Assessment and Evaluation of the Wildlife Management Areas in Tanzania

Keywords:

Abstract:

<strong>Background</strong><br>
In December 2006 the Institute of Resource Assessment (IRA) was contracted by
the Tanzania Programme Office of the WWF to undertake an assessment and evaluation
of wildlife management areas (WMAs) in the country. The main objectives of this
assignment were to:<br>
&#8226;
Evaluate the implementation of the process to establish a WMA;<br>
&#8226;
Evaluate the design of the pilot phase for the WMA looking at the extent to which
the design has facilitated the implementation of WMAs, and <br>
&#8226;
Identify factors that can enhance sustainability of WMAs.
<p>The evaluation was done in response to the WMA Regulations that require the
pilot WMA to be assessed after the lapse of 36 months since the Regulations
come to force. The assessment and evaluation aims to explore lessons learnt
in order to provide a road map for WMA implementation in Tanzania.</p>
<p><strong>Methodology</strong><br>
This assignment involved assessment and evaluation of the 16 pilot WMAs in
Tanzania.<br>
The assessment and evaluation process covered ecological, economic, and sociological
aspects related to the pilot WMAs. The combination of these aspects necessitates
the use of a variety of approaches in the collection of both primary and secondary
information from the pilot WMAs. </p>
<p>Before visiting the respective WMAs, the Review Team consulted various stakeholders
at the national, regional and district levels, where it conducted interviews
and discussed with the appropriate officials with the purpose of getting their
views about the importance, capacity, and feasibility of the WMA concept. Also,
the team consulted with the various donors for the respective WMAs to collect
and assess data and information related to the facilitation process for the
WMAs. Moreover, issues related to performance, strength, weaknesses and opportunities
of each WMA and the WMA establishment process as stipulated in the WMA Guidelines
were explored. The discussions with district officials enabled the team to
assess and evaluate the technical, administrative, community involvement and
management structures to each of the WMAs.</p>
<p><strong>Lessons Learned </strong><br>
From the analysis and discussion of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and
threats to the WMA design and implementation process, the team is able to
draw up at least nine major lessons, as follows: <br>
&#8226;
WMA is a viable economic and wildlife conservation enterprise outside wildlife
protected areas, and it is worth investing on it. </p>
<p>&#8226; The process of establishing WMAs is long and cumbersome. This does
in many ways not only discourage communities by the resultant cost and bureaucratic
complexity, but also lead to successful WMAs being formed only in areas with
significant external support. The capital-intensive nature of activities like
land use planning, natural resource management zoning, numerous consultative
meetings in WMAs with many villages, and patrols make implementation of the
WMA concept difficult indeed without donor support. Hence, continued facilitation
is imperative in the whole process of establishment of WMAs. Specifically:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>o WD should endeavour to continue sensitizing, educating and training communities
on the WMA Regulations and Guidelines, and seek collaboration of other relevant
sector ministries in order to speed up the process of developing WMAs. <br>
o WD should make more user friendly manuals, and revise the existing WMA Regulations,
guidelines and Manuals (as identified in the analysis of the findings of the
WMA Assessment Report), to enable communities better understand the WMA development
process.<br>
o WD should strive to reduce WMA development costs by shortening the process
of preparing Resource Zone Management Plan (RZMP) and working with the Ministry
of Lands and Human Settlement Development (MLHSD) to shorten the process of
undertaking VLUP.<br>
o WD should liaise with MLHSD to ensure that potential villages to establish
WMAs are included in the programme to implement the Strategic Plan for Implementation
of Land Laws (SPILL).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>&#8226; Recent history of conflict over land alienation for parks and game reserves
has contributed substantially to the lack of progress on the establishment
of WMAs in areas such as Tarime and Loliondo. WD should continue sensitizing
and educate villagers on WPT objectives with regard to development of
WMAs, to remove perceived fears of losing their land.<br>
&#8226; Capacity building is the main issue emerging after the WMAs have attained
an AA status and resource User Rights. All such WMAs do not have business
and strategic plans to manage the WMAs and run business. It is recommended
that PMO-RALG should make concerted efforts to assist WMAs by recruiting qualified
and adequate personnel at the district councils. Also, WD should continue
to
