Management Approaches ........ ................ ... ............. .. 65 Current State of Affairs ................................. ..... ...................................... .. ............ ... 68 Mkomazi Game Reserve ............................................................................................... 69 Historical Approaches .................................. .. .... ... .. ... ... .... ........... .... . . ... ... .. .......... ... 69 Contemporary Approaches .................... .......... .... ...... ........... .................................... 72 Current State of Affairs ............................................................................................. 77 High Court decision ... ..... .... ..... ... ... ... .. . ........................ ... .. .................................. 77 Illegal encroachment ...................................................................... .. ... ................. 80 Internet .................................................................................................................. 81 Discussion ............. . ....... ... ........ ...... .. . ... .......... .... ..... ... ............... ......................... . ...... 83 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF SURVEYS AND STUDY TOURS: UDZUNGW A AND MIKUMI NATIONAL PARKS ...... .. .... ... ...... ... ................... .. ..... .. 85 Questionnaire Surveys ......... ................. ........... ......... .................. ............... .... .. .... .. ... 85 Household ...... ..... . ......... . ........................ ..... ......... .. ............. .... ... ....... .. ................ 85 Socio-economic and background information ....... ... ........ .. .... ........ ......... ... ... ..... 86 Knowledge of conservation ....... ........... .... .......... ........... ....... .... ....... ........ ... . ..... 86 Attitudes toward the park and conservation .. .......... ............ ... .... ................ ... ... ... 88 Crop damage and animal loss ..... ..... ... ........ . ..... ... .. .. .......... .. .... .... .. ................ 94 Village Leaders ... ........... ........... .............. ..... ...................... ........................... ..... .... 97 Concerns ofliving near the park ........................................................... .... .. .......... 97 Suggestions to reduce crop damage and animal loss ............................................ 97 Women's Group ........................................................................................................ 98 Concerns ofliving near the park .......................... ................................................ 98 Suggestions to reduce crop damage and park relations ... .. .... ... ... ... .................. ... 99 Park Staff ......... .... . . ........................................ ....... .. ............................................ 100 Problems facing local communities near the park ... ........... ... ....... ... ... ................ 100 Future management priorities ........................................................... .. .. ........... ... 100 Study Tour .................................... ... .......................................................................... 101 Discussion ................. ... ...... ............ ......... ... ...... ..... ... ........................ ..... ....... ....... .... 104 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................... ... ............... ........ ............. . ............. 106 vu

PAGE 8

APPENDICES A HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE ............. ..... ...... ........ . ............. . ................. .... 111 B VILLAGE LEADERS QUESTIONNAIRE ................... .... . ..................................... .11 6 C PARK STAFF QUESTIONNAIRE .................... ............. .... ... ........ ... ....... ....... ...... . 1 1 8 REFERENCES . ... ......... ..... .......... ... ...... ... ...... ... ..... ..... .... ... .......... . .... ...... .... ........... 120 Vlll

PAGE 9

LIST OF TABLES 1. Comparison of conservation management approaches ........ .................................... ......... 2 2. Internet searches for the Mkomazi Game Reserve ........................................................... 82 3. Number of households and summary of socio-economic and background information .. 87 4. Response to questions concerning the general knowledge and access to conservation information ................................................................................................ .......... 88 5 Attitude toward and benefits from the National Park ............................................. ..... ... . 90 6. Views toward poachers and knowledge of trespassing penalties .................... ................ 91 7. General attitude toward the current status future management and use of the Park .................................. .......... . ... ... .... ... ... . ... . ........ ... ............... ................ . 92 8. Attitude toward the parks and positive benefits extended to the village .......................... 93 9. Range of estimated economic loss per household, per growing season, for crop and livestock (Tanzania shilling) ......................................................................... 95 10. Crop and livestock losses according to species of wild animals ........................ ...... ...... 95 11. Measures used to prevent crop and livestock loss and suggested measures to be taken by Park authorities ....... ........................... ........ .......... ... ............... ..... ......... 96 12. Summary of Village Leaders and Sanje Women's Group opinions about village concerns; t heir suggested measures to be taken to reduce crop and animal losses and relations with the Park ....................................................................... 99 13. Summary ofUdzungwa and Mikumi National Park staff opinion of vi llage level problems and park management challenges ........................................... .... 102 lX

PAGE 10

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Conservation management approaches and indicators of compliance and noncompliance ........................................................................................................... 3 2. Map of Tanzania ................................................................................................................ 41 3. Map ofUdzungwa National Park ............................................ ........................ ................ 46 4. Map ofMikumi National Park and Selous Game Reserve Ecosystem ..... ................. ...... .48 5. Map ofMkomazi Game Reserve ... ......... ....... ...................... ....................... ...................... 50 X

PAGE 11

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy PEOPLE AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION IN TANZANIA: THREE CASE STUDIES OF SHIFTING PARADIGMS FROM THE COLONIAL TO INDEPENDENCE ERAS By Janet Miliah Haslerig December 2000 Chairman: Dr. Lawrence D. Harris Major Department: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Throughout most of Africa a major shift in paradigms has occurred regarding wildlife conservation. The current global practice of setting aside large tracts of land is now confronted with the human consequences of strict protectionist policies designed solely to conserve wildlife Originally established to safeguard natural resources protected areas are now forced to address a range of social objectives, namely, rural poverty gender inequality plight of indigenous people, market failures economic and social injustices. From this perspective, the protectionist model has been judged a failure and is no longer appropriate within the current contextual setting of East Africa. Xl

PAGE 12

Within the last few decades and in light of mounting biodiversity and socio political challenges, a "new" approach to conservation has emerged. But unlike its predecessor, the community-based conservation model calls for community participation, local decision-making, and equitable means of sharing economic, social, cultural, or ecological benefits from protected areas. Despite its overwhelming appeal, the community-based conservation model must not be hailed as a panacea by which to solve a variety of complex ecological and social challenges facing many developing countries. Three case studies in Tanzania, Mkomazi Game Reserve, Udzungwa and Mikumi National Parks are reviewed and analyzed to compare and contrast the advantages and disadvantages of both the protectionist and community-based conservation models. A household questionnaire was used to assess local conservation attitudes in four villages adjacent to Mikumi and Udzungwa National Parks. The results show that local people were aware of the purpose of the parks and their benefits to their respective communities and to Tanzania. Although over 90% of the respondents had never visited (93%) nor worked (95%) for either park, they nevertheless opposed its abolishment (62%) and also rejected giving the land to those who claimed to need it (81 %). They also were averse to allowing hunting (95%) and other natural resource extractions (77%). Although the protectionist model has made significant contributions in safeguarding Tanzania's wealth of biodiversity, current evidence suggests that a combination of conservation approaches should be reviewed thoroughly for applicability and long-term sustainability within the current context of local communities and protected areas. Xll

PAGE 13

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Problem Statement In the twentieth century humankind has made tremendous strides in becoming aware of the need to conserve natural resources. Despite increased awareness, conservationists have not been able to agree on a common conservation approach that can be applied universally at the local, regional, or national levels. The implementation of these approaches continues to vary worldwide. In particular in Africa's emerging nations, the challenge has been to move forward from a colonial past to independent nation status, with consequent responsibility for managing abundant natural resources and biological diversity. Specifically in Tanzania conservation approaches have oscillated between the top-down, "protectionist" approach to a bottom-up, "community based" approach (Table 1 ). This lack of consistence, in part reflects an increasing change in attitudes and thoughts that attempt to reconcile local people and natural resources by coupling conservation with developmental activities that enhance the qualit y of rural life. Today site-specific conservation approaches have changed as conservation paradigms have shifted from purely scientific to sociological, political, and economic in nature. Conservation approaches now embrace a wide range of multidisciplinary interests, with the assumption that communities must be involved in various levels of conservation planning implementation and enforcement and that their 1

PAGE 14

2 participation in this process will make a difference. As park officials, scientists and others interact with members of the local communities, outcomes may be positive, but also negative The difference depends on management, the crucial component in conservation approaches. How to resolve conflicts between contending views and interests is a political question as much as it is a technical or scientific one. Compliance or non-compliance is a function of how well conservation projects are managed ( Figure 1). It is no exaggeration, therefore, to argue that the fate of w i ldlife and biodiversity conservation in Africa rests as much on how people are treated as on wildlife strategies. Table 1. Comparison of conservation management approaches Approach Protectionist Community-based Goal Preservation/ conservation Conservation/sustainable use Administration Top-down Bottom-up Basis for decisions Technical Socio-polit i cal Discipline Science-based Mu l tid i scip l inary Science emphasis Wild l ife Biodiversity Management emphasis Wild game People-park relationships Method of protection Coercion/laws Community participatio n/laws Three case studies, as presented in the following chapters readily identify three inherent problems associated with the various conservation management approaches as pursued in the protected areas in this study: (I) participation v ersus cooperation ( 2) capture of the local peasantry and (3) linking conservation with development. The challenge for Tanzania, specifically the three case studies is how to achieve cooperation

PAGE 15

3 through a gradient of top-down, bottom-up management approaches that will bring about the compliance of local communities to help achieve conservation goals (Figure 1 ). Top-down (-) Zero sum gain/deadlock ( +) Positive sum gain Non-compliance Compliance Bottom-up Figure 1. Conservation management approaches and indicators of compliance and non compliance The first problem identifies an apparent disparity between the concepts of the word, "participation" and "cooperation." At first glance, these two words may appear interchangeable; however, participation is the act of taking part in an activity, whereas cooperation is the act of working together to achieve a common aim (Encarta 2000). All too often participation is defined in over simplistic and inaccurate terms that assume that conservation goals will be accomplished by the mere act of soliciting community involvement. Getting people to participate is a worthy goal, but it becomes clear that conservation goals can best be achieved through cooperative efforts of the community.

PAGE 16

4 "Capture" of the local people is the second inherent problem facing conservationists. "Capture" is a relatively common term used by social scientists to describe the relations of the state to the peasant population (Hyden 1986) However, within the context of this discussion, "capture" will refer to efforts made by local and international conservation authorities (the state), and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to achieve compliance through the "cooperation" of the citizenry in biodiversity conservation efforts within protected areas that are managed through a variety of top down, bottom-up approaches (Figure 1). To accomplish conservation objectives conservation approaches often unrealistically assume that local communities have been successfully "captured" by the various wildlife organizations and departments that seek their support. Throughout Africa and specially Tanzania, incentives are used to solicit the participation and thereby "capture" of local people in exchange for their cooperation in assisting with safeguarding protected area resources. Some of these incentives have included, building dispensaries, schools, and shallow wells; assisting with transportation establishing tree nurseries, assisting with the control of crop-raiding animals; and organizing revenue sharing opportunities. Other activities have included educational campaigns aimed at informing communities of the local and global ecological and social benefits obtained through their cooperative efforts of protection and sustainable use of the natural resources It is widely assumed that once captured, the communities will cooperate more easily with the conservation of biodiversity within protected areas. However, there are a number of tactics ("weapons") that local communities and individuals may pursue to

PAGE 17

5 appease or elude wildlife officials and organizations in an effort to obtain specific products and services, or to avoid conflict, while at the same time managing to avoid being fully "captured." Compliance is by no means a given, even when incentive structures are built into the projects or where management is initiated from the bottom-up (Figure 1). Linking conservation objectives to community interests is the third problem that conservationists must address. These links must be clearly stated strengthened, and actively pursued in the application of community-based conservation activities. Whether this link is weak or strong, it must nevertheless hinge upon achieving long-term biodiversity sustainability. However, one of the critical questions remains unanswered: Can community support for conservation goals be gained and/or sustained when only provisionary community services, such as the construction of a dispensary, schools, roads, etc., are provided ; or must conservation activities establish a mechanism or framework that encourages local community empowerment active decision-making, and the devolution of management authority in an effort to obtain the cooperation of rural communities in protecting biodiversity? Changing Conservation Paradigms The paradigm shift alluded to above is the result of several globaIIy significant events that have occurred within the last few decades. The following chapters note that these changes are the result of evolving attitudes and beliefs shaped by a variety of events policies organizations, and scientific knowledge

PAGE 18

6 Throughout history, the conservation movement has undergone gradual changes in terminology, its professions, and management approaches largely in response to new challenges, knowledge concerns, and attitudes (Western and Wright 1994) First, conservation terminology underwent a series of vernacular transitions. Terms such as vermin and game have been replaced with terms such as wildlife and biological diversity (biodiversity). In addition, new words and phrases such as conservation network, biodiversity hotspots ecos y stem landscape, parks-for-people and etc. have become increasingly popularized. Second, conservation as a profession has evolved This transition took the form of changing the game manager and wildlife biologist to conservation biologists natural resource managers and landscape or ecosystem specialists Today conservation is no longer confined to zoological or botanical gardens, the laboratory the field, the classroom or the academically trained conservation professional. The "new" conservationists include anthropologists, political scientists economists lawyers engineers human-rights activists sociologists, scores of nonprofit organizations and private individuals (McNeely et al. 1990). Finally as the conservation profession has diversified so have approaches to management. Increasingly different perspectives on conservation problems are incorporated into new multidisciplinary management approaches that attempt to consider the legal soc i al economic biological and political aspects of natural resource policies their costs and benefits and their ultimate implementation and enforcement (Neumann 1998). These shifting perspective s extend worldwide and for this study (Table 1 )

PAGE 19

7 Conservation Management Approaches Throughout the world several laws and natural resource policies have been established. Laws were enacted and actions taken to ensure that wildlife natural resources forests and water catchment areas would be managed sustainably. For Tanzania the result has been a patchwork of laws and regulations at the national regional, and district levels that were often inappropriate, conflicting overlapping unenforceable and antagonistic (PERM 1995). Uncoordinated policies and ineffective enforcement have gradually led to increased concerns and heightened awareness in several key environmental areas that include (1) land degradation (2) environmental pollution (3) deterioration of marine and freshwater aquatic systems (4) lack of access to clean water supplies (5) habitat loss (6) loss of species (7) deforestation (8) global climate change and (9) desertification (Mugabe 1998 PERM 1995 Serageldin and Martin-Brown 1999). These global environmental concerns are encountered throughout Tanzania (Berry et al. 1982) and hav e developed over a long period of time. Many of these concerns may be attributed in varying degrees to inadequate coordination of natural resource policies between and within different governmental sectors inadequate enforcement of existing laws underfunded and weak institutions, animosity held by local communities, and the exclusion of local participation in natural resource management approaches. These concerns present new challenges to the long-term sustained use of biodiversity and thus call for innovative approaches to their management (McNeely et al. 1990, Neumann 1998) Protectionist model. In Tanzania the protectionist conservation model which included setting land aside as protected are as made significant contributions in t e rm s of

PAGE 20

8 safeguarding representative samples ofthis country's biodiversity wealth until the present. Overall, the implementation of these initial models was socially insensitive and in many cases cruel and unjust. People were often displaced to give room for wildlife conservation. Experience over the years has shown the inadequacy of this approach. In circumstances of poverty, people will not comply with rules and regulations that threaten their livelihoods. This "exclusionary" model of protecting wildlife has become increasingly inappropriate in the post-independence period in East Africa People and their elected representatives as well as voluntary organizations have articulated a determined opposition to this paternalist approach (Neumann 1995). The mere act of setting boundaries has brought changes only within those boundaries, while long-term problems outside these areas have remained unchanged or have deteriorated with the passage of time. Another shortcoming recently identified with the protectionist model is the result of new expectations placed upon protected areas today; this is true not only in Africa but also worldwide. Originally established to conserve nature, protected areas must now address a range of social objectives, such as "rural poverty social injustice, gender inequality, plight of indigenous people" (Neumann 1998:57), market failures, economic injustices administrative incompetence corruption and the like (Brandon 1998). As such the protectionist model has been judged a failure for not meeting these new expectations. In some cases this model has been unjustly identified accused convicted and condemned. Although the protectionist model may have been correct regarding the biological aspects of wildlife conservation it has failed to address the human-dimension aspects of biodiversity conservation

PAGE 21

9 Community-based models. Within the last few decades and in light of mounting biodiversity and social challenges, a "new" set of approaches to conservation has emerged, commonly referred to as community-based conservation (CBC). These new conservation approaches, unlike their predecessors, call for community participation, local decision-making and equitable means of sharing economic social cultural, or ecological benefits accrued through protecting biodiversity. In return, however, local communities are expected to assist with the protection of designated protected areas and refrain from unsustainable and "illegal" natural resource practices. Communities form partnerships with park administrators to protect biodiversity through sustainable management practices that ultimately provide for their livelihood, health, and well-being. For many countries, including Tanzania, CBC has become that last glimmer of hope that may provide the answer to conserving natural resources around the world while simultaneously providing socio-economic benefits to an ever-increasing human population and its demands Whatever vernacular term or phrase used, be it CBC or integrated conservation development projects (ICDP), it is clear that active community participation and cooperation is the key element in the success of most long-term conservation programs. Objectives My study has two components, a comparison and a survey. I have presented a comparison of conservation management approaches for three protected areas in Tanzania: Udzungwa National Park Mikumi National Park, and Mkomazi Game Reserve. These case studies represent a unique opportunity in which to review a gradient

PAGE 22

10 of conservation management approaches and their subsequent implementation challenges and accomplishments. The second phase of this study focuses on the analyses of questionnaire surveys for two (Udzungwa and Mikumi National Parks) of the three protected areas The purpose of these surveys was t o ascertain local conservation attitudes knowledge challenges, and benefits of the National Park as well as to elicit future management suggestions. For both the comparison and the surveys the objectives are to re v iew issues of conservation by: 1 Assessing the legacy of colonial policies on natural resources in Tanzania. This provides an historic basis for understanding how conservation policies were initiated by colonial German and British administrators. 2. Using historical and contemporary biodiversity conservation approaches and l ocal community conservation attitudes in an attempt to frame twenty-first century management options for parks and protected areas in Tanzania 3 Identifying indicators of compliance and non-compliance of various conservation management approaches Chapter Format The dissertation is organized into six chapters : (1) Introduction ( 2) A Historical Survey of Natural Resources in Tanzania (3) Study Areas and Methods ( 4) Results and Discussion: Management Approaches in Three Protected Areas (5) Results and

PAGE 23

11 Discussion: the Case ofUdzungwa and Mikumi National Parks and (6) Summary and Conclusions. Chapter 1. The general problem of implementing various conservation management approaches is presented as well as a brief overview of changing conservation paradigms and a continuum of management approaches (protectionist and community-based), followed by objectives and chapter format. Chapter 2. A historical overview of natural resources and early land stewardship in Tanzania is provided, including a review of colonialism post-colonialism, the beginning of a conservation ethic and the subsequent expansion of protected areas and policy influences on the nature of the land. Chapter 3. The study areas are described for Tanzania and the three case studies: Udzungwa National Park (UNP) Mikumi National Park (MNP) and Mkomazi Game Reserve (MGR) The methodology section provides a general description of major methodological points and research tools used. The Sokoine University of Agriculture and Tuskegee University (SUA/TU) Linkage project, a USAID-funded collaborative project between Tuskegee University Alabama and Sokoine University of Agriculture in Tanzania is discussed Objectives and goals are given for the overall project, along with specific village-level program activities for four local communities (Maharka Msongozi Kisawasawa, and Sanje) where proximity to protected areas presents various natural resource challenges. These challenges, as well as local community conservation attitudes and knowledge are assessed through household village leader women's group and park staff surveys.

PAGE 24

12 Chapter 4. Results and discussion of historical and contemporary conservation management approaches are presented. The current state of affairs discusses recent events and challenges facing the three protected areas. Chapter 5. Results of household, village leaders women's group and park staff questionnaire surveys for UNP and MNP are presented Questionnaires were used to ascertain community level conservation attitudes and knowledge while the analyses were used to suggest future management options, challenges and accomplishments This i s followed by results of a study tour for both parks. Chapter 6. A summary of conservation challenges and concluding rema r ks are presented

PAGE 25

CHAPTER2 HISTORICAL SURVEY OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN TANZANIA Scramble for Eden For purposes of the temporal use of natural resources, I chose the European Renaissance as my benchmark referent. This period was not chosen because of any mystical event, or for that matter any regional phenomenon. Instead, it is a familiar period for most European and Anglo-Americans with which to relate their insights, attitudes, and motives behind the vast cultural and political changes that followed. Near the tum of the fifteenth century, gaining control of natural resources (e.g., gold, ivory, spices timber porcelain, etc.) had become a highly competitive global phenomenon (Hale 1977). With Christopher Columbus's "discovery'' of 'The New World' in 1492 (Shillington 1989: 173), the "reconquista" of formerly Moorish-controlled southern Europe in the same year was not a simple coincidence (Harris and Eisenberg 1989). This period has often been referred to as a turning point in the history of W estem Civilization (Potter 1964) and thus the ''beginning of all real progress" (Ralph 1973 :2). Moreover it was the single most defining point underlying the flourishing of colonialism around the world and for the subsequent arguments that followed by both admirers and detractors of the colonial period (Ralph 1973 ). By the late eighteenth century and in the wake of the emergence of "legitimate commerce" in place of commerce such as the unmonitored slave and ivory trade a massive colonial onslaught swept through most of Africa (Mwalyosi 1993a, Shill i ngton 1 3

PAGE 26

14 1989:302). Interested in gaining control over the natural resource-based trading systems in Africa and securing a "captive" market for their products (Coulson 1982) commonly referred to as the "Scramble for Africa," European colonial powers descended upon the continent (Nangoli 1986 Shillington 1989). Captivity disease, famine, religion and guns played essential roles in advancing foreign imperialism across the African continent (Crosby 1986, Kjekshus 1977a, Iliffe1979, Nangoli 1986, Shillington 1989 Temu 1969). What was left of the natural resources and the people is still being discovered, and consequent histories revised. Early land stewardship. It is commonly believed, yet sharply debated that indigenous cultures had achieved an equilibrium or balance with the native biota ( de Blij and Capon 1969) and as such were considered responsible stewards of the land (Johnson and Anderson 1988). Throughout recorded history every culture has had some form of customary beliefs that were / are used to manage, control, or moderate the distribution and exploitation of their natural resources (Englehardt 1962 Grzimek 1962 Olindo and Mbaelele 1994). These have for the most part, been effective, either intentionally or otherwise (IIED 1994). Generally, these beliefs evolved over many generations and were based on traditional religion mystical laws taboos, rituals, etc. (Western and Wright 1994). Such beliefs forbade hunting in specific areas and/or the taking of certain wildlife species and the eating of certain foods (Olindo and Mbaelele 1994). Moreover some indigenous cultures were believed or imagined to have maintained a harmonious relation with wildlife and nature (Neumann 1998, Olindo and Mbaelele 1994). For example the Maasai, in East Africa are often championed as "friends" t o wildl i fe because their traditional culture forbade hunting wild game for food and they generally did not

PAGE 27

15 cultivate (IUCN 1963, Kabigumila 1992). As a result, it was widely assumed that their traditional culture (transhumance pastoralism) not only did not interfere with, but actually protected wildlife and natural resources (Carr 1964, IUCN 1963, Kaiza-Boshe et al. 1998, Neumann 1998). Contrary to this belief wildlife and man have always competed for resources, often to the detriment of both wildlife and its habitat (Kjekshus 1977a); the balance was probably dynamic at best and tenuous at worst. There are two main schools of thought about the ecological balance maintained by "in digenous" cultures: first, that the "noble savage," was capable of managing his/her own resources while living in harmony with the environment (Johnson and Anderson 1988); second, that the lack of technology prevented many of the indigenous groups from completely liquidating their natural resources (Western and Wright 1994). The degree to which indigenous groups were or were not in control of managing their resources is a debate that I choose to eschew. Although not necessarily significantly pronounced in East Africa the late 1800s was a period of"ecological imperialism," a term coined by A.W. Crosby (1986) to denote "the biological changes which follow contact but precede political domination (Johnson and Anderson 1988:4). However, for Tanganyika and most of East Africa, the end of the nineteenth century meant the end of black Africans' control over balanced co evolved ecological systems (de Blij and Capon 1969). This native control came to an abrupt end because of the breakdown of native land tenure systems reduced labor force resettlement schemes, disease, famine cultural erosion and colonial pacification that swept through the country during this period (Iliffe 1979 Kjekshus 1977a, Mwalyosi 1993a). Moreover the sustainable use of common natural resources became increasingl y

PAGE 28

16 threatened by the deterioration of customary rules governing their use as colonial policies contributed to the transformation of indigenous cultures and traditional range management practices (IUCN 1963 Mwalyosi 1993b). In addition, centuries of ecological expertise and strict biologically-based taboos and customs for regulating natural resource use (IUCN 1963, Johnson and Anderson 1988) were shattered in large part when Christian missionaries descended upon the country (Englehardt 1962, Grzimek 1962). Some of these missionaries, under the guise of a religious order to "save the heathens from the everlasting fires of purgatory, began the task of stealing the culture from the very souls of indigenous peoples in the name of Christian rightenous and piety'' (Maser 1999:217, Nangoli 1986, Shillington 1989). This is recognized as one of the greatest ironies ofreligion (Maser 1999) and the beginning of cultural homogenization around the globe. Finally, directly or indirectly Christian missions paved the way for the assertive European imperial control that was to follow (Nangoli 1986, Shillington 1989). Man and Nature in Tanganyika: Colonial Era The earliest known written reference to the East African coast was recorded in 100 A.D. in a Greek handbook entitled "The Periplus of the Erythrean Sea" (The Voyage of the Indian Ocean) (Alpers 1969:35, Shillington 1989:122). During this period Greek and Roman traders referred to the East African coast as "Azania" (Shillington 1989: 122). The East African region is undoubtedly rich in historical details and events, but not until foreign domination ( e.g., Arab, Portuguese, Spanish, and European) in the nineteenth century was this history explicitly captured and described in written format and made

PAGE 29

17 accessible in the West. Suffice it to say modem written history of the East African coastal region did not begin in the nineteenth century but it is at this point that I begin my synoptic history of the region. In February 1885 Germany declared the status of protectorate over an East African region that was subsequently referred to as German East Africa and i s now known as the nation state of the United Republic of Tanzania (Berry et al. 1982 Coulson 1982 Shillington 1989). Although administered by the German East African Company (Deutsche Ostafrikanische Gesellschaft) prior to 1891, full administrative authority was later transferred to the Imperial German Government ( Coulson 1982 Gwass a 1969 ) After the defeat of Germany in WW I at the hands of Britain United States and France German East Africa was converted to a British "Mandated Territory and was subsequently referred to as Tanganyika Territory [Tanganyika] in 1920 (Biermann 1998 Iliffe 1979 Neumann 1998) From 1920 to 1946, Tanganyika was administered by a mandate of the League of Nations (predecessor of the United Nations) whereby the British were "to safeguard the interests of African inhabitants and prepare them for eventual self government" (Shillington 1989:315 ), which required Britain "to promo t e the material and moral well-being and the social progress of [the] inhabitants" (Iliffe 1979:247). After WW II, Tanganyika became a trusteeship t erri t ory' of the U nited Nations ( officially organi z ed on June 2 6 1945) but officially adm i nistered a s a British co lony (Biermann 1998 Coulson 1982:44 NYPL 1993 :891, Nyenzi 1998 U iowa 1999 ) In other words Tanganyika remained a British colony (Biermann 1998 ). T a n ga nyika gained independence in December 1961. Subsequently i t became the United Repub l ic o f

PAGE 30

18 Tanzania when the mainland of Tanganyika was united with the People's Republic of Zanzibar on April 26 1964 (Berry et al. 1982, Shillington 1989). Conservation Reawakening Before the emergence of formalized conservation throughout the world the wanton destruction of natural resources proceeded toward complete annihilation of several species and habitats (Carr 1964, Heck 1962); no species or habitat seemed to be immune to the raw destructive forces of humans of alien ethnic values and new technologies (Heck 1962) This was not restricted to Africa by any means but was more or less a widespread global phenomenon. In the historical blink of an eye the onslaught was over and cultures states, economies, and indeed ecology were vastly transformed forever (Carr 1964, Pringle 1982). Extreme measures were necessary to stop the senseless destruction of wildlife and natural systems that had been used primarily to satisfy the demands of distant industrialized countries for "luxury" items (e.g. slaves ivory feathers furs, hide etc.). With the realization that these and other potentially deleterious environmental changes could affect human health and threaten the very essence of human existence (Maser 1999 McNeely et al. 1990) the general mentality of the world appeared to shift toward a conservation ethic or consciousness (Anderson 1998) The evolutionary process of man's attitude toward his environment is briefly summarized as follows Early in the evolution of modem humans man respected nature (IUCN 1963) Rituals customs, and rules evolved with the passage of time along intergenerational lines. Man, for the most part was simply an element of and paid allegiance to his natural environment; his env i ronment satisfied his basic needs and

PAGE 31

19 provided for his security (Heck 1962). Eventually, man adapted to his environment and gained self-confidence, and greater awareness about changes in his surroundings. This period was followed by man's aggressive, exploitative behavior, which ultimately led to his divorce from nature (Heck 1962). As a species, man set himself outside of and above nature (IUCN 1963). A state of unbalance accompanied by the extinction of species and the destruction of the land followed thereafter. Finally, we are at the point of responsible readjustment and environmental reawakening (Heck 1962). Man has entered the stage of reconciliation, renewed responsibility, and respect for the environment by providing for the long-term, sustained use of its natural resources (IUCN 1963). Formalizing Conservation Throughout most of the world a formalized conservation approach did not emerge until the end of the nineteenth century. Fortunately, this process was rapid and/or simultaneous around much of the globe. This process was not the result of one culture or nation but perhaps a coincident or a simultaneous realization that although earth's resources could provide enormous goods and services as well as economic benefits, they were otherwise limited and their depletion was increasingly threatened (Serageldin and Martin-Brown 1999). In 1872, the United States established its first National Park, Yellowstone National Park. This is hailed as the world's first modem effort of conservation (Milne and Waugh 1994, Neumann 1998 Western et al. 1994, Wyant 1982) (although President Abraham Lincoln transferred Yosemite Valley Park to the state of California in 1864, it is rarely paid respect as the first national park in the United States). A predominant theme was that "in the absence of cultural nationalism" the United States should focus on

PAGE 32

20 protecting its natural history in search of an American identity (Neumann 1998, Runte 1987:282). This was to be accomplished by preserving the more rich and dramatic of her national natural resources. By the early 1960s, the U.S. National Park model based upon the ideals of enclaves of pristine nature ( exclusion of people, restrictions on hunting, and extraction of timber products, etc.), served as a blueprint for the establishment of national parks around much of the world (McNeely et al. 1994, Neumann 1998). In Africa, the movement to set-aside designated protected parks and preserves had its effective start in 1897 with the gazettement of the Hluhluwe, Umfolozi, Umdhletshe and St. Lucia Reserves in South Africa (Harris and Sullivan 1980, Pringle 1982). The subsequent establishment of other African protected areas followed rapidly, with South Africa's establishment of Kruger National Park (previously the Sabi Reserve) in 1898 (Carr 1964, Olindo and Mbaelele 1994). Today, Kruger National Park is hailed as the prototype for most other national parks in Africa (Carr 1964, Neumann 1998) and Africa's "first modem conservation area" (Olindo and Mbaelele 1994:49). This concept was readily embraced because of Westerners' growing concern over the loss of Africa's free-roaming wildlife and thus "wild Africa" (Carr 1964, Neumann 1998). Today, modem Africa is facing many of the same environmental challenges that Europe, America, and Asia faced years ago -the rapid degradation of natural lands (Grzimek 1962), the realization of limiting resources, increased human demands for utilization (Bennett 1993 ), all too rapidly rising human populations ( Carr 1964 ), heightened human rights concerns, and the centuries old human-wildlife conflicts.

PAGE 33

21 Nature of the Land Land alienation. Initially, physical displacement, either voluntarily or through forced eviction, and confinement of the local people to marginal lands were tactics pursued by German and British colonial administrators to combat sleeping sickness throughout the region (Carr 1964, Kjekshus 1977a). These resettlement schemes resulted in huge areas devoid of human population. In addition, diseases, natural, man-made, or induced calamities also contributed to the depopulation of specific areas (Iliffe 1979, Kjekshus 1977a). Once devoid of people, these lands were often reclaimed by bush, dangerous species of wildlife, tsetse fly, and ultimately even appropriated by European immigrants (Iliffe 1979). By 1939 there were 6,514 Europeans unofficially in Tanganyika, which included 2,100 British and 2,729 Germans (Iliffe 1979). From the period between 1913 to 1938, the total acres alienated to European immigrants increased from one million to over two million (Biermann 1998). Although, this only constituted approximately 1.3% of the country's total land, rights of occupancy were appropriated for up to 99 years (Iliffe 1979) and, without surprise, included much of the more productive fertile lands (Iliffe 1979, Mwalyosi 1993b, Neumann 1998). Taken together, this had the effect of pushing local people to marginal areas and thus resulted in the loss of large areas of important seasonal pastures for livestock (Mwalyosi 1993b). Settlement schemes. According to Kjekshus (1977a), tsetse fly eradication programs, along with centuries of "intertribal" warfare, slave raiding a number of disease outbreaks, famine, and colonial pacification, cumulatively depopulated the interior of Tanganyika and initiated the breakdown of man-controlled ecological systems. Of particular interest in this discussion are the policy measures associated with combating

PAGE 34

22 the tsetse fly ( Glossina spp. ), which was responsible for epidemics of sleeping sickness (trypanosomiasis) across Tanganyika and elsewhere in East Africa at the beginning of the nineteenth century (Coulson 1982, Kjekshus 1977a). As part of a committee recommendation in 1914, the colonial government embarked upon a program of mass evacuation of the population which "led to the establishment of permanent population concentrations and clearings" (Kjekshus 1977a:168). Although the German policy was largely focused on bush clearing and eradication of wildlife, it pursued an aggressive program of establishing a number of treatment centers whereby the sick could be attended in isolation from the general population (Kjekshus 1977a). The British continued the initiatives of expanding resettlement schemes beyond disease control to an even larger scale, ostensibly concentrating groups of people in order to improve the general internal economy and services provided to the rural areas. These "concentrations were intended to facilitate internal development as centres of education, health, water and conversion" as well as introduce new agriculture methods (Kjekshus 1977a:169) Although the settlement schemes were initially advocated as a "single purpose health measure at the time of their inception," their goal later changed "to multi-purpose developmental units in the terminal days of British Administration" (Kjekshus 1977 a: 178). Efforts to move people into sleeping sickness settlements continued until the 1950s, although the full magnitude and number of people concentrated was incomplete. In general, these settlements were successful in their efforts in controlling trypanosomiasis and the establishment of a number of social infrastructures, but they did not fully develop into the anticipated economic centers of achievement and progress, due

PAGE 35

23 largely to the lack of local support, heavy reliance on government assistance, increasing expenditures, and strong bureaucratic supervision (Mushi 1977). Land degradation. In terms of land-use colonial biases perceived Africans as unskilled farmers that caused the general destruction of the habitat (e.g., soil erosion) because of their primitive farming practices (Leach and Mearns 1996, Mwalyosi 1993b). Peasants were looked upon as being uncooperative and unwilling to accept "progress." Because of their low level of formal education (if any), their traditional beliefs, "primitive" culture, and "backward" land-use practices, they were assumed to be ignorant and unable to comprehend their own environmental problems (IIED 1994, IUCN 1963, Leach and Mearns 1996, Neumann 1998). Since the tum of the century the resultant colonial policies have been the reduction of nomadism and greatly increased sedentary land-use practices (Johnson and Anderson 1988, Longhurst and Heady 1968, Mwalyosi 1993a). For whatever reason(s) either out of ignorance and/or prejudice, the local farming systems in Tanzania, when compared to European standards, were viewed in a negative light. Shifting cultivation was thought of as a wasteful, backward primitive, and destructive farming system (Mwalyosi 1993b). Soon sedimentary agriculture became equated with a more advanced civilization and thus recognized as a significant indicator of progress (Johnson and Anderson 1988). The expansion of settled cultivation was also championed and "promoted as a panacea for a multitude of rural ills" (Johnson and Anderson 1988: 11 ). The response from the government and international aid organizations also "fostered development policies to encourage pastoralists to settle and reduce their dependence on livestock by taking up cultivation" (Anderson 1988:241) Subsequently, confinement of

PAGE 36

24 indigenous people to relatively small areas ofland with low agricultural potential (where traditional land-use practices may not have been applicable) has contributed to localized overpopulation and ultimately led to serious concerns of land degradation ( whether scientifically substantiated or not) as well as human impoverishment (Mwalyosi 1993b ). Because of their restricted range and confinement in some cases to defined boundaries (Johnson and Anderson 1988 Kiss 1990), local people soon adopted a "number of desperate survival strategies" (Ahmed 1988: 133) such as shortened fallow periods (Mwalyosi 1993b ), the illegal clearing of forested lands for production of charcoal (Ahmed 1988) and building supplies and the eventual overstocking of livestock beyond the capacity of the land (partly as a result of improved veterinary services and the addition of water sources) (Carr 1964, Johnson and Anderson 1988). These activities further exacerbated the problem of land degradation. The threat of encroachment upon idle fallow lands persuaded perhaps even the most reluctant farmer to continuously cultivate their plot of land or risk losing it (Schoepf 1983). Furthermore the penetration of western capitalism in the name of"progress," provided powerful economic incentives for farmers to abandon their subsistence system in favor of anticipated long-term profits and immediate momentary gains (Johnson 1988 Warren 1992). Wildlife. There is now increasing evidence that the superabundant wildlife populations described to exist in Africa around 1900 were not in fact representative of the long-term norm nor the wildlife paradise generally perceived (Harris and Sullivan 1980 Kjekshus 1977a) In fact, historical accounts suggest that wildlife populations were considerably lower prior to 1890s (Kjekshus 1977a) Moreover the ecological processes that prevailed were part of a highly dynamic system of ecological changes influenced by

PAGE 37

25 human occupancy and land-use practices (Kjekshus 1977a). Adaptive activities such as burning, dispersed settlement patterns, traditional agricultural methods and hunting practices, livestock husbandry, diseases, tsetse fly, and range management systems, dramatically influenced wildlife populations and their distribution (Harris and Sullivan 1980). Indirect conservation efforts were the mode by which wildlife was conserved. Wildlife was approached with little direct management effort because of its wide spread abundance and the belief that management was antithetical to wilderness (IUCN 1963). Commonly, illicit and not uncommonly explicit, "management" was synonymous with the reduction or elimination of wild animals, especially outside designated protected areas and where they presumably posed a threat to surrounding communities (IUCN 1963, Neumann 1998). Outside these areas, wildlife was condemned and seen as an obstacle to future development (IUCN 1963) and in potential conflict with economic activities in the area (Marks 1994). As such, the destruction of game was deemed justified to protect domestic crops, human life, and personal property. The early colonial years of Tanganyika were marked by massive campaigns aimed at controlling and ultimately eliminating the tsetse fly ( Glossina spp.) (Iliffe 1979, IUCN 1963). In addition to hunting, other methods to combat the tsetse fly included, abandoning the infested land, grass burning, establishment of flight barrier zones, and selective destruction of vegetation (Iliffe 1979). Since game species were known repositories of trypanosomes of the tsetse fly, which also infected livestock, large herds of wildlife were destroyed (Carr 1964, IUCN 1963). Elsewhere, the magnitude of one such campaign is depicted in an example from South Africa's Umfolozi Game Reserve,

PAGE 38

26 wherein 26,162 animals were killed from May 29 November 30, 1929 (Pringle 1982). The loss of a "mere" hundred or thousand wild animals was no cause for alarm since their inherent reproductive nature would replenish the numbers (IUCN 1963). For the most part, game was viewed by Westerners in strict sporting terms, meant for a leisurely past time of fulfilled enjoyment and pleasure (Prins 1993). But black Africans held a different view of wildlife (Kiss 1990). To them, wildlife provided food (Carr 1964, Kiss 1990, Neumann 1998) clothing, (Longhurst and Heady 1968), and was intimately a part of their traditional culture (TIED 1994, Kiss 1990). They also, however, were aware of wildlife threats because of crop raiding and disease transmission ( e.g., rinderpest and trypanosomiasis) (Mwalyosi 1993b). Although wildlife conservation in Tanganyika dates back to the German administration, colonial laws that regulated hunting and trade were rarely enforced (TWPF 1998). But amidst political pressures from international conservation organizations over the marked declined of a number of game species, more attention increasingly focused on their preservation (Kiss 1990). Gradually, direct conservation efforts emerged whereby protected areas, namely game controlled or game management areas, game reserves, national parks, and conservation areas were created and the regulation of hunting, and poaching was actively pursued (Neumann 1998). Protected areas. Formal exclusionary game reserve laws were first introduced in Tanganyika in May 1891 by German colonial administrators (TWPF 1998). These early attempts of "protection" were aimed at controlling wildlife and legislating a set of regulations that prohibited or strictly limited hunting, burning, grazing, and African settlement and cultivation in a number of designated reserves (Neumann 1998). Since

PAGE 39

27 their inception, these efforts have been surrounded by controversy (Harris and Sullivan 1980), local resistance, and lack of administrative or financial support. In essence, many of these protected areas existed in law books only, and were commonly referred to as "paper parks" (Brandon et al. 1998). Defined by the World Conservation Monitoring Center (WCMC) (2000) as "an area ofland and or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means," some protected areas were established after they were cleared of human occupancy in order to combat sleeping sickness (Grzimek 1962) or overlapped with other government agendas ( e.g villigazation, ujamaa, etc.) that also resulted in depopulating specific areas (Neumann 1998). As a result, thousands oflocal people were permanently displaced (Neumann 1998). Other areas were chosen because of special scenery, an important dry or wet season grazing area (Russell 1968), barren conditions with insufficient water supplies, relatively abundant game populations, or the desire to protect declining species (Kjekshus 1977a). Still other areas were created out of "lands with [a] history of occupancy and use" by "indigenous" people (Neumann 1998:4). Rarely were these areas established on "sound scientific information on the nature of species and the ecosystem as a whole" (Mugabe 1998: 12). It was generally assumed that the areas set aside for protection were a small inconvenience in light of the future social, aesthetic, cultural, and economic advantages to be bestowed upon the country (IUCN 1963). Furthermore, the conservation of wildlife and nature was considered a cultured interest and a sign of a highly advanced civilization (IUCN 1963).

PAGE 40

28 The stated purpose for these reserved areas was to protect and prevent the extinction of declining wildlife species, although their protection was often championed by the elite hunting enthusiast for providing a reservoir of abundant game (IUCN 1963 Neumann 1998, Pringle 1982) Despite being a low priority within the colonial administration, and usually competing with other government sectors and priorities ( e.g., agriculture, veterinary, tsetse and etc.), wildlife preservation flourished within the British administration in Tanganyika, whereby the game reserve network was expanded throughout the territory (Neumann 1998, Olindo and Mbaelele 1994) Local resistance. Throughout history, most colonial powers have experimented with tactics to engage [capture] the "participation" of the peasant population in various development schemes that included the establishment and protection of parks and protected areas. However, peasant populations have generally eluded government authorities both locally and internationally, implicitly and explicitly by employing a number of"weapons" [tactics] used to deceive, evade and even appear to be in compliance with authorities that sought their assistance (Scott 1985). For the most part peasant population strategies have been passive, small in nature, and unorganized, but they are pursued continuously by a number of individuals in the community (Scott 1985) Peasant resistance has taken the form of covert tactics such as illegal encroachment, poaching, setting illegal fires for clearing land foot dragging pleading ignorance of the law, and employing deceptive behavior (Neumann 1998 Scott 1985). On the other hand more open overt behavior may result in public confrontation and lead to violence. Rarely are these incidents documented with the exception of a major uprising that threatens the political stability or power structure of the state (Neumann

PAGE 41

29 1998). However, one such example comes from Tanganyika, the Maji Maji rebellion, where the German attempt to control East Africa was met by armed resistance and a defiant African population Although many smaller and more localized acts of defiance have occurred, the Maji Maji rebellion of 1905, is hailed as the single most effective and widespread resistance to colonial rule in Africa (Coulson 1982, Temu 1969). In spite of or in addition to their superior fire-power and shear force, the Germans also adopted a "scorched-earth" policy, whereby their militia tactics included the destruction of crops, confiscation of livestock and foodstuff, and the burning of villages and shops (Kjekshus 1977a:145, Shillington 1989:308). The direct impacts of this resistance movement resulted in an enormous loss of African life (approximately 75,000) as well as the secondary effects of a three year famine that followed (Coulson 1982 Iliffe 1979) Man and Nature in Tanzania: Independence Era When Tanzania gained independence from Britain in 1961, many of the natural resource policies adopted by the new independent government remained substantially unchanged from the colonial bureaucratic structure that had dominated the country (Neumann 1998). Moreover, the general conservation ideology that had accompanied these policies also remained relatively intact (Neumann 1998). Political Environment The continuation of population concentration development schemes remained a core idea well into the present independent administration (Kjekshus 1977a) Immediately preceding and shortly after gaining independence, the Tanzanian

PAGE 42

30 government pursued two alternative models for rural development, namely villagization and ujamaa (Berry et al. 1982, Coulson 1982). Both of these strategies were attempts to transform the rural sector by raising their level of production (Coulson 1982), and standard of living through a framework of grassroot participation (Berry et al. 1982). These policies, as well as nationalization and decentralization, profoundly influenced the nature of the land in Tanzania. Villagization. The villagization settlement scheme, initiated in the early 1960s, was a "mechanized and capital intensive resettlement program aimed at new levels of production" (Berry et al. 1982:75). The government provided the new sites with a number of social services that included schools, health services, housing, water supplies, and emergency food provisions (Hyden 1980), as well as credit for equipment purchases (Berry et al. 1982, Coulson 1982). Ujamaa. Coinciding in some areas with villagization, was the establishment of ujamaa villages. By 1966 the villagization policy was abandoned in favor of the alternative ujamaa policy of rural development (Coulson 1982, Makere 1971 ). But unlike villagization, the ujamaa "familyhood" approach was "conceived as part of a radical political transformation" that used existing technologies (Hyden 1980: 104), and was labor-intensive rather than capital intensive (Mushi 1977). This concept was rooted in the tradition of African societies' concern for one another and formerly used as a guiding philosophy in traditional African societies before the colonial era (Berry et al. 1982). As described by Coulson (1982:239), these villages would involve "a small group of politically committed farmers who worked together on a communal farm, using their savings to purchase equipment that would benefit the group." It was anticipated that the