seek funding for implementation of the training needs assessment report
for
WMAs, and make the report available to all stakeholders.</p>
<p>&#8226; Poor governance with little transparency and accountability is the
general condition of many of the local level institutions. In some villages
CBOs have distanced themselves too much from the Village Councils and hence
also from the local communities. On the other hand, some of the Village Councils
lack transparency in income and expenditures. PMO-RALG should ensure that CBOs/AAs
adhere to their constitutions and financial regulations<br>
&#8226;
In villages with rich wildlife and/or potential for investors there are strong
anti-WMA establishment sentiments often fostered by individual investors and
conflicting interests from some NGOs. Innovative and flexible ways need to
be devised by facilitators to raise awareness among the local communities and
promote the WMA option as a more attractive and viable economic venture.<br>
&#8226;
Benefit sharing between the Central Government and the local communities, and
between villages with different land sizes contributed to the WMAs or with
different resource bases, is still not so well defined. <br>
&#8226;
In harmonising resource management, the WMA Regulations provide for the compliance
of other laws in the utilisation of other resources in a WMA, such as forests,
beekeeping activities, fisheries and mining. There is a need therefore to conserve
all natural resources in a holistic approach, while observing the respective
sectoral laws. WD should strengthen the training offered at Likuyu Sekamaganga
Community-based Training Centre and Pansiasi Wildlife Training Institute in
order to make sure that they integrate other natural resources in their training
curricula.<br>
&#8226;
WMAs are not homogeneous. There are different socio-economic conditions and
cultural lines within and between WMAs that need to be properly understood
as they each demand different approaches to planning. <br>
&#8226;
While the Environmental Management Act (EMA, 2004) and EIA Regulations of 2005
and WMA Regulations of 2003 require EIAs fro all development projects in ecologically
sensitive areas, there is low awareness at village/WMA levels. </p>
<p><strong>Best Practices</strong></p>
<p>Although none of the 16 pilot WMAs had been operational by the time of this
Evaluation, there are a few best practices that can be documented, as follows:</p>
<p>&#8226; In the WMAs that had earlier on participated in CBC programmes/projects
around the SGR, presence of demonstrable benefits to communities in the form
of legal access to game meat and revenue derived from sale of quotas in WMAs
has given an extra impetus to the process of establishing the WMAs. So has
been the case in areas where individual villages had benefited from private
tourist hunting and photographic safari companies that had entered into local
agreements to provide development support to adjacent villages as in Western
Serengeti (e.g. Robanda village in Ikona). WMAs such as the Pawaga-Idodi WMA
in Iringa District managed by the MBOMIPA association, have been able to earn
income by selling wildlife quotas to resident hunters.</p>
<p>&#8226; Commitment at the macro or meso level is crucial for establishing
vibrant links between the micro and the macro. Wildlife Division has involved
local government authorities in planning and implementation of WMA programmes.
In this case local government&#8217;s commitment is demonstrated through direct
participation and through the institutionalization of the Wildlife Division
/Local Government relationship. Most of WMA interventions have been scaled
up to the meso level vis-&agrave;-vis the District Strategic Action Plans so
as to ensure conformity and avoid duplication of activities. Meso level institutions,
e.g. the DGO, DCDO, etc., have also done the district level training, received
feedback and given out recommendations for improvement. This relationship needs
to be enhanced and promoted.</p>
<p>&#8226; The role of NGOs as facilitators of the WMA process is provided for
under regulation 77 of the WMA Regulations. NGOs like Africare, World Wide
Fund for Nature (WWF), Frankfurt Zoological Society (FZS), African Wildlife
Foundation (AWF), have successfully facilitated the establishment of WMAs using
this regulation. The eight (8) WMAs that have acquired user rights were facilitated
by Africare, WWF, FZS and AWF.</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>The Way Forward</strong></p>
<p>The following recommendations for improving the WMA process focus on the three
objectives of this assignment, as follows:</p>
<p>Recommendations for Improved Implementation of the Process to Establish a
WMA<br>
&#8226;
In order to ensure that the Wildlife Policy (1998), WMA Guidelines (2002) and
Regulations (2004) are supported by a principal legislation, it is recommended
that the new Wildlife Act be finalised as soon as possible.</p>
<p>&#8226; WD should continue to emphasize the role of NGOs as facilitators and