PAGE 43

31 policy ofujamaa would "lead to many economic and social benefits including the complete eradication of all forms of exploitation and the attainment of full socio economic and political equality" (Makere 1971 :22). These villages, however, also received substantial governmental support in terms of social services, capital investment, and food provisions (Coulson 1982). Compulsory villagization. Directly on the heels ofujamaa was another attempt ofvillagization. In 1973, a compulsory villagization policy was enacted, whereby all Tanzanians in rural areas were ordered to live in villages by the end of 1976 (Mushi 1977). By February 1977, approximately 13 million people (Coulson 1982) were reported to be living in 7684 villages (Mushi 1977). Although total numbers may be exaggerated, this was nevertheless the "largest resettlement effort in the history of Africa" (Hyden 1980: 130). While these efforts can be credited in large part for saving thousands or perhaps millions of lives in terms of disease and famine, these settlements, as described by Kjekshus (1977b:282), also caused the "destruction of the ecological balance maintained under the traditional settlement pattern." Furthermore, these nucleated settlement patterns increasingly led to overcrowding of people and livestock, increased demands on natural resources ( e.g., timber and fuelwood), and contributed to soil erosion (Berry et al. 1982, Kjekshus 1977a). Finally, at least two legacies are readily apparent from the settlement schemes previously described. First, the failure of the Tanzanian government to transform the rural sector, and second, the failure of the ruling class to capture the peasants (Hyden 1980, 1986)

PAGE 44

32 Nationalization. The colonial government was organized on a hierarchical structure with administrative management based upon sectoral ministries ( e.g., health, education, agriculture, water and etc.) (Berry et al. 1982). But shortly after independence in 1961, the majority of the government offices and businesses were Africanized and Nationalized-composed and largely operated by black Africans and the state. The call for nationalization came shortly after independence but vehemently pursued after the Arusha Declaration in 1967 (Coulson 1982). The guidelines presented in the Arusha Declaration were hailed as a blueprint from which President Nyerere had hoped to guide his country's development (Hyden 1979,1980) based upon "communal living, rural development, and self-reliance" (Berry et al. 1982:11). This philosophy was manifested in the immediate nationalization of commercial banks, grain milling companies, import export houses, insurance businesses, oil refineries, sisal industry, co-operative unions, transportation services, farms, and manufacturing companies (Berry et al. 1982, Coulson 1982, Hyden 1980). In some instances this meant that the state would have 100% of the assets, while in other cases the government asked only for majority control or a controlling interest (Coulson 1982). As described by Coulson (1982: 180), "in less than ten years from the Arusha Declaration, the state had taken a controlling interest in virtually all productive institutions that could easily be nationalized." Decentralization. The traditional hierarchical structure of the government, in which the administration came from the top downward, was ultimately poorly suited for the type of development that President Nyerere envisioned following the Arusha Declaration in 1967 (Berry et al. 1982). Therefore in 1972, decentralization was officially adopted as a policy by the government (Mushi 1977, Kleemeier 1981). In

PAGE 45

33 theory this meant the end of local or central government, which was subsequently replaced by a branch of the central civil service to administer the region and district (Coulson 1980, Hyden 1980). The decentralization policy's main tenet was that planning should start at the village level (Berry et al. 1982) where the "objective was to lessen the burden on the central ministries in the execution of routine work by having field offices play a larger role in local development projects" (Kleemeier 1981 :64). This objective was to be accomplished by the transfer of authority and responsibility to the regional and district administrations (Kleemeier 1981 ). Decentralization, however, did not refer to the decentralization of power but the physical transfer of staff (Coulson 1982). In this regard, Coulson (1982) refers to decentralization as "centralization" whereas Hyden ( 1980) identifies it as "deconcentration In summary, the overall policy environment during the colonial and post-colonial eras, either directly or indirectly, intentionally or otherwise, and often linked to other developmental motives and policies (Neumann 1998), contributed to the subsequent abandonment oflarge tracts of previously cultivated and settled lands. Where some of these lands were not allocated to the state or villages for small-scale production, the result was the reclamation of bush and the eventual invasion of tsetse fly and wildlife (Coulson 1982, Iliffe 1979). Current Nature of the Land Land degradation. Today environmental degradation in Tanzania is "partly the consequence of national policies [that have] divorced local people from the responsibilities for conservation ... (Mwalyosi 1993b: 14). This has in turn created a negatively reinforced attitude that has, in part discouraged the pursuit of sound

PAGE 46

34 conservation ethics and practices among indigenous people (Mwalyosi 1993b). Local people continue to function in a traditional farming and livestock system that no longer appears ecologically applicable or workable, based upon either present advances in technology and medicine, or a political, economic, and social contextual setting that is rapidly evolving (Parker 1969). For the subsistence, resource-poor farmer or pastoralist there are very few incentives or compensating alternatives available for him to change a system that has literally kept him alive (Johnson and Anderson 1988, Longhurst and Heady 1968). However, there are still situations where some forms of migratory pastrolism are ecologically suited to the resource limitations of East Africa (Bennett 1993). These areas may still provide a maximum yield with minimum resource degradation but only for a modest number of people and for a limited amount of time (Bennett 1993); that is, until such time as climatic factors ( e.g., global warming, ozone effect, acid rain, desertification, etc.) overwhelm the situation. Inevitably the whole environment of the smallholder farmers in East Africa has changed and in some cases collapsed under the combined disruptive pressures of a modernizing society (Johnson 1988). Throughout the modernizing world we continue to witness the exile of indigenous people, forced into a modernized world which they are ill equipped or prepared to accept, all in the name of progress and development (Carr 1964). Wildlife. There is mounting pressure on wildlife that increasingly threatens its survival, such as poaching, habitat destruction through the conversion of land to other land-uses (agriculture schemes and etc.), increasing human population, illegal fires, grazing by domestic stock, disruption of seasonal migration routes, fencing, and etc

PAGE 47

35 (WCMC 2000). It has been estimated that over half of the original wildlife habitat in Africa has already been lost to extractive logging, charcoal burning, conversion to agricultural use, livestock grazing, and other land-uses (Kiss 1990). Today, the views held by a majority of Africans towards wildlife may be described as resentful and antagonistic at best (Davis 1968). In their eyes wildlife is seen as the "government's cattle" to be protected at all costs, even to the detriment of the rural people (Western 1997). For the African farmer, his management objectives have been avoidance, control, and sometimes eradication of wildlife species that threaten his crops (Carr 1964), property, and personal safety (Mwalyosi 1993b). Appeals based solely on the aesthetic, recreational, or scientific value of wildlife have fallen short of offering complete protection and providing for a secure future for rural communities (IUCN 1963). A struggle between the welfare of wildlife and a vanishing wilderness against the rights and needs of an emerging African population (Carr 1964) has persisted throughout the course of time and will continue to play an increasing role in future management efforts. New policy and management philosophies that seek to reduce these conflicts and provide for a secure future for wildlife and people must be found. Protected areas. Today, the present framework of protected areas in Tanzania arose from a number of forest reserves, namely the sanctuaries or former German settler estates that were placed under protection by the colonial powers, and subsequently expanded to other areas and continued by the independent government (Neumann 1998, Olindo and Mbaelele 1994, TWFP 1998).

PAGE 48

36 Because protected areas are artificially, human-imposed boundaries (Russell 1968) on otherwise wild expanses of earth, they require tremendous expenditures simply to maintain within a tropical setting (L.D. Harris, pers. com.). The difficulties of safeguarding protected areas impose a large burden on emerging countries that are continuing to struggle for economic survival (TWPF 1998). Large expenditures are required for their upkeep, especially in light of the tremendous competing budgetary constraints faced in most developing countries, such as Tanzania (TWPF 1998). Once hailed as a small price to pay for international prestige and conservation commitment (IUCN 1963), protected areas continue to be managed as a national and global asset, but yet impose undue hardship ( direct and indirect) on the local people ( e.g., anti-poaching programs, roads, camps, fire control, restrictive use of natural resources, and etc.) (Longhurst and Heady 1968, Mwalyosi 1993a). Protected areas are coming under increasing pressures to meet the growing demands to provide for the long-term security of an ever-increasing and demanding human population (Olindo and Mbaelele 1994). They are under insurmountable pressures to provide fuel, food, timber, and economic returns for the local people. The government has fallen short or failed to provide sufficient socio-economic benefits (Coulson 1982) or incentives for those participating in protected area management, or those directly affected by the establishment, and maintenance of these areas (Olindo and Mbaelele 1994). In addition, officials in various branches of government, local regional, and national have come under increased pressure to convert land set-aside for conservation to be used for short-term land use options, such as large-scale commercial agriculture, or grazing areas (WCMC 2000).

PAGE 49

37 International interests have always influenced and been a strong advocate for the protected area approach in conserving the natural fauna in Africa ( IUCN 1963 Neumann 1998). Under national and international pressures, protected areas are still hailed by some as vital approaches to maintaining in perpetuity a representati v e sample of the world's biological, physical and cultural wealth (Attwell 2000). To a certain point this objective has met some success in the sense that it has formed a partial barrier ( weak or strong) against subsequent development in the area (IUCN 1963 Olin.do and Mbaelele 1994). However today protected areas have come under considerable scrutiny from a number of activists social scientists local peasants and politicians questioning the relevance of protected areas to rural communities and thus their livelihood (Neumann 1998). As a result policy makers increasingly recognize tha t a more flexible mul t i faceted and integrated approach to managing strict natural areas is needed. Consequently a series of protected area classifications wi t h v arying degr e es of regulations and management regimes specifically pertaining to human occupation and use of the natural environment have been designated ( Schoepf 1983) In an early attempt to bring a degree of uniformity into the use of various and often confusing terms applied to the various land-use classifications throughout t he world the World Conservation Union (IUCN) in 1978 established ten categories of protected areas based upon spec i fied management objectives (McNeely et al. 1994) In 1992 at the IV World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas this system was modified and reduc e d t o si x categories: strict nature reserve / wilderness area national park natural monument habitat/ s pecies management area protected landscap e / se a scape and manag e d resourc e protected area (Brandon et al. 1998 WCMC 2000 )

PAGE 50

38 Focusing on the results of Tanzania's natural resource efforts, there where only three National Parks nine Game Reserves, and one Conservation Area at the time of independence in 1961 (Kaiza-Boshe et al. 1998, TWPF 1998). However after independence, the new government significantly increased the number of protected areas (Neumann 1998 TWPF 1998). Thus, Africanization not only embraced but amplified ideologies of the colonial era (Neumann 1998). Today the total of protected areas approximates 28% of Tanzania's land area, which includes 12 National Parks, 31 Game Reserves, 38 Game Controlled Areas, and one Conservation Area. Several of these are designated as world heritage sites and/or biosphere reserves (Coe et al. 1999, TWPF 1998, Zacharia 1990). Each category is unique and varies accordingly in its legal, administrative and degree of biodiversity protection (Coe et al. 1999, WCMC 2000) as described under the present IUCN classification system. Today s African nations feel increasing pressures to evaluate protected areas in monetary terms. Sadly for biodiversity conservation many countries are rapidly approaching a point where humans are "unable to envisage humanity except in terms of profit, development exploitation, and planning at every economic level" ( IUCN 1963 :242), whereby protected areas are used as a "valid strategy for economic development" (Kjekshus 1977a:79). Until now, biodi v ersity and renewable natural resources have fallen victim to these monetary motives (Mugable 1998). This is in large measure because there are no rules, conventions, or international mechanisms that are effectively enforced to guarantee the survival of wildlife resources in the lesser developed countries so long as economic incentives provide the strongest and easiest motive for their destruction (IUCN 1963).

PAGE 51

39 Local resistance. Today in Tanzania, local community resentment and antagonistic feelings towards protected areas, and conservation policies continue to culminate in various forms of local resistance. Although everyday forms of resistance (Scott 1985:32) persist and may include illegal hunting and natural resource extractions, grazing trespass, unauthorized burning and encroachment (Neumann 1998, Scott 1995), some of these "weapons" have nevertheless remained consistent and unchanged However, other changes in part, reflect a growing grassroot movement with local and often global challenges surrounding the establishment and administration of protected areas in Tanzania (Neumann 1998). From ordinary weapons of relatively powerless groups to a formal process of due process through the judicial system, years of unorganized defiant behavior have incrementally moved towards an organized progress of peasant political mobility (Scott 1995). But still, efforts to "capture" (engage) the peasant population in natural resource management activities continues unabated. Within recent years these efforts have increasingly involved community-based conservation initiatives that attempt to forestall local opposition to conservation (Neumann 1998, Western and Wright 1994). Some of these initiatives include the provision of social services, alternative employment opportunities or other income generating schemes benefit sharing opportunities and alternative resource management methods These "alternatives" are aimed at providing incentives (directly or indirectly) to the local communities for adhering to biodiversity conservation objectives (IIED 1994).

PAGE 52

CHAPTER3 STUDY AREAS AND METHODS Tanzania is a large and exceptionally diverse country, encompassing about 942,800 km2 (Kaiza-Boshe et al. 1998), thus making it the largest country in Eastern Africa (Foster 1994) (Figure 2). Located just south of the equator, it borders Kenya and Uganda on the north and northeast, respectively; Zaire, Rwanda, and Burundi on the west; and Zambia, Malawi, and Mozambique on the south (Foster 1994, Nyenzi 1998). Tanzania's population of approximately 30 million people is growing at an annual rate of2.8% (Nyenzi 1998, TWPF 1998). Although 80-85% of the population (Nyenzi 1998) lives in rural areas, the urban population of 4.5 million is growing at a rate of 7-8% per year (PERM 1995) and dominates most of the news and political decisions. Native Africans account for 99% of Tanzania's population with the remainder 1 % composed of Asia, Arab, and European peoples (Uiowa 1999). Kiswahili and English are the official languages of the country, although there are several regional languages among Tanzania's 120 "tribes" (Nyenzi 1998). Religious freedom is commonplace in Tanzania. Muslims and Hindus make up 33%, while Christians comprise 33%, and those who adhere to traditional African beliefs 34% (Uiowa 1999). Agriculture employs over 80% of the adult work force (PERM 1995), accounts for about 75% of the country's foreign exchange earnings (Kaiza-Boshe et al. 1998, 40

PAGE 53

41 AFRICA 600km 300mi Serengeti KENYA Plain K l . Arusha i imanJaro Ngorongoro l ?895m Crater Mosh1 Lake ~ukwa 1 Pemba Island 2 Zanzibar Island 3 Mafia Island ZAMBIA Figure 2. Map of Tanzania _, n.r.,=->::-2:\ Adapted from : Crystal, D editor. 1993. Cambridge FactFinder upda t ed edit i on. Pages 195-358 in Human geography (the Map of Tanzania page 325). Cambridge University Press New York.

PAGE 54

42 PERM 1995), and 50% of the country's Gross Domestic Product (Biermann 1998, Kaiza Boshe et al. 1998). Agriculture, therefore, dominates and stereotypes the economy of country as a whole. It is a country of smallholder farmers who average less tha_n two hectares of land, and are characterized by low productivity, and per capita income. Because of the caprice of climate, foreign exchange, and availability of international goods and supplies, most people can make only marginal moves away from subsistence agricultural levels and towards a profit-oriented farming system. Although commercial agriculture is the objective of the economic sector (Biermann 1998, Mugabe 1998), the critical importance of raw natural resources to people's livelihood can not be underestimated (PERM 1995). Tanzania's biological diversity (biodiversity) is one of the country's greatest assets (Coe et al. 1999, Mwalyosi 1993a, TWPF 1998) remaining to be tapped in a sustainable and profitable mode (Mwalyosi 1993b). One estimate suggests that at least 25% of the world's global diversity occurs in Tanzania (in terms of species, ecosystem, and genetic variety) (Mugabe 1998). The diversity of habitats, topographical features, plants, and animals found in Tanzania make the country one of the richest areas on earth in terms of natural resource endowment and spectacular scenery (Mwalyosi 1993a, TWPF 1998): the Great Rift Valley, a vast fault line through the interior of Tanzania and the precursor to several ecological wonders, such as the Ngorongoro Crater, the largest unbroken caldera in the world; Lake Tanganyika, the world's second deepest lake (Foster 1994, Nyenzi 1998); the Central Plateau (1200 m above sea level) a huge expanse of savannah and sparse woodland and home to the Serengeti arguably the most photogenic and best known wildlife area in the world (Foster 1994). On the northern Tanzania-

PAGE 55

43 Kenya border, rises the ice-capped mountains of Mount Kilimanjaro (19,340 ft-5895 m), the tallest freestanding mountain in the world is sharply juxtaposed to a wondrous marine and coral reef system only 161 km to the east (Nyenzi 1998). This, in tum, is dotted by the culturally renowned islands of Zanzibar, Mafia, and Pemba. In terms of wildlife, Tanzania is the fourth most diverse country in Africa for amphibians, reptiles (Kaiza-Boshe et al. 1998, McNeely et al. 1990), and swallowtail butterflies (McNeely et al. 1990). It ranks third for birds (Kaiza-Boshe et al. 1998) and mammals (McNeely et al. 1990) and second most diverse for plants (Kaiza-Boshe et al. 1998, PERM 1995). This rich fauna and flora diversity is supported by an equally rich mosaic of habitats that is a reflection of its climatic, topographic, and altitudinal variations (Coe et al. 1999, Mwalyosi 1993a). Although there are seasonal variations in temperatures and rainfall throughout the region, on the whole, the country's hottest months are from October to February, and the long rainy season is from mid-March to late May with short rains occurring between October and December (Nyenzi 1998, TWPF 1998). Although much of the country is semi-arid, characterized by low rainfall and dominated by either savannah grassland, Acacia woodland, or Comiphora-Acacia scrub, there are also wetlands, flood plains, coastal mangrove forests, coral gardens, tropical forests, and montane belts (Coulson 1982, Mwalyosi 1993a, TWPF 1998). Moreover, there are several world-renowned areas of significant natural, cultural, and economic importance, which include World Heritage sites such as Mt. Kilimanjaro, Selous Game Reserve, Serengeti National Park, and Ngorongoro Crater (Coulson 1982, Kaiza-Boshe et al. 1998, TWPF 1998), as well as a number of Africa's great lakes (Victoria,

PAGE 56

44 Tanganyika, and Nyasa) (Coulson 1982, Mwalyosi 1993a, TWPF 1998) rivers (Rufiji Pangani, Ruaha, and Ruvurna) (Berry et al. 1982, Coulson 1982) and soda lakes (Natron Eyasi, Blangida, and Manyara) (Mwalyosi 1993a TWPF 1998) Study Areas Because Tanzania has a well-documented history of conservation programming activities several of its National Parks and protected areas provide an excellent opportunity for reviewing the legacy of colonial natural resource policies changing paradigms human-wildlife conflicts, human rights concerns and conservation management approaches. This is especially important now after a century of experimentation with conservation approaches in the face of unrelenting human population growth For these discussions I present three case studies: Udzungwa National Park (UNP) Mikumi National Park (MNP) and Mkomazi Game Reserve (MGR) These three study areas were chosen because they pro v ide fairly d i stinct conservation management approaches for comparison and contrast. Despite a common colonial legacy and similar political environments these three protected areas have subsequently pursued different conservation management approaches. Their management decisions have been greatly influenced by local park managerial attitudes and philosophies as well as varying degre e s of technical and financial support (e.g. local government international NGOs and private donations) Furth e rmore the ecological attributes community relations and historical context have come to distinctly shape these three protected areas' conservation approaches management challenges and natural resource poli cies.

PAGE 57

45 Udzungwa National Park Udzungwa National Park (UNP) is located in the Iringa and Morogoro Regions of South Central Tanzania (Figure 3). Bordered on the north by the Ruaha River, on the east by the Selous Game Reserve, on the south by the T AZARA (Great Uhuru) railway and on the west by the West Kilombero Scarp Forest Reserve (Hoyle 1997, Johannes 1996) The total area ofUNP is 1900 km2 gazetted (established) in 1992 from the Mwanihana, Iwonde, and parts ofMatundu, Nyanganje and West Kilombero Scarp Forest Reserves (originally established in 1958), making it Tanzania's twelfth national park and sixth largest (Johannes 1996). UNP forms part of the chain of mountains known as the "Eastern Arc" mountains of East Africa (T ANAP A n.d. ). These mountain ranges include Usambara, North and South Pare, Uluguru Mahenge, Rubeho, Nguu, Malundwe, Nguru, Ukaguru, and Udzungwa in Tanzania (Johannes 1996, Mwalyosi 1993a), and Taita in Kenya (Johannes 1996). These mountain ranges stretch across eastern Tanzania from the Kenya border to Malawi and are among the richest biodiversity hotspots in the world with exceptionally high fauna and flora species richness and endemism (Myers et al. 2000, TWPF 1998). The UNP constitutes the greatest altitidunal range of forests in East Africa (TAN AP A n.d. ). The eastern escarpment is the only place in East Africa with a relatively unbroken forest cover, with a variety of forest types with altitudinal ranges from 250 m above sea level to 2000 m. Estimated annual rainfall is 500-2500 mm (Hoyle 1997 Johannes 1996).

PAGE 58

46 MAP OF UDZUNGWA MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, TANZANIA Figure 3. Map ofUdzungwa National Park Source: Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA), n.d. Brochure for Udzungwa National Park. Arusha, Tanzania.

PAGE 59

47 Udzungwa National Park is an exceptionally rich forest. It provides habitat for many rare and endemic flora and fauna species, a very diverse large mammal community, the richest forest bird habitat in Tanzania, and spectacular mountain scenery with rainforest, wooded grasslands, rock faces, rivers, and waterfalls (T ANAP A n.d.). Mikumi National Park Mikurni National Park (MNP), gazetted in 1964, is the third largest national park after Ruaha and Serengeti, with an area of3,230 km2 (TANAPA n.d.). MNP is located in North Central Tanzania and shares its boundary in the extreme east with the Selous Game Reserve (Figure 4). Together they form a continuous ecosystem for migrating animals. The park lies in a horseshoe of towering mountains and forested foothills. To the east rises the 2743 m massif of the Uluguru ranges; to the southwest are the peaks of the Lumango mountains, while the Mbesera, Madizini, and Mazunyungu hills sweep around northward and westward (T ANAP A n.d.). The park headquarters is located 96 km2 from Morogoro town, along the Tanzania-Zambia Highway (which transverses the park for 50 km2), 288 km2 from Dar es Salaam, and 80 km2 from UNP (TANAPA n.d.), making it one of Tanzania's most accessible national parks. The major attraction at MNP is the Mkata flood plain that rises approximately 548 m above sea level and is an area of high concentration of the plains variety animals, including four of the "big five" species in Africa elephant, buffalo, lion and leopardas well as over 300 species of birds (Foster 1994, TANAPA n.d.).

PAGE 60

48 0 100km N Figure 4. Map ofMikumi National Park and Selous Game Reserve Ecosystem Source: Siege, L. editor. 1996. Financial potential of the Selous Game Reserve and its buffer zones SCP Discussion Paper No. 21. Selous Conservation Programme. Selous Game Reserve-Wildlife Division. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Map ofMikumi National Park and Selous Game Reserve, cover page.

PAGE 61

49 Mkomazi Game Reserve The Mkomazi Game Reserve (MGR) is located in Northeast Tanzania and lies along the Kenya border approximately midway between the Indian Ocean and Mt. Kilimanjaro (Figure 5). The MGR is bordered on the northwest by the North Pare Mountains, with the westernmost highest point of the Reserve Kinondu Hill reaching an elevation of 1594 m (Coe et al. 1999, Harris 1972, McWilliam and Packer 1998 ) The Umba Steppe comprising the open plains area of the Reserve, borders the Reserve in the east with an elevation of 230 m above sea level and rising to 600 m above the plain (Harris 1972). To the south lies the Umba River and Tsavo (West) National Park in Kenya to the North, where it forms an integral part of the greater Tsavo ecosystem ( Coe et al. 1999 Mangubuli 1992) The foothills of the North Pare Mountains and the extensive plains of the Umba Steepe are two main physiographic features of the Reserve (Harris 1972) MGR is characterized as semi-arid with an east to west annual rainfall gradient varying between 35 cm to 65 cm (Harris and Fowler 1975). The vegetation i s categorized into four major types: (1) dry montane forest (2) bushed and wooded grassland, (3) seasonally inundated grassland and ( 4 ) bushland ( Coe et al. 1999 Harris 1972). Today, bushland accounts for less than 50% of the Reserve (Coe et al. 1999 ) A complete description of the physiography and geology of MGR i s ext ensively given elsewhere (Harris 1972) The MGR was established in October 1951 and encompasses a total area of 3234.4 km2 with an approximate maximal length of 130 km and maximal width of 41 km (Harris 1972). Since establishment, however its borders have been altered at least twice

PAGE 62

Figure 5. Map ofMkomazi Game Reserve Source: Coe, M.J., N.C. McWilliam, G.N. Stone, and M.J. Parker, editors. 1999. Mkomazi: the ecology, biodiversity, and conservation of a Tanzania savanna. Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers), London. Map of Mkomazi Game Reserve, back cover inset map. (Reprinted with permission of the publisher)

PAGE 63

i -3"45'S-l--------------,--t-----------------+----------------H K ,roo s"'e ~15' 4"30'-t----l 3 7"46'E ', ... KENYA -...... T ANZANIA INdoa 1419 ._____ !:fiends of Consarvatoon lbaya Resaarch Centre A.u1;J. --., HIiis { ,.10 ~ 1 I Ngurunga 'Ei Dam ; A. permanent camp Gt Reserve gate / Reserve road Reserve bo..-,dary ,' international boundary water hole hilltop (height in metres) 0 10 kiklrneb-es \--. MKOMAZI GAME RESERVE TAN ZANIA Mt Ki!im1.n jaro Tsavo Nationa l Pntl< West "'~1.6 ) Kavateta ) Dam ) ,. ~${> ",v,. ~,,(-'1, .,., '). ~,~ \\ ---1 -.,J ~is,maCamp I, ~~aHill1356 Hafino 123'a ----i;:rNjiro Gate \.. Tt,ss., 1-/,;,45 V'I 0

PAGE 64

51 once in 1957 and again in 1966 (Harris 1972, Zacharia 1990). This has resulted in a reduction of the original 3584 km2 to the present day total area. Under the Wildlife Conservation Act No. 12 of 1974 and Government Notice No. 275 of 8th November the MGR (the western part) was administratively reestablished under the decentralization policy as the MGR, and the Umba Game Reserve (UGR) (the eastern half) (Zacharia 1990). Today, the MGR (2010.3 km2 ) and UGR (1224.1 km2 ) lie in the Pare and Lushoto Districts of the Kilimanjaro and Tanga regional administrative boundaries, respectively (Mangubuli 1992). Throughout this paper, however, the MGR/UGR will be collectively referred to as the Mkomazi Game Reserve (MGR) or Reserve unless otherwise stipulated. Historical overview of MGR. During the last 30 years the administrative capacity to manage protected areas in Tanzania has declined to a point where the MGR has suffered considerable biodiversity losses (D. Anstey pers. com., Mangubuli 1992). This came about as a result of declining social foundations and decision-making capacity in conservation institutions The problems of the Reserve have been blamed on insensitive colonial policies that failed to consider people's needs, rights and the traditional practices that maintained a reasonable environment before colonial intervention. The political ideology that led to these losses is now being addressed by more recent administrations and alternative management steps are underway to relieve the natural resource base of numerous stressors. During the last few years the Reserve has been a focal point for a new ideology. A major report on the Reserve (Homewood et al. 1997) maintains that all can be well if control of the natural resources would be given to the local village authorities. Without a detailed analysis here, this report appears to

PAGE 65

52 misrepresent and misstate major historical facts of the MGR. As such, this dissertation suggests extreme caution in basing any critical decisions or advocating new ones on untested claims, as the effects could be irreversible. Moreover, in the interest of pursuing equitable future management options, it is imperative that a correct, objective, and unbiased narrative be told one which considers the historical developments which led to the gazettement and the current ecological, social, and political challenges. The following is a historical overview of MGR based upon detailed interviews with David Anstey and Lawrence Harris, supplemented with other reports and documents. Ruvu Game Reserve. In 1904, during the German administration, an area of country along the Ruvu River was set aside as a game reserve and was referred to by the Germans as Wildreservat Wilhemstal. This area lay along the Ruvu (Pangani) River in what later became Upare District. During the Second World War, however, the lack of inadequate supervision led to severe degradation of the area because of increased pressures from the Maasai and their cattle (Mangubuli 1992). Eventually, the Ruvu Game Reserve lost its ecological value as a nature reserve and was subsequently degazetted (abolished) in 1950 (Anderson 1967 Parker 1969). Ethnic conflict. During the withdrawal of German authority in Tanganyika in 1916, a group of a Maasai clan resident around Losongoni, engaged in battle with a group of the WaK wavi clan in the lower Kitwai mbuga. The purpose of this struggle was to gain additional grazing land (later this conflict will be at the heart of the current legal battle over the MGR). As a result of the defeat, the WaKwavi moved from the

PAGE 66

53 Kitwai/Saunyi area towards the Usambara Mountains. In 1926 because of past connections to this area this small group ofWaKwavi arranged with the Sambaa chief to take up residence at the foothills of the Northwest Usambara Mountains. This was roughly the Mnazi/Lelwa area which lies outside the MGR. During the 1940s and 1950s there was movement by the Maasai from Maasailand into the lowlands on the western side of the Upare and Usambara Districts. Their influx raised concerns among the respective African District Councils (ADC) in this area They were concerned that the Maasai would take grazing land needed for W aPare and Wasambaa who were encouraged to bring their livestock down from the overgra zed hill in the mountains to the lowlands for grazing. In response the District Commissioners of Upare and Usambara issued administrative orders for the Maasai to remain west of the Tanga-Moshi railway line. Gazettement of MGR. About 1949 after two years of discussion with the ADC and village chiefs it was agreed that the MGR would be established as a quid pro quo for the degazettement (abolishment) of the Ruvu Game Reserve (Harris 1972 Kabigumila 1992). The proposed area was uninhabited and offered a good example of a semi-arid ecosystem (Anstey 1956) The Kisiwani village had no direct contact with th e proposed reserve boundary as it was composed of thick bush. A sisal estate in this area also provided a buff er zone between the village and the reserve. This area offered good prospects for a biodiversity reserve without conflicting with other national de v elopment interests Observations from 1880 to the early 1950s suggest that wildlife was well distributed in the area (Anstey 1956 Harris 1972). Willoughby ( 1889) referred to it as

PAGE 67

54 offering "excellent and varied sport." A 1932 annual report by the Tanganyika Game and Tsetse Division indicated that the Pare (i.e., Ruvu) Reserve (immediately south of the present MGR) was listed as "one of the four most valuable." This was followed by another report in 1934 that stated with closer protection ... the Same District can become one of the most attractive game areas in the territory", later it was described in 1950 as carrying large concentrations of game" {Tanganyika Game and Tsetse Division 1935). In an effort to verify that the proposed area for the game reserve was uninhabited tax collect i on records from the ADC were extensively checked. Finally after two years of negotiations the ADC and the two District Commissioners Mr. Thome and Mr. Smithyman certified that according to the tax records there were no taxpayers of their districts living in the proposed area. Both of the District Commissioners were agreeable for the land to be made into a game reserve. The proposal was approved and the MGR was included in the Flora and Fauna Conservation Ordinance published in 1951. David Anstey the Reserve s first Game Ranger undertook extensive safaris in the game reserve between 1952-55 to survey the area for any occupants and to verify the ADC tax statements He found that the pastoralists based near Lake Jipe and Toloha at the foot of the North Pare Mountains (outside the Reserve) were concerned about Maas ai herders encroaching into their grazing areas. At Maji Kununua Mountain in the Central Pare Mountains h e encountered two families. They requested David Anstey s assistance in moving to an area outside of the reserve to the North Pare Mountains so that they could have access to schools and medical clinics. In the Tussa Mountains there was evidence of two or three huts in which according to his Kambaa guide two men had

PAGE 68

55 lived after being expelled from their village because of antisocial activities. But before the reserve was gazetted, these men had left the area and returned to their village. In the Usambara District area of the Reserve there were no permanent residents However there was a small group ofWaKwavi living at a village on the northern side of the U sambara Mountains. During the rainy season they utilized the Katamboi waterhole in Kenya and grazed back to the Umba River during the dry season (Mangubuli 1992). Unfortunately, the original government records referring to this group ofWaKwavi have not been located, but references have been made showing there were 69 people (including men, women and children) and about 3000 head of cattle. David Anstey agreed to le t the W aK wavi continue their grazing pattern, since they had been there before the Reserve was established. At this time the presence of the WaKwavi and their grazing practices did not interfere with or cause damage to the wildlife population or the flora ( Kabigumila 1992). With further investigation of the area, David Anstey found a group o f detriba l ized individuals in an area called Kalemawi (downstream towards Ganja Maore) just inside the Reserve boundary. They were engaged in salt production and were also herders for WaPare cattle owners. Consequently in 1957 the government excised this area approximately 89 square miles, from the reserve to provide these people with a sufficient area outside the Reserve for salt production and grazing (Harris 1972). Influx of migrants. In the 1950s a small group of Maasai with significan t livestock herds emigrated from Maasailand to the Upare District. This created tension with the local people currently in the area. The Maasai moved into the Lake Jipe area where there had been only limited Maasai cattle From there they continued t o move along the Kenya-Tanzania border ( on the Kenya side) towards the Katamboi waterhole

PAGE 69

56 which was then being used in the rainy season by the W aK wavi. The W aK wavi sent news to the administration that influx of Maasai threatened their grazing The Usambara lowland was also threatened with overgrazing by the Lsongoni Maasai herds in the 1950s and 1960s. These Maasai originated in the Ruvu area and had migrated via Kilometa-Upare to Ngulu Gap-Upare to Toloha-Upare and subsequently to the WaKwavi grazing areas near Mnazi. These invasions upset the whole ecological system of grazing outside the Reserve and ignited a chain reaction of land degradation that threatened the natural habitat in the Reserve as well. It further threatened the collapse of the planned utilization of the lowland area by the Wapare and Wasambaa and their livestock In response to this threat Igoma, a section of land fringing the South Pare Mountains was excised from the Reserve in 1965 to provide additional land for the Kisiwaini agriculturists. At the same time a small section of land in the Pangaro Valley was added as it included an important dry season habitat for wildlife and was near the Reserve's Dindira watering point (Harris 1972 Mangubuli 1992). In light of past management challenges, MGR remains an ecologically important protected area in Tanzania. As such current management efforts continue to cautiously pursue conservation objectives within the context of historically (and current) political, and social complexities Methodology For my study of the three protected areas in Tanzania, I used a variety of methods including archival sources found in Tanzania and the University of Florida Special Collection Library In addition, face-to-face personal interviews (informal unstructured

PAGE 70

57 and semi-structured) were conducted with National Park and Game Reserve staff, Tanzania Wildlife Division, Tanzania National Park (T ANAP A) authorities, and two former Mkomazi Game Reserve employees (David Anstey and Lawrence Harris). Other methods included on-site observations, semi-structured questionnaire surveys ( open and closed ended), including households, village leaders, a women's group, and park staff (Udzungwa and Mikumi National Parks only). Also I conducted a thorough review of Tanzanian government s published and unpublished historical reports, and contemporary literature. SUAffU Linkage Project In 1990 Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA) in Morogoro, Tanzania and Tuskegee University (TU) in Tuskegee AL (USA), signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to link and collaborate in teaching, research, and outreach with the purpose of positioning themselves to take advantage of emerging opportunities for institutional development (SUA/TU report 1998). This agreement subsequently became the SUA/TU Linkage Project. The first phase of this project entitled "Enhancing Teaching, Research, and Outreach Capabilities of Sokoine University of Agriculture" was funded by United States Agency for International Development (USAID) at $2,385,754 for five years (October 1 1990 to September 30, 1995) (SUA/TU report 1996). In addition the second phase of this project entitled "Capacity Building for the Development of Sustainable Agriculture Through Community-Based Management of Natural Resources in Tanzania," was also funded by USAID on October 1 1995 for a five year period (October 1 1995 to September 30, 2000) at a total cost of $2,714 943 (SUA/TU report 1996). This project is as a cooperative agreement between TU and

PAGE 71

58 USA.ID to benefit SUA's efforts in capacity building for outreach in community-based natural resource management at the village level in Tanzania Specifically the second phase of this project which is the focus of the following discussions and research activities, was designed to produce seven "outputs": (1) improved project management skills at SUA (2) strengthen land management practices (3) improved management ofresource use in horticultural production, (4) increased use of sustainable crop production practices, (5) increased production of poultry goats and cattle, 6) increased technical services for community well-being, and (7) improved community services to increase the use of tractor / animal power in agriculture (SUA/TU report 1996). Project Villages The project activities focused on sustainable agricultural production management of natural resources and environmental conservation. The implementation strategies therefore, involved a series of activities ( e.g., consultation, baseline surveys, and etc.) geared towards social and ecological needs, problem discovery, intervention, and impact assessment (SUA/TU report 1996). Consultation with USAID (Tanzania) resulted in the selection of three districts to participate in the SUA/TU Linkage Project namely Kilosa Morogoro rural and Kilombero The respective district authorities subsequently narrowed the choices of specific rural communities or target villages to benefit from the project activities and assistance. As a result, 17 villages were selected throughout the three districts, five each in Morogoro and Kilombero and seven in Kilosa district.

PAGE 72

59 Dedicated teams. Implementation of the proposed activities was carried out through the use of "dedicated teams." These are core teams formed on the basis of discipline and activity requirement for each of the 1 7 target villages. One of the teams implemented a mini-project called, "Promotion of sound coexistence between protected areas and neighboring rural communities." I participated directly in this mini-project whose activities focused on two villages, Kisawasawa and Sanje, adjacent to Udzungwa National Park, and two villages, Maharaka and Msongozi, adjacent to Mikumi National Park. Other dedicated teams provided assistance to select villages regarding horticulture, vegetable production, food and cash crop production, poultry and goat keeping, agriculture inputs and implements, milling machinery, construction of dispensary building and dairy farming. Village-Level Activities Designated team members from the SUNTU Linkage Project conducted two types of initial data collection exercises between January and March 1996. The first was entitled, "Baseline Study for the SUNTU Linkage Project Villages" (SUNTU report 1996). A standard USAID (Tanzania) questionnaire was used in this exercise to sample eight villages in the targeted district. Five of these sample villages fell within activities of the SUNTU Linkage Project. The questionnaires were comprehensive, covering the socio-economic aspects of the villages. The second data collection exercise, entitled "Village Profiles" was conducted by the project in all of the 17 SUNTU targeted villages. This comprehensive study employed participatory rural appraisal techniques to obtain information on the focus areas of the project, sustainable agriculture, and

PAGE 73

60 management of the natural resources (SUA/TU report 1996). In each village a uniform format was employed A multidisciplinary team of SUA, TU, and local village l eaders conducted the study with the following chronology of activities: meeting with village government a field appraisal of the village and separate discuss i ons with groups of women and men in the respective rural communities The outcome of these data was a profile of all collaborating villages and a useful document to gain insight into specific village-level planning activities. A one-day workshop and planning seminar was conducted in February and March, 1996, in an effort to discern needed village-level activities (SUA/TU report 1996). The respective village chairperson village executive officers div i sional secretaries and SUA/TU personnel attended these meetings. During the meetings proposed village activities were discussed critically analyzed and prioritized. The output was a five-year program document that elaborated on specific acti v ities or "mini projects" and the roles of SUA/TU customers in the Linkage Project. Questionnaires Household. In an effort to provide more effective assistance to the villages in the study area (Maharaka Msongozi Kisawasawa, and Sanje), a structured face-to-face household survey was conducted over a two-week period in August 199 7 (Appendix A ). It included both open-ended and fixed or closed-response questions (Bernard 19 9 4 ). Through these surveys respondents were asked questions relating to household education employment status age, family size, conservat ion attitudes, wil dl i fe perceptions park management strategies and suggestions access to conservation materials, and experiences with crop and livestock damage from wild animal s.

PAGE 74

61 Individual households were randomly selected from a list of residents prepared by the village secretary. A total of 178 households in the four villages were randomly selected for the questionnaire survey. Whenever possible the head of the household was interviewed with supplemental information provided by other household members who were also present. The response time of respondents and the location of the households dictated the total number of surveys administered. As a result only subvillages located close to the National Park headquarters and/or boundary were included in the field survey. Enumerators employed by the SUA/TU Linkage Project, were well-versed in English and the local language they administered the survey in Kiswahili. It is possible however, that because local people may have viewed the interviewers as being affiliated with USAID or the National Park, they did not freely express their opinions. Although it is difficult to evaluate the response bias I believe the results accurately reflect local opinion because of the nature of the responses. In our effort to ensure the effective delivery of the survey instrument a pre-test was conducted in a nearby village (Dodoma) several weeks prior to the administration of the actual survey. These results were then used to improve the survey in terms of clarity deletion or addition of specific questions as well as to gauge the approximate time of administration and the comprehension level of the respondents to the questions. The results of these surveys were presented to the village assembly in the following year and were subsequently used to repriorit i ze project activities for the local villages. The results were also presented to both UNP and MNP. Village leader survey. Face-to face structured questionnaire surveys were administered to an assembled body of individuals (focus group) that represented the

PAGE 75

62 village leaders or village government for each of the four respective villages, Maharaka, Msongozi, Kisawasawa, and Sanje (Appendix B). The questionnaire was read to an open forum of participants and administered by members of the dedicated team in Kiswahili. The focus groups were asked to respond to a series of open and closed-end questions and to rank order some of their responses. The purpose of this type of survey was to stimulate open discussions among village leaders about their perception of major concerns of their respective constituents. The results of these surveys were ultimately used to assist in prioritizing village concerns and provide appropriate SUNTU Linkage Project guidance. In areas outside the scope of our dedicated teams, village concerns were forwarded to members of the appropriate SUNTU dedicated team. Park staff survey. Questionnaires were distributed to a number of Park Staff employees at UNP and MNP: park warden, community conservation warden, ecologist, conservation education and law enforcement officers (Appendix C). Followed by a brief overview of each of the questions, ample time was allowed for the respondents to individually complete the survey form. The survey instrument was self-administered whereby responses were either ranked or open-ended. The completion of the survey by the park staff presented an excellent opportunity for the Linkage team to gain feedback on activities that could assist them with their community outreach programs and management objectives. Sanje women's group. Since women's issues were assumed to differ from men's, special efforts were made to interview women separately, in each village. However, only Kisawasawa and Sanje had organized women's groups. The Sanje

PAGE 76

63 women's group was able to organize a forum for discussion; however, scheduling logistics precluded the participation of the Kisawasawa women's group. Questionnaire surveys used for the village leaders were also used to collect information for this focus group. These discussions led to a series of concerns and requests for assistance from the SUA/TU Linkage Project and/or the National Park. Study Tour Based upon the previous year's request from the villages, a visit to MNP and UNP was organized in August 1998. The villages requested to visit the National Park in their area for the purpose of viewing wildlife, establishing a dialogue with park officials and obtaining educational information on the National Park. The SUA/TU Linkage Project provided transportation lunch, and snacks for all participants. During a preliminary visit to each of the four villages and to both National Parks the Linkage team members established the logistics of the study tours: number of participants departure/return times, and a tentative program of activities Furthermore, each village leader was asked to select an equal number of men and women as well as a wide array of age groups for participation in the study tours of the National Park.

PAGE 77

CHAPTER4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT APPROACHES IN THREE PROTECTED AREAS Since the emergence of formalized conservation throughout the world, protected areas have rapidly expanded. However, a variety of conservation management approaches have been initiated that have attempted to answer the challenges posed by the increasing demands placed on natural resources in protected areas. Some of these approaches have met with success, others failure, and still others continue to evolve and build upon lessons learned from previous approaches. These approaches have typically ranged from the strict protectionist or classical approach of top-down management, to a multitude of innovative, multidisciplinary, site-specific, and bottom-up, participatory approaches This chapter presents the results of a case study that reviews a gradient of conservation management strategies for Udzungwa (UNP) and Mikumi National Parks (MNP), and Mkomazi Game Reserve (MGR). The framework for this approach identifies and briefly reviews conservation management strategies that have subsequently been abandoned and others that are currently being implemented. For MGR, several published and unpublished government reports, and a review of the University of Florida special collection archives were used to document past activities and management recommendations. For the three protected areas, current management 64

PAGE 78

65 options were obtained from various published and unpublished reports articles interviews and the world wide web. Udzungwa and Mikumi National Parks Unlike MGR supportive financial resources, administrative flexibility and local community relations have made it possible for UNP and MNP to employ a number of innovative site-specific management strategies that address community needs as well as natural resource management. Contemporary Conservation Management Approaches Community Conservation Service. At a seminar held in 1985 at Serengeti National Park participants expressed the need to involve local people in conservation activities (Chengullah 1998 Neumann 1998). Following the recommendations of the seminar, Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA) officially established a unit called Community Conservation Service (CCS) to provide linkage between park management and local communities surrounding National Parks (Chengullah 1998). CCS is an outreach program with two fundamental functions support of extension and benefit sharing. The objectives of the CCS are (1) to improve relations between individual National Parks and local communities (2) to ensure that the interests of National Parks with regard to natural resources and community welfare are represented at all levels of the government (3) to facilitate the planned sharing of benefits to target communities ( 4) to assist communities in gaining access to information resources and services which promote sustainable development and (5) to encourage community conservation initiatives by different interested parties (Chengullah 1998).