capacity builders as stipulated in the WPT and to ensure that ownership of
the WMA remains to be vested in local communities.</p>
<p>&#8226; In order to align the roles of NGOs and the private sector with the
part that provides for their approval, Regulation 77 should be moved and put
just after Regulation 32.</p>
<p>&#8226; WD should continue to provide sensitization; education and training
on WPT and WMA Regulations to such areas, so as to improve governance hence
remove tensions and create a good atmosphere for the entities to work in harmony.</p>
<p>&#8226; In order to reduce the wildlife-human conflicts WD shall include
the following strategies with a view to addressing the problem:</p>
<blockquote>
<p> o Incorporating problem animals that are shot annually into hunting quota
thus deriving greater economic benefit to the villagers, using regulations
50 and
53 of the WMA Regulations;<br>
o Explore and make use of mechanical and electrical deterrents, which are
non lethal; and<br>
o Sensitizing and educating villagers on the economic value of wildlife.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Recommendations for the Design of the Pilot Phase for the WMA</strong></p>
<p>&#8226; As an exit strategy, WD should gradually withdraw its powers from
WMA management by introducing user friendly versions of standards, guidelines
of all important activities such as contracting experts, negotiations, resource
use, while remaining with the roles of custodianship of wildlife, regulation
and monitoring.</p>
<p>&#8226; WD should endeavour to advice WMAs actors and villagers on the complexity
of identifying genuine potential investors, given its experience in the tourist
hunting industry.</p>
<p>&#8226; WD should educate and provide capacity to AAs to enable them to organise
themselves to form a consortium in order to facilitate the nomination of two
members to represent them in the Block Allocation Advisory Committee, as per
regulation 55.</p>
<p>&#8226; In order to reduce bureaucracy and accelerate the process of establishing
WMAs, applications by CBOs for AA status, User Rights and hunting blocks should
be combined.</p>
<p>&#8226; WD should inform AAs the benefit sharing ratio that will apply to
revenue collected from the WMA, as well as when there is a change to the formula,
as approved by the Treasury.</p>
<p>&#8226; Villages forming a WMA should continue to divide revenue equally amongst
themselves as per Regulation 73. </p>
<p>&#8226; Revenue accrued from a tented camp or hotel situated on village land
outside the WMA could be collected and kept by the respective village, where
the facility is situated.</p>
<p>Recommendations for Enhanced Sustainability of WMAs<br>
&#8226;
Put in place a flexible post-User Rights capacity building programme, based
on local needs assessments of the AAs and the communities in general, as these
institutions are weak in human capital; lacking in both technical capacity
and skill to take off and later manage their resources and operate successfully. </p>
<p>&#8226; In order to clearly define the role of facilitators in this respect
a Facilitators Meeting should be organized on this issue by the Wildlife Division. </p>
<p>&#8226; WD should conduct a stakeholders meeting to disseminate the results
of WMA Assessment Report, elaborate on the role of facilitation of WMA development
process by NGOs and the private sector.</p>
<p>&#8226; WD should continue to emphasize the role of NGOs as facilitators and
capacity builders to ensure that ownership of the WMA remains to be vested
in villages that own the land, through the CBOs/AAs.</p>
<p>&#8226; Opportunities should be created for local communities to exercise
and practice the skills obtained to alleviate poverty at the household level
in simple, cheap and sustainable ways.</p>
<p>&#8226; Strengthen the WMA Regulations by clarifying the issue of benefit-sharing
and granting community&#8217;s greater control over wildlife utilization activities
such as tourist hunting and photo tourism. </p>
<p>&#8226; Instead of relying solely on the resources of the donors, the WD should
take a more pro-active role in the facilitation and roll-out of WMAs. The current
initiatives of allocating a percentage of the tourist hunting fees to the WMA
formation process are appreciable. However, other possible avenues of funding
need to be explored. Districts that have or are going to establish WMAs should
include WMA development in their District Development Plans, also and reflect
this in their annual budgets. Also, the MNRT should prepare a proposal for
funding of WMA in order to secure funds for districts which will engage in
development of WMAs, since they contribute to the implementation of MKUKUTA
and MKURABITA. </p>
<p>&#8226; There should be awareness raising for local communities and investors
on the need for EIAs for development projects invested in WMAs. </p>
<p>&#8226; In order to reduce the wildlife-human conflicts WD shall include the
following strategies with a view to addressing the problem:</p>
<blockquote>
<p> o Incorporating problem