PAGE 79

66 Since its inception as a pilot project in Serengeti National Park in 1988, CCS has slowly expanded to other National Parks, including Tarangire, Arusha Lake Manyara, Ruaha, and Kilimanjaro National Parks. Currently, the program covers all twelve National Parks in Tanzania. Funding for CCS enables local communities and National Parks to work together on community development projects. Each park receives 7.5% of its recurrent budget to assist communities with their self-initiative projects. Using Community Conservation Wardens (CCW) appointed to each National Park to coordinate this program CCS provides support for community initiated projects (SCIP). T ANAP A uses the SCIP program as a direct benefit sharing mechanism for its communities. Some of the achievements ( completed and ongoing) of the SCIP programme include the following:(funding totals are in Tanzania shillings) Mikumi National Park. (a) two classrooms constructed for Mikumi Mpya Primary School (774 400) (b) contribution to Doma Village dispensary and repair of doctor's housing quarters (5,488 842), (c) construction ofMaharaka Village dispensary (3,592,192) (d) construction of Ruhembe Village dispensary (4,307 538), and (e) two classrooms built for Mikumi Secondary School (5 509 708). Other on-going projects include the construction of Gomero and Idogobasi Village dispensaries Masanze Secondary School K.ilangali Primary School and a chemistry laboratory for Mikumi Second School (Ochinal 998). Udzungwa National Park. (a) Msolwa Dispensary (5 981 220) (b) laboratory constructed for Mang' ula Udzungwa Secondary School (6,404 539 20) (c) Mlimani Primary School desks (129,900), and (d) Kisawasawa Women' s group fuel efficient

PAGE 80

67 restaurant and toilet (1, 959 886) In addition there are several on-going projects which combine with the completed projects to total 37 148 349.90 (Chengullah 1998) Conservation Committees. UNP through CCS is currently assisting villages by establishing a more formalized mechanism for integration into park management. With the establishment of Village Community Conservation Committees (VCCC) it is expected that a more successful partnership between the community and their park can be achieved (Chengullah 1998). It is also hoped that the committees will help develop programs for sustainable management of forest resources still remaining outside the park. To date 14 surrounding villages, out of 17 total (including two of the SUA/TU Linkage Project villages Kisawasawa and Sanje) have already formed these village committees and names of nominees have been submitted to the CCS staff (Chengullah 1998). MNP has not yet implemented conservation committees. Memorandum of Understanding. Despite UNP's legal status as a National Park it is unique because it allows extractive use of the park s resources. Through a memorandum of understanding between UNP and the District Council, this agreement allows for the extraction of firewood and the collection of medicinal plants (Chengullah pers. com ., Hoyle 1997) A strict procedure of implementation (e.g ., permits) allows villagers to enter the park two days per week (Friday and Sunday), for the purpose of collecting firewood (Chengullah 1998 Hoyle 1997). However no cutting tools are allowed. Firewood collection is only a temporary provision that will be discontinued once the agro-forestry program (initiated in 1991) is well established to satisfactorily provide alternative firewood to the communities (Chengullah 1998). In addition T ANAP A also issues special permits for the collection of medicinal plants for traditional

PAGE 81

68 healers the collection of grass and entry for traditional religious ceremonies (Chengullah 1998 Hoyle 1997). MNP does not currently have a mechanism in place that would allow for the legal extractive use of the park's natural resources. Education. UNP has an extensive environmental education program. These activities coordinated through CCS are conducted for various age levels throughout the community. A number of teaching materials have been prepared (the majority are printed in Kiswahili) distributed and made readily available to the local communities Materials available have included posters books and audio-visual presentations Guided study tours are also offered to the local schools at no charge. Guided study tours for local schools are also currently provided by MNP Because of the lack of educational materials they have not effectively conducted educational outreach programs Current State of Affairs With the pending withdrawal of the SUA/TU Linkage Project and thus USAID financial support in the four study villages adjacent to UNP and MNP the long-term sustainability of community development and park relationships is questionable The Linkage Project was instrumental in providing a variety of community development projects which theoretically should reduce local community animosity and conflicts with park management and conservation objectives However the extent to which this and other conservation objectives were accomplished i s not known In addition the sustainability of village-level activities in light of the withdrawal of financial and technical as s istance and support remains to be seen.

PAGE 82

69 Mkomazi Game Reserve Since it's gazettement in 1951 there have been a number of suggestions for alternative uses of the Mkomazi Game Reserve (MGR) other than wildlife conservation (Anderson 1967 Harris 1972 Watson 1991). Recommendations have included National Park status, free range grazing multi-purpose game reserve cattle ranching and game cropping and professional hunting. Historical Approaches National Park. In an April 10 1965 report entitled "The Potential of the MGR as a National Park," Phillip Thresher (member of IUCN) assessed MGR's capacity to achieve National Park status (Thresher 1965). In his report he recognized the importance of MGR as an important wildlife refuge particularly for the oryx gemuk, elephant rhino and klipspringer. He also recognized the shortcomings of MGR in terms of scenic value that did not compare to other east African National Parks ( e.g. Serengeti and Lake Manyara) and thus could not attract a steady flow of tourists. The report recommended that Tanzania National Parks should give no immediate further consideration to the creation of a new National Park in place of the MGR unless maintenance and operating expenditures could be met from funds not likely to be available to it at that time. Another reason for not becoming a National Park was the lack of available water for human and w i ldlife consumption If funding and water supply concerns could be addressed MGR may be able to attain National Park status. However today it remains a Reserve and a National Park. Grazing land. Professor Leslie Robinette an instructor from the College of African Wildlife Manag ement in Mweka directed a team of instructors 33 stud ents, and

PAGE 83

70 representatives from the Tanzania Game Division to complete an assessment of range conditions and trends within the MGR from March 14-19, 1996 (Robinette et al. 1966). This report is entitled, "Appraisal of Range Conditions on the Kalimawe Controlled Area." The study area was that portion of the Kalimawe Control Area (KCA) which covers approximately 92,000 acres and was a part of the MGR up until 1957 when it was excised in response to demands for grazing land by the local people (Anderson 1967, Harris 1972, Robinette et al. 1966). The findings of this report confirmed the poor to very poor vegetation condition classifications for the Kalimawe region. It also noted that the only good grazing area remaining in the KCA lay in the mbugas north and south of Semtula Hill and could therefore sustain no more than 5,000 cow months of grazing annually. Finally, this report stopped short of offering a solution to MGR current land-use concerns; it recommended, however, that "providing additional grazing inside the MGR is not the answer, because given time it would be overgrazed and denuded also" (Robinette et al. 1966:4). Multi-purpose game reserve. The "Anderson Report" as it has been commonly referred to, is more formally entitled, "A Reconnaissance Survey of the Land Use Potential of Mkomazi Game Reserve and an Appraisal of Factor Affecting Present and Potential Land Use and Productivity in its Environs" (Anderson 1967). G.D. Anderson conducted this survey in 1967, under the authority of the Ministry of Agriculture with assistance from the Research Unit and Land Planning Team of the Ministry at Tengeru. The objective of the report was to present a factual account of the factors affecting the present and potential land-use of the MGR. This report provided a list of recommendations, while the overall concluding points stated that "the Mkomazi must

PAGE 84

71 remain a workable unit with its present boundaries ; it must also be developed as a multi purpose Reserve with game cropping and visitors contributing to the Reserve ... (Anderson 1967:37). This report has since become one of the most widely recognized documents on the land use of the MGR. Cattle ranching and game cropping. A.C. Parker, Wildlife Services Limited Kenya completed a report that presented the results of two elephant cropping projects in the MGR in 1969 along with an assessment of the Reserve's overall economic potential. This report Results of Two Elephant Harvests in the MGR, accompanied by Considerable Background Information Extracted from Previous Research and Synthesi s Efforts ," concluded that the foreseeable monetary returns from cattle far exceed the wildlife possibilities" (Parker 1969: 1 ). This reports further recommends that a "detailed assessment of the cattle ranching potential of the MGR should be undertaken immediately ... if the results of such assessment were to confirm the feasibility of beef production the MGR be degazetted as such and redesignated as a multiple use area for the exploitation of cattle and game (Parker 1969:58) In addition this report recommended that elephant cropping be maximally exploited on a sustainable yield basis. Professional hunting. J. Barry Turner a Canadian University Services Overseas (CUSO) volunteer served a two-year term as Game Management Officer of the MGR starting September 1 1969 A review of Turner s monthly and annual progress reports shows that he supported and possibly advocate profess i onal hunting in the MGR, which was subsequently introduced on an experimental basis on February 1 1970 {Turner 1970a 1970b )

PAGE 85

72 Contemporary Approaches Today the MGR's scientific and aesthetic values have practically become overshadowed by extraneous demands placed upon it (Mangubuli 1992). Recently, the Reserve has been thrust into the international spotlight and is at the center of an ever increasing and volatile scientific, and human-rights debate. In comparison to many of the more well-known protected areas in East Africa the MGR remains a relatively unknown tourist destination, in large part because it does not support many of the major megafauna species, and it suffers from a lack of aesthetic appeal compared to other more "stereotypical" images of parks in the region (Coe et al. 1999). Nevertheless, for reasons unrelated to its ecological significance, the MGR has become a valuable tool for those championing the rights of indigenous people and those aspiring to protect its threatened ecosystem. Heated debates fueled by local and international players using highly questionable reports, papers and websites pit misconceptions and hostility surrounding the best land-use of the Reserve against local communities customary land right claims. In light of its past management difficulties, MGR has now embarked on community-based initiative projects. The details are described below Rehabilitation project. In 1989 the Tanzanian government designated MGR as a National Priority Project (Fitzjohn 1998 MGR 1999a Mangubuli 1992, Zacharia 1990). Such designation committed the government to implement and support activities aimed at restoring the MGR as a significant wildlife area. In light of this recognition the Tanzanian government invited Tony Fitzjohn, under the auspices of the Tanzania Wildlife Division to lead a program of habitat restoration (MGR 1999a 1999b Watson 1991 ). This was the start of a new partnership that would include the difficult task of

PAGE 86

73 revitalizing a damaged ecosystem. As such, the MGR Rehabilitation Project ( Project ) was launched (Y/atson 1991) This Project has been generously supported by an extensive network of fundraising efforts on behalf of the George Adamson African Wildlife Preservation Trusts (Trusts), whose networks extend throughout the Uni ted States, Canada, Europe, and Tanzania. Contributors include small groups of indi v iduals corporate sponsors, and charitable institutions. To date, the Trusts have invested over a million dollars in this undertaking and continues to contribute financial support and technical assistance to the Project. This important, yet unique endeavor began the tedious task of rebuilding the Reserve's infrastructure, reintroducing wildlife, and establishing the MGR Outreach Programme (MGR 1999a 1999b). The components of this Project are described below in greater detail. Infrastructure By the late 1980s the Reserve s infrastructure was in a desperate state of disrepair and neglect (MGR 1999a). During this time the Tanzanian governmen t lacked adequate financial resources and was hard pressed t o meet the demands of competing claims on its meager resources (Watson 1991). As a result, MGR was given low priority and suffered from the lack of manpower transportation equipment and financial support With Field Director Tony Fitzjohn at the helm of the Project however rebuilding of the infrastructure proposed : clearing roads and airstrips installing a radio network recruiting and equipping game rangers repairing the electric and solar powered equipment, remarking portions of the Reserve boundary identifying and pumping water sources and organizing aerial and ground anti-poaching patrols ( F itzjohn 1998)

PAGE 87

74 Endangered species reintroduction. By 1988 the Reserve's wildlife population was severely threatened by poaching, illegal encroachment, land degradation, and deliberate burning (MGR 1999a). Poaching in the mid to late 1960s, in part, was led to the total extermination of the Black Rhino (Diceros bicornis) and the decline of several other wildlife species in the Reserve (MGR 1999a) To reintroduce the rhino, in November 1997 the MGR translocated four East African Black Rhinos from Addo National Park in South Africa, with an additional six expected (MGR 1999d). In actuality, the Black Rhinos obtained from South Africa were descendants from a group of seven animals that had been shipped there from Tsavo National Park in Tanzania in the early 1960s and thus belonged to the subspecies Diceros bicornis michae/i (Coe et al. 1999). Shortly after their arrival they were released into a holding compound within the newly constructed Rhino Sanctuary (Fitzjohn 1998, MGR 1999a). The Sanctuary, constructed in 1995, covers an area of 43 km2 and is equipped with an electric fence and security patrol (MGR 1999d). All animals were subsequently fitted with telemetry transmitters prior to their release from the holding compound into the sanctuary (Coe et al. 1999, MGR 1999d). To date the Rhinos are reported in excellent health and security remains a high priority. The second reintroduction program was that of the African Wild Dog (Lycaon pictus lupinus) (Fitzjohn 1998). It was launched in 1997 through a joint program with the Kenya Wildlife Service (MGR 1999e). Twenty-five wild dogs (15 males and 10 females) were captured from Maasai Steppe (approximately 100 km from MGR) and placed in three breeding compounds, one each at Kisima Lendenai, and Sangito (Coe et al. 1999 MGR 1999e). Before their release all of the adult dogs were radio-collared, and

PAGE 88

75 subsequent intermittent aerial flights tracked their approximate locations (MGR 1999e). Also during their first year of captivity, all of the dogs received intensive medical attention, including on-going vaccinations, blood and serum samplings, and feces analysis (Fitzjohn 1998). Six adult dogs were released in Tsavo National Park in Kenya, while the others, including pups, will be used to maintain a breeding stock and released in a series of staged reintroductions (Coe et al. 1999). Outreach programme. Also included among the Project's priority was the establishment of a community-based initiative to assist with conserving biodiversity of the Reserve through a series of village outreach projects (MGR 1999b). In 1993, the MGR Outreach Programme (Programme) was launched at the request of the Tanzanian government (MGR 1999a). The original idea of the Programme was developed and coordinated by Harrie and Truus Simons; later this responsibility was assumed by the Tanzanian government and assisted by the Trusts. The goal of this Programme is to establish community programs for the residents of the villages surrounding the Reserve. These efforts are a long-term commitment to provide local communities an opportunity to derive benefits from the Reserve. Needless to say, this is a major task at hand, especially considering that there are 41 villages and three districts bordering the Reserve (MGR 1999b ). With funding obtained from the Trusts, several projects have been completed and include the following: roofing of a regional secondary school, rehabilitation of several primary schools, expansion of women's groups, improvement of medical dispensaries, establishment of outreach offices, provision of physiotherapy equipment for disabled children, employment of a District Game Officer, salary of a teacher, sponsorship of a

PAGE 89

76 teacher to attend a Wildlife College, payment of secondary school fees, and the sponsorship of the MGR football team (Fitzjohn 1998 1999, MGR 1999b). The Trusts have contributed funds to build a secondary Technical and Environmental College in Kisiwani village. Additional funding is being sought for the completion of school buildings, construction of the main office and "headmaster's" house and provision of a clean water supply for the school facilities and laboratories (Fitzjohn 1998 MGR 1999a). Future plans include a coordinated effort to focus on literacy and natural resource education programs and the construction of a local hospital (MGR 1999a). Ecological research programme. In 1989 the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism and the Tanzania Wildlife Division invited the Royal Geographical Society (London) to conduct an ecological inventory survey of the MGR (Coe et al. 1998 Habari za Mk:omazi 1995). This request came as a result of increasing concerns about land degradation and loss of biodiversity as well as National Priority Project status given to the MGR designating the area for rehabilitation (Coe et al. 1999) In 1994 the Mk:omazi Research Programme was officially established. This was a five-year study with the goal "to describe the habitats of the MGR in both floral and fauna terms, in order to genera t e models which will delineate the factors responsible for their observed patterns of distribution abundance and species diversity'' (McWilliam and Packer 1998 : 3). The ecological inventory of the MGR, including a pilot survey was conducted between 1993 and 1997 and involved surveying sorting cataloguing, quantifying and mapping of a variety of ecosystem components (Coe et al. 1999) Research activities collected baseline data on the floral and fauna diversity of the MGR (Habari z a Mk:omazi 1995).

PAGE 90

77 This included collecting data on climate soil, vegetation arthropods vertebrates and human aspects of the MGR (Coe et al.1999) The main objective of the study was to develop a viable management plan to provide for the long-term conservation and sustainable use of the Reserve incorporating both ecological concerns and anthropogenic pressures (McWilliam and Packer 1998). This project was a large collaborative endeavor with financial investments and other support obtained from British Airways British Petroleum Tanzania British Council Land Rover Sheraton Hotel (Dar es Salaam) Friends of Conservation Darwin Initiative and the Trust s (Habari za Mkomazi 1995) Current State of Affairs During the past three years several events have and probably will continue to have a dramatic impact on future conservation management decision s, approach es, and policies for the MGR. High Court decision In 1997 consolidated Civil Ca s es No 33 of 1994 and No 33 of 1995 w e r e filed in the High Court of Tanzania at Moshi (High Court of Moshi 1998 Mustafa 1997). This suit was filed on behalf of38 plaintiffs represented by S.E. Mchom e and I.H Juma of the University of Dar es Salaam Le g al Aid Clinic against the Ministry of Tourism Natural Resources and Environment Dir e ctor of the Tanzania Wildl i fe Division Proj e ct Manager of Mkomazi Game Reserve and the Attorney General (Mustafa 1997) After s e v e ral delays this case was finally heard before the High Court on June 19, 1998.

PAGE 91

78 According to the judgement filed, the plaintiffs claim: (I) the customary residents of the MGR are not subordinate to the rights of the wildlife in the MGR, (2) the forceful eviction or otherwise of the residents of the MGR was not done in accordance with the law, (3) neither the Fauna Conservation Ordinance Cap. 302 nor the Wildlife Conservation Act 1974 expressly or implicitly extinguished the customary pastoral land rights of the Alalilai Lamwasun (expansive plains) pastoral Maasai residents of the MGR, ( 4) the exorbitant compounded fines imposed on the evicted pastoral Maasai by the third defendant were unlawful and unconstitutional and (5) any other relief deemed fit by the Court (High Court of Moshi 1998) In this suit the pastoral Maasai asserted their respective customary land rights over the MGR and testified that their eviction from the Reserve in 1988 kept them from living where their ancestors had lived The defendants represented by the Principal State Attorney denied the plaintiffs' claims. The following are excerpts of the findings from the Civil Court Case (High Court ofMoshi 1998): First issue. Whether the plaintiffs and their families had customary land rights in the MGR prior to their eviction. Finding. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs did have customary land rights in the Umba Game Reserve ( eastern halt) the portion of the MGR located in the Lushoto District Tanga Region. This was corroborated by a list of pastoralists compiled by the former Game Warden Tanga and Same. However, the testimony provided by David Anstey (former MGR Game Ranger) was upheld to which evidence on the Same District of the MGR indicated that there were no customary land rights in this area as the boundary was altered to exclude them. The judged advised the plaintiffs that the case

PAGE 92

79 should have therefore been pleaded before the High Court of Tanzania at Tanga as the customary land rights were in the UGR located in Lushoto District. Second issue. Whether the eviction of the plaintiffs and their families from the UGR was lawful. Findings. The judge ruled that the eviction of the plaintiffs and their families from the Umba section of the MGR was unlawful in that customary land rights were not properly extinguished within the provisions of the 1967 Land Acquisition Act and Land Ordinance Cap. 113 before the Reserve s gazettement (establishment) in 1951. In addition, although the eviction was unlawful their plea was time barred since the eviction took place more than ten years previously. Third issue. Whether by virtue of the forceful eviction the plaintiffs and their families suffered damages. Findings. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs were seriously inconvenienced had suffered a crisis and had been evicted from the Reserve without resettlement assistance in terms of providing alternative land. However the claim for damages was time barred under the Law of Limitation Act No. 10/71. Fourth issue. Whether the plaintiffs and their families were entitled to alternat ive land and compensation. Findings. The judge ruled that they were entitled to alternative land and compensation The compensation would redress for the inconvenience hardship and dislocation of the plaintiffs as well as for provide new shelter foodstuff domestic gear and etc. The judge awarded each of th e 38 plaintiffs compensation of 300 000 Tanzanian shillings

PAGE 93

80 Fifth issue. What reliefs were the parties entitled to. Findings. The judge ruled that the complaint regarding the exorbitant fines for compounded offences was not proved, since the plaintiffs could have appealed to the Director of Wildlife. The judge denied a request by the plaintiffs to be returned as lawful residents of the MGR, for the suit has been overtaken by events. Finally, the judge issued no declaration regarding whose rights were superior, customary land rights or rights of wildlife in the MGR (plaintiffs plea for compensation that their customary land rights had been made subordinate to the rights of wildlife in the MGR). She also ruled that MGR is a Reserve for wildlife and therefore any customary land rights had ceased to exist. She ruled that the defendants should relocate the pastoralist plaintiffs in an area with sufficient grazing land for plaintiffs to resettle on a self-help basis. A set compensation was paid to the plaintiffs to enable and facilitate their resettlement, while others who found alternative settlement were not bound to take up any new settlement offer. Illegal encroachment Following the gazettement of MGR in 1951, illegal encroachment concerns have steadily increased from about the mid 1960s to the present day (Harris per comm.). Official Tanzanian written reports as well as unofficial documents ( e.g., field notes, diaries, and personal communication) provide definitive information on the increasing difficulties faced by former Reserve officials and employees in combating illegal encroachment of people and their livestock. Reported difficulties include, the lack of available transportation for routine patrol of the Reserve, low priority given to illegal encroachment cases by the local judicial

PAGE 94

81 officials and game department administrators, and extremely low fines for offenders. With this backdrop, it is frustrating to report that illegal encroachment continues today, although the level and thus frequency of occurrence is uncertain. But nevertheless, there has been personal observation of people with livestock within the Reserve boundary despite the 1988 eviction of pastoralists and livestock (pers corns., D.Anstey 1999 and S. Canney 1998). Internet During the current Information Age, use of the World Wide Web (www) has experienced phenomenal growth. The technological advances made via the Internet have become an almost indispensable tool for many individuals seeking pertinent information on conservation and a multitude of other topics (Collins 2000). Despite the overwhelming benefit provided via the Internet, determining the accuracy of the information on the www can be quite difficult. Unfortunately, some of the information obtained is erroneous, misleading, and based upon unsubstantiated claims. Today the Internet has become a playground for many advocacy groups who seek to "inform" the masses. For instance, within the last five years, the Internet has exploded on the scene for MGR and has since become a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it has served as an invaluable medium, reaching massive worldwide audiences that were inaccessible in the past. While on the other hand, the Internet has served as a volatile battleground where the MGR has become a cause celebre for those advocating human rights and those wishing to retain its protected status as a game reserve (Coe et al. 1999). The result is a war of words, often distorted by questionable motives, erroneous truths, and exaggerated "facts."

PAGE 95

82 In an attempt to comprehend this powerful tool, I summarized a list of "hits" (the number of web sites encountered) for the MGR. Five search engines were used to review sites for MGR and Mkomazi, respectively. The results for each search engine are presented as follows (Table 2). The relevance of this brief analysis highlights how emerging technologies (via Internet) can thrust a relatively unknown area and issue (e.g MGR) into the global spotlight where its future can be examined, and debated by an international audience. The resulting benefits and potential negative consequences are difficult to measure. The impacts of such technology may be fully realized or understood only after a considerable expanse of time when such impacts can reasonably be assessed, that is, after the dust has settled. The challenge, however, will be to achieve a defined level of creditability and sustained quality of information (Collins 2000). Table 2. Internet searches for the Mkomazi Game Reserve Search engine MGR Mkomazi Atlas Visa.com 200 20 Go.com 32 46 GoTo.com 26 48 Lyso.com 14 14 Msn.com 79 138 For MGR, past management problems, development activities, unresolved human occupancy issues, competing land-use potentials, and internet implications have all contributed to the current state of affairs. Therefore, taken together, the current political

PAGE 96

83 ecological, and economic situation can best be described as a "mess." According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2000), "mess" when used as a noun is defined as a "dis orderly mass or accumulation, jumble, a confusing state of affairs." By no means is the use of this term meant to be derogatory or offensive in nature but when used properly, it accurately defines the current state of affairs of the MGR. Discussion These three case studies were selected because they provided a discernable continuum of conservation approaches that incorporated varying degrees of park management strategies, implementation, enforcement, and community-level participation. Along this continuum of top-down and bottom-up approaches, the three case studies are arranged midway between the top-down and community level co-management approach (Figure 1), with MGR being closer to the top. This is followed by MNP, with UNP being closer to the co-management approach than the other two. Along this gradient, co-management can be viewed as a "compromise" or middle ground for meeting conservation and development goals that involve either local community input, participation and/or cooperation. The idea behind this approach is to move beyond the paternalistic approach of provisionary services and strict enforcement to a system whereby immediate tangible benefits are provided to local communities through their cooperative efforts of sustainable biodi versity conservation. One of the goals behind this analysis was to provide evidence to suggest that these three protected areas are making an earnest attempt to move past the rhetoric of community-based conservation to actual implementation. Although it is too early to

PAGE 97

84 speculate about their success or failure, it is clear that all three of the protected areas are approaching their individual management challenges with creativity, flexibility, optimism, and caution.

PAGE 98

CHAPTERS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF SURVEYS AND STUDY TOURS: UDZUNGWA AND MIKUMI NATIONAL PARKS Questionnaire Surveys This chapter presents the results of surveys taken to assess local attitudes and conservation awareness among the population adjacent to Udzungwa and Mikumi National Parks. Participants in the surveys included, park staff, household, village leaders, and women's group from four communities adjacent to the parks; specifically, Maharaka, Msongozi, Kisawasawa, and Sanje. This portion of the study compliments the previous chapter (chapter 4) for in addition to quantitative data, it provides community-level insight that can be used by each National Park to review the effectiveness of their current management approaches. Such a review can be used to guide future management strategies and conservation policies. Household A structured face-to-face household survey was conducted in four villages in the study area, Maharaka, Msongozi, Kisawasawa, and Sanje. Through these surveys 178 households were asked questions relating to their socio-economic status, knowledge of conservation, attitude towards the park and conservation, and estimates of crop damage and animal loss. 85

PAGE 99

86 Socio-economic and background information Overall 44% of all the local people surveyed stated that they had always lived in their respective village. On average, 29% of the respondents had lived in their present village at least 21-30 years, while 23% had lived there for more than 40 years (Table 3). Male-dominated households accounted for 83% of the respondents, with an average household size of 5 (22.5% ), composed typically of two adults and 3 children. The combined highest education level attained per household was 5-8 years (77.5%), while over 97% had traveled from their local community to either other villages or cities (Table 3). Finally, although present employment occupations varied, only 5% had ever been employed by either National Park (Table 3). However, over 13% of the respondents in Maharaka had previously worked for Mikumi National Park. Knowledge of conservation Each respondent was asked to define the word "conservation." There were no correct or incorrect answers; the question was used merely to determine if this was a familiar term. Seventy-five percent defined conservation, whereas 25% did not recognize the term (Table 4). Access to audio or printed conservation materials was available to 58% of the overall respondents; this information was more readily available to Kisawasawa and Sanje villages than the other two. While only 15% stated that there was a conservation group or organization in their area, 43% of the respondents in Kisawasawa associated the local women's group with conservation efforts in the community.

PAGE 100

Table 3. Number of households and summary of socio-economic and background information Maharaka Msongozi Kisawasawa Sanje Total* Number o f sample households 38 40 53 47 178 Number of subvillages 7 4 6 5 22 Total number of households 435 351 391 512 1689 Education Leve l (years) % % % % % None 2 63 0.00 5.66 4 26 3.40 1-4 5.26 10.00 11.32 10.64 9.60 5 8 86.84 80.00 73.58 72.34 77.50 9-12 2.63 7 50 5.66 6.38 5.60 More than 12 2 63 0 00 1.89 6.38 2.80 A du lt education 0.00 2 50 1.89 0 00 1.10 Number of years in village 0 5 0 .00 2 56 9.43 6.38 5.10 00 6 -10 5.26 10. 26 5.66 17.02 9 60 --..l 11-15 10.53 0. 00 3.77 14.89 7.30 16 20 7 89 10.26 9.43 10. 64 9.60 21-30 26.32 23.08 33.96 29.79 28.80 31-40 26.32 17.95 13.21 10 64 16.40 More than40 23. 68 35.90 24.53 10.64 23 .2 0 Travel from village Yes 97 37 92.50 100 .00 100 00 97.70 No 2.63 7.50 0.00 0.00 2.30 Worked for National Park Yes 13.16 7 50 1.89 0.00 5.10 No 86.84 92.50 98 .11 100 00 94.90 *Percent totals are given in weighted mean relative frequencies

PAGE 101

88 Table 4. Response to questions concerning the general knowledge and access to conservation information Percentage of Responses Maharaka Msongozi l(jsawasawa Sanje Total Define conservation Yes 84 .21 63.16 67.92 84.78 74 90 DIN* 15. 79 36.84 32.08 15.22 25 20 Conservation materials Yes 39.47 25.00 43.40 58 70 42.40 No 60.53 75.00 56.60 41 .30 57.60 Conservation group Yes 0.00 2.56 43.40 4.26 14.80 No 100.00 97.44 54.72 95.74 84.70 DIN 0.00 0 00 1.89 0.00 0.60 *DIN= don t know Attitudes toward the park and conservation Respondents were asked if they had ever visited the National Park (MNP or UNP). Most respondents (93%) had never visited either park (Table 5). However there was some confusion among those that had walked through MNP, enroute to other villages but had undoubtedly never visited the park in terms of viewing its wildlife per se. Seventeen percent responded that the park was being protected to protect natural resources, while 31 % replied that it was to protect the animals and 20% did not know why the park was being protected (Table 5). Also, the majority of the combined responses indicated that the government (32%) and all Tanzanians / villagers (31 % ) benefited from the protection of the park. Other responses included don t know (19 % ) and citizens / Tanzania government (16 %). But only 3 % said that they or any of their household members benefited directly from tourism of the park. Both Kisawasawa ( 45%) and Sanje (56%) expressed no positive benefits that the park has extended directly

PAGE 102

89 to anyone, despite the fact that these two villages are provided with limited extractive use of the natural resources as well as other services, which include, the establishment of a tree nursery, construction of a health clinic and an eatery for the women's group (Table 5). In Maharaka, however, the construction of a health clinic seemed to account for the overwhelming positive attitude towards the park (92%) (Table 5). In contrast, however, over 82% of the respondents in Msongozi indicated nothing positive was extended to their village. When asked what they were allowed to do in the park, respondents gave different answers (Table 5). In communities near UNP, through a memorandum of understanding between the National Park and the District Council, limited extractive use of the natural resources is temporarily permissible. Consequently, respondents living in Kisawasawa and Sanje had entered the park in search of firewood and herbal plants (Table 5). In villages adjacent to MNP, however, an overwhelming majority of the respondents in Maharaka (100%) and Msongozi (77%) replied with a response of"nothing" (Table 5). One respondent in Msongozi did go into the park to collect firewood, and three respondents from Kisawasawa and Sanje had entered the park for the purpose of hunting. Respondents indicated that the penalties for illegal entrance into the park were thought to be punishable by a fine, beating, or jail sentence. But over 26% did not know the penalty for trespassing in the park (Table 6). Poacher, however was defined by 91 % of the respondents, although a "correct" definition was not sought, only a basic understanding, or recognition of the word (Table 6). Furthermore, the majority of the respondents (90%) viewed poachers as lawbreakers.

PAGE 103

Tab le 5. Attitude toward and benefits from the National Park Frequency Relative Frequency Weighted Mean Relative Frequency Maharaka Msongozi Kisawasawa Sanje Maharaka Msongozi Kisawasawa Sanje Visit National Park Yes 4 7 2 0 10.81 17.50 3.77 0.00 7.34 No 33 33 51 47 89 19 82.50 96.23 100.00 92.66 Why is Park protected Protect natural resources 0 0 17 14 0 .00 0.00 32. 08 30.43 17 .51 Protect animals 9 14 15 17 23.68 35.00 28.30 36.96 31.07 DIN 4 15 10 7 10.53 37.50 18.87 15.22 20.34 F u ture generations 3 l 5 2 7 89 2 .50 9.43 4.35 6.21 Tourist/Tourism 6 3 4 6 15.79 7.50 7.55 13.04 10 73 Other 7 5 10 6 18.42 12.50 18. 87 13.04 15.82 Who benefits from Park 0 Government 6 6 24 21 15.79 15.00 45.28 46.67 32.39 C i tizensffanzanians 20 13 1 1 12 52.63 32.50 20.75 26.67 31 82 Citizens / Government 7 l 14 6 18 .42 2.50 26.42 13.33 15.92 DIN 4 16 9 5 10 53 40.00 16.98 11.11 19.32 Benefit from tourism Yes l l l 3 2.63 2.50 1.89 6.38 3.36 No 37 39 52 44 97.37 37.50 98.11 93 .62 96. 63 Local benefits from Park Nothing 0 32 23 22 0 .00 82.05 45.10 56.41 46.11 Dispensary 35 0 0 6 92.1 1 0.00 0.00 15.38 24.55 Tree Nursery 0 0 11 2 0 .00 0.00 21.57 5.13 7.78 Allowed to do in Park Herbal plants 0 0 IO 12 0 .00 0.00 18.87 25.53 12.43 Firewood 0 l 50 46 0 .00 2 .56 94.34 97.87 54.80 Hunting 0 0 2 l 0 .00 0 .00 3.77 2.13 1.69 Nothing 38 30 0 0 100.00 76.92 0.00 0.00 38.42

PAGE 104

91 Table 6. Views toward poachers and knowledge of trespassing penalties Percentage of Responses Maharaka Msongozi Kisawasawa Sanje Total Define poacher Yes 89.19 82.50 90.57 100.00 90.96 DIN* 10.81 17.50 9.43 0.00 9.04 Are poachers lawbreakers Yes 74.29 94.12 98.04 91.49 90.42 No 25.71 5 88 1.96 8.51 9.58 Penalty for trespassing Yes 71.05 51.28 81.13 85.11 73.45 DIN 28.95 48.72 18.87 14.89 26.55 *DIN= don't know The majority of the respondents (Table 7) supported a positive attitude towards the desirability of retaining the park. Sixty-two percent felt a strong sense of remorse or sadness if the park were to be abolished, while 22% was in favor of the parks' abolishment. Approximately 15% replied with "other," which included no replies. In addition, only 18% of the sample population agreed that it would be good to give the park to people who needed land. And only 10% believed that the Tanzanian government kept the park because they did not want the people to have the land. Furthermore, the majority (95%) did not think it was a good idea to allow local people to hunt in the park nor allow limited access to firewood, building poles, reeds, and grasses in the park (77%) (Table 7). Protection of the park by the Tanzanian government was viewed by 91 % of the respondents as being protected for the benefit of the people and future generations.

PAGE 105

92 Table 7. General attitude toward the current status, future management, and use of the Park Percentage of Respon ses Maharaka Msongozi Kisawasawa Sanje Total Abolish park Yes 5.26 10.00 26.42 41.30 22.03 No 71.05 55.00 66.04 56.52 62.15 Give park to people who need land Yes 15.79 17.50 19.23 19.15 18.08 No 84.21 80.00 80.77 80 85 81.36 Allow hunting Yes 0.00 7.50 1.92 6.38 3.95 No 100.00 87.50 98.08 93.62 94.92 Allow access to natural resources Yes 15.79 12.50 23. 08 31.91 21.47 No 84 .21 82 50 76 92 68.09 77.40 Park for future generations Yes 92.11 75.00 98.08 95.74 90.96 No 7 89 20.00 1.92 27.95 7.91 Management of park by local people Yes 30.56 28.21 26.42 26.09 27 59 No 69.44 69.23 71.70 69.57 70 .11 Under the current management of Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA), local communities near MNP and UNP have only recently become involved in park management decisions or responsibilities. Consequently, respondents indicated a lack of knowledge and adequate management skills to actually undertake full responsibility for managing the park; therefore, it was inappropriate for them to be given such responsibility (70%). However there were 48 (27%) respondents in favor of this idea (Table 7).

PAGE 106

93 In Kisawasawa, Sanje and Maharaka, respondents reported that park employees frequently visited these local villages to conduct law enforcement activities, to hold meetings, discuss wildlife issues, distribute wildlife literature, and purchase food items (included under "other") (Table 8). Msongozi respondents saw park employee visits as rare (Table 8). The positive attitude toward UNP was explained in part by the good relationship enjoyed by the majority of the respondents in Kisawasawa (61 %) who were provided limited access to grasses, firewood, and medicinal plants in the parks, and by Table 8. Attitude toward the parks and positive benefits extended to the village Percentage of Responses Maharaka Msongozi Kisawasawa Sanje Total Park employee visits Yes 75.68 12.50 67.92 70 .21 57.63 No 24.32 87.50 32.08 29.79 42.37 Purpose of park employee visits Discuss wildlife issues 27.59 20.00 19.44 27.27 25.24 Hold meetings 27.59 20.00 27.78 30.30 28.16 Wildlife literature 3.45 0.00 41.67 21.21 22.33 Wildlife enforcement 27.59 0.00 72.22 60.61 52.43 Other 75.86 60.00 19.44 21.21 37.86 Relationship with park Good 81.58 28.21 61.54 42.55 53.41 Bad 2.63 2 56 17.31 25.53 13.07 Need improving 21.05 0.00 21.15 27.66 18.18 No opinion 10.53 51.28 0.00 8.51 15.91 the provision of a health clinic in the community (Table 8). Although Sanje enjoyed these same benefits, less than half of the respondents ( 42%) viewed their relationship with the park as good (Table 8). Even though natural resource extractions from MNP are

PAGE 107

94 not permissible, Maharaka, where a health dispensary had been provided, held a similar positive attitude (81 % ) (Table 8). In Msongozi, the neutral attitude of the respondents may be attributed to the limited benefits or services derived from the park. Combined, more than 70% of the respondents in Msongozi had no opinion ( 51 % ), or replied with other (20%) (Table 8). Crop damage and animal loss Responses regarding the extent of crop losses due to wild animals varied. (Table 9). For all four villages, respondents said that wild animals most frequently destroyed maize (83%). Other crops frequently destroyed included, rice, sorghum, and sunflower. The economic loss from crop damage was most severe in Msongozi, Kisawasawa, and Sanje, with an estimated loss ranging from 10,001 to 50,000 Tanzania shillings per household (Table 9). In terms of livestock, both Kisawasawa and Sanje experienced the greatest economic lost, where poultry (93%) was the most frequently eaten livestock (Table 9). This loss was highest in Kisawasawa and Sanje and lowest in Maharaka with an estimated loss ranging from 0-5000 for almost half (49%) of the respondents. Overall, respondents listed monkey ( 51 % ) and wild pigs ( 48%) as most destructive wild animals in terms of crop and livestock raiding (Table 10). In Maharaka, however, the elephant (62%) was responsible for a large proportion of crop losses suffered. Other destructive animals included birds, badger, buffalo, lion and etc.

PAGE 108

95 Table 9. Range of estimated economic loss per household, per growing season, for crop and livestock (Tanzania shilling) Percentage of Responses Maharaka Msongozi Kisawasawa Sanje Total Crop Maize 86.84 97.50 75.00 65.38 83.10 Rice 50.00 17.50 53.13 46.15 40.40 Sorghum 65 79 45.00 0.00 0.00 31.90 Sunflower 18.42 17.50 0.00 0.00 14.80 Economic Loss (Crop) 0-5000 6.06 15.63 8.00 7.69 9.70 5001-10000 0.00 9.38 12.00 7.69 6.80 10001-30000 9.09 37 50 36.00 38.46 28. 20 30001-50000 6.06 15. 63 24.00 23.08 15.50 50001-80000 3.03 3.13 8.00 15.38 5.80 over 80000 30.00 12.50 8.00 7. 69 16.50 Livestock Poultry 89.66 93.33 100.00 88.89 93.50 Goat 10.34 6 67 0.00 11.11 6.50 Economic Loss {Livestock) 0-5000 21.05 47.62 62.96 60.00 48.80 5001-10000 31.58 9 52 14.81 13.33 17.10 10001-30000 10.53 42.86 18.52 26.67 24.40 30001-50000 10.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.40 50001-80000 10.53 0.00 3.70 0.00 3.70 over 80000 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 US$= 634 Tanzania shilling (as of August 1997) Table 10. Crop and livestock losses according to species of wild animals Percentage of Responses Maharaka Msongozi Kisawasawa Sanje Total Animals Monkey 37 84 65. 00 58.14 38 .71 51.00 Wild pigs 59.46 80 00 32.56 16.13 48.30 Elephant 62.16 0.00 0.00 3.23 16.00 Buffalo 13.51 0 00 2.38 6.45 5.30 Birds 0.00 0 00 13.95 32.26 10.60

PAGE 109

96 M ost respondents named guarding and scaring as methods employed to reduce crop losses (Table 11). Most (57%) o f the farmers engaged in seasonal scaring tactics but only 53% o f the meth o d s used to protect crop losses were reportedly effective. When asked if they should be c o mpensated for their losses, a comb ined total of 71 % thought that they s h ould b e c o mpensate d with money (4 0 %) and/or foodstuff (31 %) (Table 11). Measures suggested to be taken by the parks to red uce crop and animal damage were as follow, pay l o sers from p ark revenues (43%), insta ll fences (43%), and participate in policy making decisions (36%) (Tab le 11). Table 11. Measures used to prevent crop and livestock loss and suggested measures to be taken by Park authorities Percentage of Responses Maharaka Msongozi Kisawasawa Sanje Total Protective measures Scaring 73.68 62.5 0 47.06 48.78 57 .10 Guarding 31.58 35.00 13.73 7.32 21.2 0 Nothing 2.63 2 50 29.41 34.15 18.20 Measures suggested to be taken b y the park Relocate people 5.26 2.56 9.80 4.35 5.70 Pay loser from park revenues 52.63 41.03 43.14 36.96 43.10 Participate in policy decisions 28.95 25.64 47.06 36.96 35 60 Install fences 63.16 56.41 35.29 34.78 43.10 Compensation for losses Money 55.88 30.00 40.38 38.10 40.50 Foodstuff / seed 58.82 45.00 9.62 21.43 31.00 Nothing 8.82 2.50 23.08 21.43 1 4.90 Minimum/No damage 0 .00 7.50 17.31 23 .81 13.10

PAGE 110

97 Village Leaders Face-to-face structured questionnaire surveys were administered to an assembled body of respondents ( focus group) that represented the village leaders or village government for each of the four villages Maharaka, Msongozi Kisawasawa and Sanje. The questionnaire was read to an open forum and administered by members of the dedicated SUA/TU team in Kiswahili. The focus groups were asked to respond t o a series of open and closed-end questions, and to rank order some of their responses. Concerns of living near the park Problems faced by the local villages regarding their proximity to the National Park varied accordingly by village Crop raiding was the main concern for Maharaka and Msongozi, while land shortage and restrictions on extractions of the natural resources in the park were indicated as most critical by Kisawasawa and Sanje ( Table 12) Suggestions to reduce crop damage and animal loss Suggestions offered to control crop raiding varied greatly among villages. Some of the suggestions included extending the park boundary away from the village, reporting incidences to the park officials scaring the animals providing a village game officer to patrol the area and using traps to capture the animals (Table 12). For Kisawasawa, the availability of rainfall as a water source for irrigation and domestic use, visits by international tourists, free tree seedling distributions, assistance with construction of a secondary school and access to transportation were all viewed as positive benefits that UNP extended to their local community. In Sanje, these positi v e benefits included only free seedling distribution and assistance with the construction of a

PAGE 111

98 health dispensary. Positive benefits in Maharaka were the construction of a hea l th dispensary, technical assistance for machinery, and assistance wi t h crop raiding wild animals. For Msongozi however, there were no reported positive benefits deri v ed fromMNP. Women's Group Since women issues were assumed to differ from men's, special efforts were made to interview women separately in each village. Only Kisawasawa and Sanje had organized women's groups. The Sanje women's group was able to organize a forum for discussion, whereas scheduling logistics precluded the participation of the Kisawasawa women's group. The questionnaire surveys and format used for the village leaders were also used to collect information from the women's focus group. Concerns of living near the park The Sanje women's group noted important concerns associated with living near UNP. The main concern was insufficient construction materials which are not readi l y available outside the park. Other concerns, ranked in order of importance: poorly defined boundaries between the park and village, the prohibition of weapons in the park for use in fuelwood collection limited opportunities for firewood and herbal plant collection and crop raiding by wild animals from the park (Table 12).

PAGE 112

99 Table 12. Summary of Village Leaders and Sanje Women's Group opinions about v illage concerns; their suggested measures to be taken to reduce crop and animal losses, and relations with the Park Rank* Maharaka Msongozi Kisawasawa Sanje Women Concerns living near the park Crop raiding 1 1 2 3 Trespassers penalty 2 Land shortage 1 Natural resource restrictions 3 1 1 Boundary not well-defined 2 2 No weapons allowed in park 3 Suggestions to reduce crop and animal loss Move park boundary inward 1 3 Need for village game officer 2 1 Scaring 2 1 1 Report to the police 1 Use of traps 2 2 2 Park relations Good Nr Good Good Good *Ranks 1-3 refer to the first, second and third most important responses 3NI = needs improvement Suggestions to reduce crop damage and park relations Animal scaring, only for birds was suggested as one method for controlling crop raiding losses. The second was animal baiting, although the legality of its use was questionable. The positive park attitude held by the women can partially be explained by several benefits derived from the park or park management (Table 12). These benefits and/or services provided include, the establishment of a tree seedling nursery, construction of a dispensary access to local herbs in the park, and transportation to farm, village, and community activities by park employees.

PAGE 113

100 Park Staff Questionnaires were distributed to a number of Park staff employees at UN P and MNP. Three employees from UNP and four employees at MNP were in t erv i ewed. Among these seven participants, positions included park warden community conservation warden ecologist conserva t ion education and law enforcemen t officers. Followed by a brief overview of each of the questions ample time was allowed for t he respondents to individually complete the survey form. The survey instrument was self administered; responses were either ranked or open-ended. Problems facing local communities near the park For the year in which the survey was conducted two out of three of the UNP employees interviewed had visited at least once the local villages in the area (Table 13). In MNP, all four of the park employees interviewed had an opportunity to v isit the local villages. Crop raiding and shortage of firewood were ranked as the number one problem facing local communities near UNP (Table 13). Other concerns tied for second were encroachment and shortage of building materials (e.g. timber). MNP employees also ranked crop raiding as the number one concern of villagers but differed in their responses about ranking firewood collection and dangerous wild anima l s ranking these as two and three respectively (Table 13). Future management priorities In terms of giving full management responsibility to the local communities a ll but one of the National Park employees (while another one did not answer the question )

PAGE 114

101 agreed that the management authority of the parks should be retained by TANAPA and not given to the local people (Table 13). The establishment of Game Management Areas in MNP and t he improvement of participatory conservation approaches (UNP) were listed as important issues to be incorporated into community conservation policy reform. Other responses listed included: improved relationship between individual parks and local communities to facilitate planned sharing of benefits to those targeted communities, conservation education at all levels agroforestry, development projects, and the elimination of donor oriented initiatives (Table 13 ). The park staff listed several obstacles, that in their opinion, influenced the effectiveness of community-based conservation programs (Table 13). These obstacles included the lack of personnel (e.g. community conservat ion wardens) lack of information provided to the local community on environmental issues local community perception of the park as a donor local community reluctance to contribute (e.g ., labor) to village level development projects and etc. ( Table 13) Study Tour In addition to the surveys a study tour was also conducted at UNP and MNP. Selected individuals from each of the four villages attended a one-day workshop that included a guided tour of the National Park and a question and answer session w ith park management and SUA/TU team members. Msongozi. Nineteen participants from Msongoz i attended the study tour ofMNP. The informal program included a brief introduction of villagers park staff, and SUA/TU team members. This was followed by a statement of purpose for the visit and a general

PAGE 115

102 Table 13. Summary ofUdzungwa and Mikumi National Park staff opinion of village level problems and park management challenges Problems faced by local villages living near the park Crop raiding Firewood Encroachment Timber/lumber Mikumi National Park I 2 Dangerous animals 3 Appropriate for local people to manage the park Yes No No reply Visit to local villages Yes No Policy changes to foster community-b11sed conservation Obstacles to community conservation programs I 3 0 4 0 Establish game management areas Improve park-people relationships Lack of personnel Lack of environmental information to local people Parks viewed as donors Lack of knowledge on natural resource issues Negative attitude toward wildlife conservation Rank* Frequency List *Ranks 1 3 refer to the first second and third most important responses Udzungwa National Park I I 2 2 0 2 I I 2 Participatory approaches Conservation education Agro forestry Development programs Benefit sharing A void donor orientation Sustainable use of wildlife Lack of contribution from local people on project s Villagers are dependent on forest res ources Protected area s vie wed a s donors Means of communication F ostering a sens e o f ownership Problem identification Identifying target groups

PAGE 116

103 overview of MNP and T ANAP A. A question and answer session included various topics of discussion such as: costs and benefits of living near the park, crop raiding by wild and the availability and application process for TAN AP A self-help development funds. It was further explained to the villagers by the park staff that because they were not immediate neighbors to MNP, they have not reaped some of the same developmental benefits as other villages within close proximity to the park. But nevertheless, they were encouraged to follow the proper application procedures in requesting developmenta l assistance through T ANAP A. Dependent upon the financial resources available their requests would be considered. A guided tour of the park followed the informal program. Maharaka. The atmosphere was much more positive than that in the meeting between Msongozi village and MNP. Maharaka expressed appreciat ion t o the park for the various forms of assistance provided to them Since Maharaka is closer to the park than Msongozi, villagers have enjoyed a better relationship with the park staff and thus benefited directly from their mutual cooperation. A program similar to the one conducted with Msongozi was presented to representatives (18 participants) from Maharaka. A question and answer session included the following comments: the women expressed concern over the shortage of firewood in one of the sub-villages close to the park's boundary. They also saw a need for the Community Conservation Service (CCS) to develop an on-going system of educating the local people about various issues related to natural resources. The park staff responded by suggesting that the village government should also assist in this educational process. The program was concluded with a guided tour of the park.

PAGE 117

104 Kisawasawa. Mr. Chengullah Community Conservation Warden for UNP, extended a formal welcome to the villagers. He emphasized the purpose of the visit and acknowledged the assistance provided by the SUA/TU project. The introduction of park staff villagers and SUA/TU team members immediately followed the introductory remarks. Their respective personnel representatives explained the various park departments and their objectives. This was followed by extensive exchanges of questions and answers between the villagers and park staff. Following a video on water safety and conservation the park staff took the villagers on a guided tour of the Sanje Waterfall. The close proximity of the park to the village allowed a greater number of participants to attend the study tour. Total village participants were 32. Sanje. Based upon the previous day's presentation to Kisawasawa, an abbreviated program was conducted by Mr Chengullah A question and answer session led to an extensive discussion of the village conservation committee and its stated purpose of trying to resolve problems between villagers and T ANAP A. The villagers expressed hope that this committee would be used to communicate the villagers concerns to TANAPA and UNP. A video on Mafia Island concluded the formal presentation followed by a guided tour of the "Prince Bernard" Waterfall. Among the 31 village representatives there were approximately an equal portion of males and females but an overwhelming majority of elderly seniors represented Discussion During the course of this research it became overwhelmingly clear that the local people interviewed are aware of the purpose of the park and its benefits to their local

PAGE 118

105 communities and country. Despite the fact that over 90% of the respondents had never visited the National Park, they opposed its abolishment and also rejected giving the land to those who needed it or allowing activities such as hunting and natural resource extractions. It also became obvious that communities that indicated positive benefits attained from the park, subsequently enjoyed a good relationship with the park and its administrators. This appears to be largely influenced by the proximity of the National Park headquarters to the local communities. Moreover, communities near UNP were provided greater economic and social benefits from the park, due to a more flexible and coordinated management approach as well as supplemental financial and technical support from the World Wildlife Fund. Although concerted efforts are pursued by MNP in their commitment to their community outreach program, the lack of financial, technical, and upper-level management support has hampered park management efforts for complete effectiveness.

PAGE 119

CHAPTER6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS My study revealed three inherent problems identified in the three case studies in Tanzania: (1) participation versus cooperation, (2) capture of the local population, and (3) linking conservation and development. Survey results clearly indicate that participation is underway but has not yet realized a level of cooperation needed to achieve long-term biodiversity success. Even though park management can claim to have captured the local communities, some individuals persist with resistance to the authority or interests of "state owned" protected areas. Despite these challenges, the provision of immediate and tangible benefits from protected areas (directly and indirectly) contributes positively toward the linkage of conservation and development and thereby encourages local support for the protection of natural resources. Participation versus cooperation. Considering specifically my study, a large portion of the population surveyed held positive attitudes towards the national parks. This is viewed as a major step forward in obtaining compliance with park regulations and conservation goals. Positive benefits accrued through a number of development projects and services may account for the majority of positive attitudes observed; but they do not account for all positive attitudes. This suggests that past colonial assumptions that black Africans did not care about conservation, may in fact be erroneous or misleading. 106

PAGE 120

107 The completion of 178 household surveys, as well as village leaders, park staff, and a womens' group surveys, implied a high level of participation among the respondents. As well, there was no incidence of anyone refusing to participate in the completion of the surveys. Participants willingly provided answers and appeared cooperative in the Linkage Project's effort to obtain information that would subsequently be used to benefit their communities. Participation during the study tours to the National Parks indicated the local communities' desire to obtain additional information about the parks' management policies, view its wildlife, and to learn about the application process for community development self-help projects. The level of interest in participation was overwhelming. This, however, was restricted somewhat by the limited availability of transportation for the participants to and from the parks. Community interests reflected not only the number of participants that attended but additional interest expressed by members of the villages to participate in a future study tour to other parks in the area. For all four villages in the National Parks study area, interest was expressed toward organizing conservation groups within their communities Furthermore, for Kisawasawa and Sanje, the formation of conservation committees by Udzungwa National Park encouraged community participation in natural resource protection, law enforcement, and involvement in park management decisions. The communities' desire to achieve greater levels of involvement within the park was readily apparent from the discussions held during the study tours. Although survey questions did not implicitly refer to conservation management approaches, positive attitudes towards the parks tend to support the basic

PAGE 121

108 accomplishments achieved through the protectionist approach. These accomplishments included the prohibition of hunting and other natural resource extractions as well as recognition that the parks were protected for the benefit of future generations and the protection of wildlife. As such the respondents rejected abolishment of the parks. Capture. Today the debate continues about the degree to which the peasantry in Africa has been subordinated to the demands of the state (Hyden 1980 1986 Kasif 1986). Although capture implies a defined level or levels of compliance and cooperation this was not readily observed in my review ofMkomazi Game Reserve (MGR) (Chapter 4) In spite of a number of community self-help development projects and other outreach services recently introduced by MGR, some individuals continue to resist compliance with natural resources policies. Portions of the population openly defy local park authorities by employing a number of tactics (weapons) to express their dissatisfaction with the Reserve. Some of these tactics have included illegal encroachment, livestock grazing and unauthorized burning. More recently, a group of indigenous people in the Mkomazi area have used the legal system to challenge game laws that allegedly hav e illegally displaced them from their rights to their ancestral lands (Neumann 1995). Thus some individuals remain uncaptured by conservation authorities and organizations Conservation and development linkage. The concept of local community participation has recently been embraced as an important management tool used to achieve conservation goals for protected areas in Tanzania. However development projects used to provide economic benefits and provisionary services have often failed to link local community roles with conservation goals. The Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA) and Tuskegee University (TU) Linkage Project (SUA/TU Linkage

PAGE 122

109 Project) provides a specific example whereby program activities have fallen short of integrating or defining the communities' roles in helping to achieve conservation goals in the areas As observed in the three case studies in Tanzania the SUA/TU Linkage Project was a USA.ID funded project that provided several important agricultural and natural resource-based community outreach services to rural communities in the study area. The disappointment, however, was the project's overall success in promo t ing and linking community-based management of natural resources with project activities. In Tanzania, the SUA/TU Linkage Project was sufficiently v i ewed as an outside" organization (despite its in-country collaborative partnership with SUA), and perhaps far enough removed from the internal conflicts of local communities and protected areas that it could have been very instrumental in developing and/or improving where necessary critical links between community-based natural resource management and development. But in reference only to the mini-project upon which this study is largely based it fell miserably short of reaching its full potential in contributing to effect ive conservation programming in Tanzania. The project would have had more success if greater emphasis were placed upon the commitment to project goals, with a better understanding of local conservation issues. by project man~gers and upper level management that "administered" the project. These shortcomings as well as others, directly influenced the completion, and in particular the appropriate follow-up activities needed to realize the long-term success of project activities Future efforts should be placed on developing each local community' s abilities skills and knowledge base for sustaining project activities long after the funding period has ended. In add i tion future efforts should focus

PAGE 123

110 on improved communication channels among SUA/TU team members, park staff, and wildlife officials, as well as concerted efforts to coordinate and integrate project activities with protected area conservation objectives for the region. In conclusion, the protectionist model, such as setting-aside large tracks of land for protection, has caused considerable economic, social, and cultural hardship ( directly and indirectly). Nevertheless, it has made significant contributions in safeguarding biodiversity. Results show, however, that the protectionist model alone is no longer appropriate within the context of the political and moral dynamics of some communities. Contextual changes in Africa and elsewhere have highlighted the inadequacies of the protectionist model and have resulted in the pursuit of various site-specific, innovative conservation approaches, in particular community-based conservation (CBC). In general terms, CBC represents a set of "new" approaches to biodiversity management that attempt to reconcile local people and natural resources by coupling conservation with development. Future conservation successes will depend upon how well we are able to integrate the successes, failures, and shortcomings of various conservation approaches to meet current and future conservation and/or development challenges for protected areas and rural communities. Finally, it is clear from the review of the three case studies that no one approach to conservation has been, or is likely to be, completely successful. Confronted with working in the highly-politicized arena of biodiversity conservation, conservationists must seek the integration of multidisciplinary philosophies to biodiversity management. Furthermore, future efforts must include a policy framework that provides communities with increased responsibilities and authority for managing natural resources.

PAGE 124

APPENDIX A HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE A. Background/Household Information: 1 Have you always lived in this village ? __ yes __ no. If not in which village and regio n d i d you live before? la. How many years have you lived in this village ? a. 0 5 years b. 6 -10 years c. 11-15 years d 16-20 years e 21-30 years f. 3 1 40 years g. more than 40 years 2 Age sex and job/ position of all household members : HOUSEHOLD AGE SEX JOB MEMBERS (years) (Mor F) Father Mother Wife (1) Wife (2) Grandmother Grandfather Child (1) Child (2) Child (3) Child (4) Brother (1) Sister (1) Others (list) 111

PAGE 125

112 3. Highest level of formal education attained by household members: EDUCATIONAL HOUSEHOLD LEVEL MEMBERS No Schooling 1 -4 years 5 -8 years 9 -12 years more than 12 years Adult Education 4. Has anyone in y h h Id our ouse o trave e om your oca commumty. I yes, 1st l d fr ? f 1 household members LOCATIONS HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS Other Villages In Area District Headquarters Morogoro Dar es Salaam Other(list): 5. Has anyone in your household ever worke d for the park? yes employment and position. 6. What types of problems do you have with your crops? a. poor soil b. soil erosion c. disease / insects d too much or too little rain e. insufficient land f crop raiding by wild animals g. no problem h other (specify) 7 What types of problems do you have with your livestock/poultry ? a. predators (i e., wild animals birds of prey etc.) b diseases/parasites c. insufficient land for grazing ( If so, why) d. theft e. no problem f. other (specify) no If yes gi ve dates of B. Knowledge level on conservation and wildlife issues? 1 What does the word conservation mean to you? 2. Do you have access to audio or printed conservation material. yes no If yes, from where ? 3 Is there a conservation group / organization in your area?_ yes no. If yes, are you an active member? _yes_ no

PAGE 126

113 3a. Ifno, would you like to have one? _yes _no 4. What wild animals have you seen in this area? 5 What wild animals have you ever seen, in addition to those mentioned in question number 4 above. 5a. Is there a good animal(s)? _yes _no. If yes, what animal(s) is good? C. Attitudes toward conservation and MNP and UNP 1. Have you ever visited the park? yes no. Why or why not? 2. Why do you think the park is being protected? 3. Who benefits from the park (economically or socially)? 3a How do they / you benefit? 4. Do you or any other member of your household benefit directly from tourism of the park through the sale of curios fruits/vegetables, guiding or etc ? __ yes __ no 5 Do you go into the park in search of: a firewood b. fodder c to let your livestock graze d. no I do not go into the park e. other (specify) 6 What are you allowed to do in the park? a. grazing of livestock b. herbal plant collection c. timber cutting d firewood collection e. hunting f. nothing g. other 7. What is the penalty / fee for trespassing in the park? 8. What does the word poacher mean to you? 9 Do you view poachers as people breaking the law? __ yes no 10. How would you feel if the park was abolished? Why? 11. Would you like to live elsewhere away from this park ? yes no Why? 12. Do you think it is appropriate to let local people take full responsibility of managing the park ? _yes no. Why? 13. Do you know the park employee in charge of your village? __ yes no 14. Have any park employees ever come to your v illage ? __ yes no 14a If yes, why did they come? a. to discuss wildlife conservation issues b. to hold a meeting c. to show wildlife conservation slides or hand out wildlife pamphlets d. wildlife law enforcement e. because you contacted them concerning a problem f other (specify) 15. Are park relations with the village : a. good b bad c needs improvement d. no opinion e. other (specify) 16. What have been some of the positive things that the park has extended to your village? 17 What would happen if all the fores t/ tress were chopped down in the park ? For questions 18 and 19, answer good or bad and why? 18 Is the protection of wild animals a good or bad thing ? __ good __ bad Why? 19. Is the prevention of sport/trophy hunting a good or a bad thing ? __ good __ bad Why?

PAGE 127

114 For questions 20-26, answer yes or no (and why if applicable) 20 It is important to keep a place where the animals and plants can live __ yes no 21. It would be good to give the park to people who need land _ yes no 22 The tourist that visit the park are good (economically) for the local villages / communit i es yes_ no_ 23. The Tanzania government keeps the park because they do not want the people to have the land. yes_ no_ 24. The Tanzania government keeps the park for the benefit ofus and our children. yes_ no_ 25 It would be good to allow the local people to collect firewood building poles reeds and grasses in the park. _yes_ no 26 It would be good if the local people were allowed to hunt in the park ? __ yes __ no Why? D. Perceptions of crop raiding and livestock loss l Has your household suffered human injuries due to wild animal attacks? __ yes __ no. If yes briefly describe and give dates of the most recent incidence 2. Has your neighbors suffered human injuries due to wild animal attacks? __ yes __ no. If yes briefly describe and give dates of their most recent incidence. 3. Have you ever suffered crop and/or livestock losses due to wild animal attacks ? __ yes no If yes briefly describe and give dates of the most recent incidence crop : livestock: 4 Has your neighbors ever suffered crop and/or livestock losses due t o wild animal attacks ? __ yes no If yes briefly describe and give dates of their most recent incidence crop : livestock: 5 If you answered yes to any of the questions above (section D) what wild animals come ? 6 What time of day do the wild animals usually come ? a morning b afternoon c evening d. night 7. What is the worst animal(s)? 8 What crops are most frequently eaten/damaged? 9 What livestock is most frequently eaten/injured ? 10. Is there a crop(s) that you can not plant because of crop raiding by wild animals? __ ye s no If yes which crop ? 11. Is there livestock you can not keep because of wild animal attacks ? __ yes no If yes which livestock ? 12 Any part of your farm you can not use because of crop raiding? __ yes no 13. For the last growing season, what was the value of your crop and livestock losses due to wild animal s crops : livestock : 14. What are the methods you use (or have tried) to control wild animals ? 15. Are your methods to control wild animals effective ? __ yes no 16 Any methods you know other farmers use to control wild animals ? 17. Does anyone guard against wild animals ? _ yes no 17a If yes when do they guard ? 17b. If no why not ? 18 Is a park officia l/ wildlife di v ision officer contacted when a crop raiding or livesto c k attack o c cur on your property from wild animals? __ yes __ no __ sometimes Why or why not ? 19. Do you receive any type of assistance (i e ., scaring the animal shooting the animal etc .) with these problems ? yes no 19a. If yes what type of assistance and who provides this assistance ? what: who:

PAGE 128

115 20. Do you receive any type of compensation (i.e money replacement of seed/livestock, maize assistance, etc.) for damaged crops or loss oflivestock? __ yes no sometimes If yes, what type of assistance and from whom? what: who: if sometimes when: 20a. If no what do you think you should be compensated? 21. Do you have any suggestions on how to control crop raiding, livestock losses and loss of human life caused by wild animals? 22. What do you think the government should do about crop raiding loss of human life and livestock attacks caused by wild animals? a help people relocate away from the park b. pay losers a share of the revenues from the park c. have farmers take part in formulation of policies regarding co-existence d. install fences e. other (specify)

PAGE 129

APPENDIXB VILLAGE LEADERS QUESTIONNAIRE 1. What problems do the villagers face in regards to living near the park? (rank: 1 (most frequent problem)to 5 (least frequent problem)) PROBLEMS RANK (1-5) COMMENTS 2. Has anyone in your village ever suffered human injuries due to w ild animal attacks ? __ yes __ no If yes, give month/year of most recent incidence. 3. Has anyone in your village ever suffered crop and/or livestock losses due to wild animal attacks ? __yes _no. If yes, give month/year of most recent incidence. crop: livestock: 4 Are villagers compensated for crop damage, livestock loss or loss of human life due to wild anima l s ? yes no. If yes what are they compensated? 5 Do you have any suggestions on how to control crop raiding livestock losses and loss of human life caused by wild animals? 6. What do you think the government should do about crop raiding loss of human life and livestock attacks caused by wild animals from the park? a. help people relocate away from the park b. pay losers a share of the revenues from the park c. have farmers take part in formulation of policies regarding co-existence d. install fences e. other (specify) 7. Do you think it is appropriate to let local people take full responsibility of managing the wildlife in the park? _ yes _ no. Why or why not ? 8. What is the fee / penalty for local people trespassing in the park? 9. Do you know the wildlife official assigned to your village? __ yes no 10. Have park employees ever come to your village? __ yes no 1 Oa. If yes, why did they come? a. to discuss wildlife conservation issues b to hold a meeting c. to show wildlife conservation slides films or hand out wildlife pamphlets d wildlife law enforcement e. because you contacted them concerning a problem f. other (specify) 11. When was the month/year of the park employee's last visit to your village ? 116

PAGE 130

117 12. Are park relations with the village: a good b bad c. needs improvement d. no opinion e other (specify) 13. What have been some of the positive things that the park has extended to your village ? 14. What are the villagers allowed to do in the park ? 15. What policy reform would you consider as being adequate t o be incorporated in communi ty conservation issues? 16. What are some of the obstacles that stand in the way of community conservation de v elopm e nt programs for your village ? 17. Is there a conservation group / organization in your village ? __ yes __ no. Ifno, would you like to form one? _ yes _ no (comments ): 18. How can SUA/fU Linkage Project assi s t your village with some of the se problems ?

PAGE 131

APPENDIXC PARK STAFF QUESTIONNAIRE 1. When did you begin work at this park? 2. Have you visited the local villages this year? If yes, when and what was the purpose of y our visit? DATE/MONTH VILLAGE REASON FOR VISIT COMMENTS 3 What problems do local villagers face in regards to living near the park ? (rank: l (most frequent problem) 5 (least frequent problem)). PROBLEMS RANK (1-5) COMMENTS 118

PAGE 132

119 4. Why are the villagers trespassing in the park? a. meat b. firewood c honey d. ivory e herbs f. livestock grazing g. other (specify) 5 What was the approximate time when coexistence started to be a problem for the local villagers? ( give year and month if possible). 6. Do you think it is appropriate to let local people take full responsibility of managing the wildlife in the park? __ yes __ no 7 Are villagers compensated for crop damages livestock loss or loss of human life due to wild animals? __ yes __ no 7a. If yes what are they compensated? If no, what do you think they should be compensated? 8 What is the fee / penalty for local people trespassing in the park ? 9 How often were you contacted by the villagers concerning wildlife problems this year (on average) ? a every other day b once a week c once a month d. every other month e other (specify) 10. What help do you give villagers when they contact you concerning problems associated with wild animals such as crop raiding livestock attacks or loss of human life ? a. shot the problem animal(s) b scaring the problem animal(s) away c translocation of the animal(s) d other (specify) 11. What policy reform would you consider as being adequate to be incorporated in community conservation issues? 12 What have been some of the positive things that the park has extended to the local villages ? 13. What are some of the obstacles that stand in the way of community conservation development programs for the local communities? 14 Is the park involved in extension programs, such as providing environmental education material or encouraging economic development ? __ yes __ no. If yes what activities are the park invol ve d ? lil. 15. What are the villagers allowed to do in the park ? 16 Are there park employees assigned to work in or assist the local villages? __ yes __ no

PAGE 133

REFERENCES Ahmed, M.B. 1988. Primary export crop production and the origins of ecological crisis in Kordofan: the case of Dar Haman. Pages 1 1 5134 in D.H. Johnson and D.M Anderson editors. The ecology of survival: case studies from North East Africa history Westview Press Boulder, Colorado. Alpers, E.A 1969. The coast and the development of the caravan trade. Pages 35-56 in I.N. Kimambo and A.J. Temu editors. A history of Tanzania. East Afric a Publishing House Nairobi, Kenya Anderson, D.M. 1988. Cultivating pastoralists: ecology and economy among the II Chamus ofBaringo 1840 1980. Pages 2412 60 in D.H. Johnson and D.M. Anderson editors The ecology of survival: case studies from North East Africa history. Westview Press, Boulder Colorado. Anderson G.D 1967 A reconnaissance survey of the land use potentia l ofMkomaz i Game Reserve and an appraisal of factors affecting present and potential land use and productivity in its environs. Mimeographed report submitted to Tanzania Ministry of Agriculture, Dar es Salaam. Located at: Special Collection Archives University of Florida, Gainesville USA. Anstey, D. 1956. Mkomazi Game Reserve. Oryx 3(4):183-185. Attwell, C.A.M. 2000. What if the emperor has no clothes? A reply to Martin. Oryx 34(1):3-7. Bennett, J.W. 1993. Human ecology as human behavior: essays in environmental and development anthropology. Transaction Publishers New Brunswick New Jersey. Bernard, H.R 1994. Research methods in anthropology: qualita t ive and quantitative approaches. 2nd edition. Sage Publications Inc. Thousand Oaks Cal i fornia. Berry L. 0. Mascarenhas and S. Steward. 1982. Eastern Africa country profil e s : the United Republic of Tanzania. International Development Program Clark University Worchester Massachusetts. Biermann, W., editor. 1998. The Tanzania economy 1920-1985: colonial valorisation reconstruction and crisis. Social Research on Africa Vol. 4 Dar es Salaam University Press, Tanzania. 120

PAGE 134

121 Bodmer, R.E., and P.P. Puertas. 2000. Community-based co-management of wildlife in the Peruvian Amazon. Pages 395-409 in J.G. Robinson and E.L. Bennet, editors. Hunting for sustainability in tropical forests. Columbia University Press, New York. Brandon, K 1998. Perils in parks: the social context of threats. Pages 415-439 in Brandon, K., K.H. Redford, and S.E. Sanderson, editors. Parks in peril: people, politics and protected area. Island Press, Washington, D.C. ___, K.H. Redford, and S.E. Sanderson, editors. 1998. Parks in peril: people, politics and protected area. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Bromley, D.W. 1994. Economic dimensions of community-based conservation. Pages 428-447 in D.M. Western, R.M Wright and S. Strum, editors. Natural connections: perspectives in community-based conservation. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Burger J. 1990. The Gaia atlas of first people. Pages 153-181 in I. Serageldin and J. Martin-Brown, editors. Partnership for global ecosystem management: science, economics and law. Proceedings and reference readings from the Fifth Annual World Bank Conference on Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development, Oct. 6-7, 1997. The World Bank, Washington, D C Burton J. 1999. Traditional rights-what do they mean? Oryx 33(1):2-3. Carr, A ., and Editors of Life. 1964. The land and wildlife in Africa Life Natural Library. Time Incorporated, New York. Chachage, C.S.L. 1987. Towards a critique of development theories in Africa Utafiti 9(1):5-30. Chengullah, E.L. 1998. A comprehensive report on one year work on Udzungwa Mountains Community Initiatives December 96/97. Udzungwa Mountains National Park, Tanzania. Child, G. 1995. Wildlife and people: the Zimbabwean success. Wisdom Foundation Harare and New York. Coe, M.J. N.C. McWilliam G.N. Stone, and M.J. Packer editors. 1999. Mkomazi: the ecology, biodiversity and conservation of a Tanzania savanna. Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) London. Colchester, M 1998. Who will garrison the fortress? A reply to Spinage. Oryx 32(4):245-247.

PAGE 135

122 Collins M 2000. Knowledge for conservation: new technology new players and a new approach. Oryx 34(3):153-155. Coulson A. 1982. Tanzania : a political economy. Oxford University Press, New York. Crosby, A.W. 1986. Ecological imperalism: the biological expansion of Europe 9001900 Cambridge University Press, New York. Crystal D editor. 1993 The Cambridge FactFinder updated edition. Cambridge University Press New York. Davis R. 1968 Prospects for joint production of livestock and wildlife on East African rangeland: the case of Kenya. Bureau of Resource Assessment and Land Use Planning. Research Paper No. 4. University of Dar es Salaam Tanzania de Blij and Capon. 1969. Quoted in L.D. Harris and S.A. Marks. An appraisal of African game conservation. Paper presented to the AAAS conference on environmental science and international development Dec. 27-30, 1971 Philadelphia Pennsylvania. DiLeva, C.E. 1999. Sustainable development and the World Bank: legal and policy instruments. Pages 153-181 in I. Serageldin and J. Martin-Brown editors. 1999 Partnership for global ecosystem management: science economics and law. Proceedings and reference readings from the Fifth Annual World Bank Conference on Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development, Oct. 6-7 1997. The World Bank Washington, D.C. Encarta 2000 Encarta world English dictionary (North American Edition). Microsoft Corporation Bloomsbury Publishing Pie Available from http://dictionary.msn.com (accessed 5 May 2000). Engelhardt W editor. 1962. Survival of the free: the last strongholds of wild animal life (translated from the German by John Coombs) G P. Putnam's Sons New York. Fitzjohn, L. editor. 1998. Mkoma z i Game Reserve newsletter November 1998 The Tony Fitzjohn/George Adamson African Wildlife Preservation Trust (USA). Available from http://www.izoo.org/mkomazi / newsletter1998.html (accessed 3 Jun e 2000). -------' 1999. Mkomazi Game Reserve newsletter November 1999. The Tony Fitzjohn/George Adamson African Wildlife Preservation T rust (USA). Available from http:/ / www.i zoo. org/mkoma z i/newsl e tt e r1999 html (accessed 3 June 2 000) Foster N. 1994 Selling Tanzania. Selling Africa in conjunction with Selling Long-Haul magazine London.

PAGE 136

123 Getz,W.M ., L. Fortman D Cumming J. du Toit, J. Hilty, R. Martin, M. Murphree, N. Owen-Smith A Starfield, and M. Westphal. 1999. Sustaining natural and human capital: villagers and scientists. Science 283: 185 5-1856. Gregg, W. editor. 1995. Forward in Biosphere reserve in action: case studies of the American experience, pages v-vi. United States Man and the Biosphere Program Washington, D.C. Grzimek, B. 1962. African national parks: the position today Pages 101-113 in W. Engelhardt, editor. Survival of the free: the last strongholds of wild animal life (translated from the German by John Coombs). G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York. Gwassa, G.C.K. 1969. The German intervention and Africa resistance in Tanzania. Pages 85-122 in I.N. Kimambo and A.J. Temu, editors. A history of Tanzania. East Africa Publishing House, Nairobi, Kenya. Habari za Mkomazi. 1995. Newsletter of the Mkomazi Research Programme. March No.2. Dept. of Wildlife; Tanzania, Royal Geographical Society, London; and Department of Zoology, University of Oxford. Hale, J.R. 1977. Renaissance Europe: individual and society, 1480-1520. University of California Press Berkley and Los Angeles California. Hannigan J.A. 1995. Environmental sociology: a social constructionist perspective. Routledge, New York. Harris, L.D. 1972. An ecological description of a semi-arid East African ecosystem Range Science Dept., Sci. Ser. No. 11, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins __ __, and J. Eisenberg. 1989 Enhanced linkages: necessary steps for success in conservation offaunal diversity. Pages 166-181 in D. Western, and M.C. Pearl, editors. Conservation for the twenty-first century. Oxford University Press New York. __ _, and N. Fowler. 1975. Ecosystem analysis and simulation of the Mkomazi Reserve Tanzania. E. Afr. Wild. J. 13:325-346 __ _, and R. Sullivan. 1980. A one hundred year comparison of human occupancy and wildlife ecology in North Eastern Tanzania. A proposal, March 1980-March 1981. University of Florida Gainesville. Located at: Special Collection Archives University of Florida Gainesville, USA. __ __, and S.A. Marks. 1972. An appraisal of African game conservation. Paper presented to the AAAS conference on environmental science and international development December 27-30 1971. Philadelphia Pennsylvania.

PAGE 137

124 Heck, H. 1962. The future of animals. Pages 4-13 in W. Engelhardt, editor. Survival of the free: the last strongholds of wild animal life (translated from the German by John Coombs). G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York. High Court of Tanzania. 1998. Civil case no. 33 of 1994. Judgement. Moshi, Tanzania. Hollis, C. 1958. Von Der Deeken. Tanganyika Notes and Records, June 1958, No. 50. Homewood, K., H. Kiwasila, and D. Brockington. 1997. Conservation with development? The case ofMkomazi, Tanzania. Report to ESCOR of the Department for International Development. Hoyle, D. 1997. Udzungwa Mountains National Park: Socio-economic survey. World Wildlife Fund (International), Tanzania. Hyden, G. 1979. We must run while others walk: policy making for socialist development in Tanzania. Pages 5-13 in K.S. Kim, R.B. Mabele and M.J. Schultheis, editors. Papers on the political economy of Tanzania. Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., London. Hyden, G. 1980. Beyond ujamaa in Tanzania: underdevelopment and an uncaptured peasantry. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. Hyden, G. 1986. The anomaly of the African peasantry. Development and Change 17:677-705. IIED. 1994. International Institute for Environmental and Development. Whose eden? An overview of community approaches to wildlife management. Russell Press, Nottingham, United Kingdom. Iliffe, J. 1979. Modern history of Tanzania. Cambridge University Press. Inamdar, A., H. De Jode, K. Lindsay, and S. Cobb. 1999. Capitalizing on nature: protected area management. Science 283:1856-1857. IUCN. 1963. World Conservtion Union. Conservation of nature and natural resources in modem Africa states. Report of a symposium at Arusha, Tanganyika, September 1961. IUCN, Morges, Switzerland. IUCN Public. New series No. 1. Johannes, B. 1996. A series ofreports on Udzungwa Mountains National Park. Submitted as part of the Ecological Monitoring programme funded by Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA), Tanzania.

PAGE 138

125 Johnson, D.H. 1988. Adaptation to floods in the Jonglei area of Sudan: an historical analysis. Pages 173-192 in D.H. Johnson and D M. Anderson, editors. The ecology of survival: case studies from North East African history. Westview Press Boulder, Colorado. __ _, and D M. Anderson editors 1988 The ecology of survival: case studies from North East African history. Westview Press Boulder Colorado. Kabigumila, J. 1992. The Masai, wildlife conserva tion and the environment: a case of Mkomazi Game Reserve. Tanzania Wildlife Protection Fund Final Report. University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Kaiza-Boshe T., B. Kamara, and J. Mugabe. 1998. Biodiversity management in Tanzania Pages 121-151 in J Mugabe and N. Clark editors Managing biodiversity: national systems of conservation in Africa. ACTS Press, Nairobi Kenya. Kasfir, N. 1986. Are African peasants self-sufficient? A review of Goran Hyden, Beyond ujamaa in Tanzania:underdevelopment and uncaptured peasantry and No shortcuts to progress: African development management in perspective. Development and Change 17(2):335-57. Kjekshus, H 1977a Ecology control and economic development in Eas t African history the case of Tanganyika 1850-1950. Heinemann Educational Books London. Kjekshus, H. 1977b. The villagization policy implementional lessons and ecological dimensions Pages 148-9 in G Hyden. Beyond ujamaa in Tanzania: underdevelopment and an uncaptured peasantry. Uni v ersity of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. Kimambo, I.N. and A.J. Temu, editors. 1969. A history of Tanzania. East African Publishing House Nairobi Kenya. Kiss A editor. 1990. Living with wildlife: wildli fe resource management with local participation in Africa. World Bank Technical Paper No. 130. The World Bank, Washington, D C. Kleemeier L. 1981. Tanzania policy towards foreign assistance in rural development: insights drawn from a study of regional integrated development programs. Department of Political Science University of Dar es Salaam Tanzania. Leach M. and R Mearns, editors. 1996. The lie of the land: challenging received wisdom on the African environment. Heinemann Publisher, New Hampshire. Longhurst, W.M. and H Heady editors. 1968. Report of a symposium on East African range problems held at Villa Serbelloni, Lake Como, Italy June 24-28, 1968.

PAGE 139

126 Makere, E.N. 1971. Ujamaa villages in practice. Department of Economics, University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Makombe, K., editor. 1994. Sharing the land: wildlife, people and development in Africa. IUCN/ROSA Environmental Issues Series No. l, IUCN/ROSA, Harare Zimbabwe and IUCN / SUWP, Washington, D.C. Martin, R.B. 1999. The rule oflaw and African game, and social change and conservation misrepresentation: A reply to Spinage. Oryx 33(2):89-97. Mangubuli, M.J.J 1992. Mkomazi Game Reserve -a recovered pearl. Kakakuona, 4(1):11-13. Marks, S. 1994. Managerial ecology and lineage husbandry. Environmental dilemmas in Zambia's Luangwa Valley. Pages 111-121 in M Hufford editor. Conserving culture: A new discourse on heritage. University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago. Maser, C. 1999. Ecological diversity in sustainable development: the vital and forgotten dimension. Lewis Publishers, Washington, D.C McNeely, J.A., J. Harrison, and P. Dingwall, editors. 1994. Protecting nature: regional reviews of protected areas. IUCN, The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom. McNeely, J.A., K.R. Miller, W.V. Reid, R.A. Mittermeier, and T.B. Werner. 1990. Conserving the world's biological diversity IUCN, The World Conservation Union. Gland, Switzerland; WRI, CI, WWF-US and the World Bank Washington, D.C. Mc William, N., and M.J. Paker. 1998. Large mammal survey ofMkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania. Part 11:opportunistic sighting (Nov. 1994-June 1997) Mkomazi Research Programme Progress Report, July 1995. Merriam-Webster. 2000. Merriam-Webster online dictionary. Available from http:/ / www m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary (accessed 12 July 2000). Metcalfe, S. 1994. The Zimbabwe communal areas management programme for indigenous resources (CAMPFIRE). Pages 161-192 in D.M. Western R.M. Wright, and S. Strum, editors. 1994. Natural connections: perspectives on community based management. Island Press Washington D.C. Milne, R. and, J Waugh. 1994. North America. Pages 281-299 in J .A McNeely, J. Harrison, and P. Dingwall editors. 1994. Protecting nature: regional rev i ews of protected areas. IUCN, The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom.

PAGE 140

127 Mkomazi Game Reserve. 1999a. Mkomazi Game Reserve: restoring a forgotten wilderness. Available from http:/ / www.izoo.org/mkomazi/mgr.html (accessed 21 August 2000). ___ . 1999b. The Mkomazi Game Reserve outreach programme. Available from http://www.izoo.org/mkomazi/outreach programme.html (accessed 21 August 2000). ___ 1999c. Tony Fitzjohn. Available from http:/ / www.izoo.org/mkomazi / tony fitzjohn.html (accessed 21 August 2000 ). ___ .1999d. The Mkomazi rhino sanctuary: a species survival appeal. Available from http://www.izoo/mkomazi/rhino sanctuary.html (accessed 21 August 2000). ___ .1999e. The African wild dog. Available from http://www.izoo.org/mkomazi/wild dogs.html (accessed 21 August 2000). Moutou, F. 1998. Questioning new conservation approaches. Oryx 32(3):244-245. Mugabe, J. 1998. Biodiversity and sustainable development in Africa. Pages 5-29 in J. Mugabe and N. Clark, editors. Managing biodiversity: national systems of conservation and innovation in Africa. ACTS Press, Nairobi Kenya. ___ _, and N. Clark, editors. 1998. Managing biodiversity: national systems of conservation and innovation in Africa. ACTS Press, Nairobi, Kenya. Mushi, S.S. 1977. Ujamaa planning and the politics of allocation: the case of Morogoro district. Dept. of Political Science, University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Mustafa, K. 1997 Eviction of pastoralists from the Mkomazi Game Reserve in Tanzania: a historical review. Pastoral Land Tenure Series No.8, International Institute for Environment Development, London. Mwalyosi, R.B.B. 1993a. Biological diversity and the people: the case of Tanzania. Research Paper No.34, Institute of Resource Assessment, University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Mwalyosi, R.B.B. 1993b. Human ecology and sustainable development with specia l emphasis on Africa. Research Paper No.32, Institute of Resource Assessment, University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Myers, N., R.A. Mittermeier, C.G. Mittermeier, G.A.B. da Fonseca and J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities Nature 403:853-858. Nangoli, M. 1986. No more lies about Africa: here is the truth from an African. African Heritage Publishers, New Jersey.

PAGE 141

128 Neumann, R.P. 1995. Local challenges to global agendas: conservation economic liberalization and the pastoralists rights movement in Tanzania. Antipode 27( 4):363-82. ___ 1998. Imposing wilderness: struggles over livelihood and nature preserva t ion in Africa. University of California Press Los Angeles and Berkeley Nyenzi 1998. Guide to Tanzania: general information. A Climate Consult ( T) Limited Company. Available from http:/ / www.nyenzi.com (accessed 2 May 2000). NYPL. 1993. The New York Public Library Desk Reference, 2nd edition. A Stonesong Press book. Prentice Hall General Reference. New York. Ochina, S. 1998. Community Conservation Service report. Mikumi National Park. Tanzania. Olindo, P., and M. Mbaelele. 1994. Sub-Saharan Africa in protecting nature: region a l reviews of protected areas. IUCN, The World Conservation U nion. Gland Switzerland; WRI CI WWF-US and the World Bank, Washington D.C. Parker, A.C. 1969. Results of Two elephant harvests in the Mkomaz i accompanied by considerable background information extracted from previous research and synthesis efforts. Wildlife Services Limited Kenya. Located at: Special Collection Archives University of Florida Gainesville U SA. PERM. 1995. Participatory environmental resources management. Initia l environmental examination or categorical exclusion USAID funding proposal Tanzania. Project number: 621-0180. Potter, G.R. editor. 1964. The new Cambridge modem h i story, Vol.I: the Renaissance 1493-1520. Cambridge University Press. Pringle, J.A. 1982. The conservationists and the killers : the story of game protection and the wildlife society of southern Africa. T.V. Bulpin and Books of Africa Ltd. Cape Town South Africa Prins H.H.T. and J Wind. 1993. Research for nature conservation in southeast Asia. Biological Conservation 63:43-46. Ralph, P .L. 1973 The renaissance in perspective. St. Martin's Press Inc. New York Robinette, W.L., P. Hemingway, and A. Cormack. 1966 Appraisal of range conditions on the Kalimawe Controlled Area. College of Africa Wildlife Management Mweka Tanzania Report submitted to the Tanzania Game Department Dar es Salaam Located at: Special Collection Archives University of Florida Gainesville USA.

PAGE 142

129 Runte, A. 1987. National Parks: the American experience. Pages 281-299 in J. McNee ly, J. Harrison and P. Dingwall, editors. Protecting nature: regional reviews of protected areas. IUCN, The World Conservation Union. Gland, Switerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom. Russell, E.W. 1968. Management of policy in the Tanzania national parks. A report submitted to Tanzania National Parks May 1968. Located at: Special Collec t ion Archives, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA. Schoepf, B.G.1983. Unintended consequences and structural predictability: man and biosphere in Zaire's Lufira Valley. Human Organization 42(4):361-367. Scott, J.C. 1985. Weapons of the weak: everyday forms of peasant resistance. Yale University Press, New Haven and London Serageldin, I., and J. Martin-Brown, editors. 1999. Partnership for global ecosystem management: science, economics and law. Proceedings and reference readings from the Fifth Annual World Bank Conference on Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Oct. 6-7, 1997. The World Bank Washington D C. Shillington, K. 1989. History of Africa. MacMillan Press, Ltd. London and Basingstoke. Siege, L. editor. 1996. Financial potential of the Selous Game Reserve and its bufferzones. SCP Discussion Paper No. 21. Selous Conservation Programme Selous Game Reserve; Wildlife Division Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Spinage C. 1996 The rule of law and African game: a review of some recent trends and concerns. Oryx 30(3): 178-186. SUA/TU Report. 1996. Sokoine University and Tuskegee University Linkage Project. Annual Report: year one. SUA/TU Report. 1998. Sokoine University and Tuskegee University Linkage Project. Mid-term evaluation report. Financed by USAID / Tanzania under CA No. 6230000-A-0032 00 amendment number 3. TANAPA n.d. Tanzania National Parks Brochures for Mikurni and Udzungwa Nationa l Parks. Arusha, Tanzania. Tanganyika Game and Tsetse Division. 1935. Annual report. Government Printer Dar es Salaam, Tanganyika. (Quoted in Harris, L.D 1972 An ecological description of a semi-arid East African ecosystem. Range Science Dept. Sci. Ser. No. 11, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins).

PAGE 143

130 Temu, A.J. 1969. The rise and triumph of nationalism. Pages 189-213 in I.N. Kimambo and A.J. Temu, editors. A history of Tanzania. East Africa Publishing House, Nairobi, Kenya. Thresher, P.B. 1965. The potential of the Mkomazi Game Reserve as a national park. Report submitted to the Tanzania Game Department, Dar es Salaam. Located at: Special Collection Archives, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA. Turner, J.B. 1970a. Annual report of progress of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, 1969. Located at: Special Collection Archives, University of Florida, Gainesville USA. ------'' 1970b. Monthly report of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Feb. 1970. Located at: Special Collection Archives University of Florida, Gainesville, USA. TWPF. 1998 Tanzania Wildlife Protection Fund. Kakakuona, No. 10, July-September. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Uiowa. 1999. The University oflowa. Arts and life in Africa-on line. Obermann Center for Advanced Studies. Available from http: // www.uiowa.edu/-africart/toc / countries / Tanzania.html ( accessed 2 May 2000). Warren S.T., editor. 1992. Gender and environment: lessons from social forestry and natural resource management. Aga Khan Foundation Canada Toronoto. Watson R. 1991. Mkomazi-restoring Africa. Swara 14(5):14-16. WCMC. 2000. World Conservation Monitoring Centre IUCN Guidelines for protected areas management categories (1994). Available from http://www.wcmc.org.uk/protected areas (accessed 9 March 2000). Wells M., and K. Brandon with L. Hannah. 1992. People and parks : linking protected area management with local communities. The World Bank World Wildlife Fund and USAID, Washington, D C. Western, D M. 1993. Ecosystem conservation and rural development: the Amboseli case study. Case study prepared for the Liz Claiborne Art Ortenberg Foundation Community-Based Conservation workshop, October 18-22 Airline Virginia. __ . 1994. Linking conservation and community aspirations. Pages 499-511 in D.M . Western R.M. Wright and S. Strum, editors. Natural connections: perspecti v es in community-based conservation. Island Press Washington D.C. __ .. 1997. In the dust of Kilimanjaro. Island Press, Washington D.C.

PAGE 144

131 __ and R.M. Wright. 1994. The background to community-based conservation. Pages 1-12 in D.M. Western R.M. Wright and S. Strum editors. Natural connections : perspectives in community-based conservation. Island Press Washington D.C. __ R.M. Wright and S Strum editors. 1994 Natural connections ; perspectives on community based management. Island Press Washington D.C. Willoughby J.C 1889 East Africa and its big game. Longmans Green and Co. London. (Quoted in Harris L.D. 1972. An ecological description of a semi-arid East African ecosystem. Range Science Dept. Sci. Ser No. 11, Colorado State University Ft. Collins). Wyant, W. 1982. Westward in Eden : the public lands and the conservation movement. University of California Press Berkeley California Zacharia, M 1990 Land use conflict in semi-arid areas: an approach to sustainable management of wildlife resources Mkomazi Game Reserve case study. Master s thesis. Agriculture University of Norway

PAGE 145

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH I was born and raised in Chattanooga, TN I am the proud daughte ~ of M i liah Dickerson Haslerig and John Haslerig ( deceased) and the youngest sibling to three o l der brothers John, Charles, and Andre. Upon graduating from Chattanooga High School i n 1981 I attended Middle Tennessee State University and graduated in 1984 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Animal Science. In 1985 I moved to Dayton OH, where I worked for Farmers Home Administration within the United States Department of Agriculture. After four y ears with USDA, I returned to school full-time to pursue a Master of Science degree in Wildlife Biology at the University of Missouri-Columbia. Immediately after gradua t ing in August 1993, I enrolled in Colorado State University where I pursued post-graduate studies. In 1994 determined to undertake an international Ph.D. project, I 1nrolled in the University of Florida under the tutelage of Dr. Larry Harris. With financial assistance from Tuskegee University (USAID), I conducted field research in Tanzania. During the course of my academic tenure I have benefited from a J ide v ariety o f job experiences including opportunities with the U S. Fish and Wildlife Service U .S. Forest Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and field-related university positio ~ Throughout my 37 years, I have been blessed with wonderful frien1s a loving family, extraordinary advisors and mentors excellent supervisors and a host of insp i rin g colleagues and co-workers. 132

PAGE 146

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforrt)s to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scoPie and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philor. g) liawrence D. Harris, 'chair Emeritus Professor of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. w~ Richard E. Bodmer Assistant Professor of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Raym6nciR.Carthy Assistant Professor of Wiltllife Ecology and Conservation I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philoso hy. chael Chege sociate Professor of Political Science I certify that I have read this study and that in my op nit conforlns to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully de uate, in sc p as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Goran S. Hyden Distinguished Profess Science

PAGE 147

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it confot4s to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. o~a, ~ Patricia A. Werner Professor of Wildlife Ecol0gy and Conservation I This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. I December 2000 :~ \J~-:5--Dean, College of Agriculhlral fiife Sciences I Dean, Graduate School

PAGE 148

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 11111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111 1111111111111111111111 3 1262 08554 2461


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EAW07JIFC_YHRH89 INGEST_TIME 2011-09-29T18:59:49Z PACKAGE AA00004703_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES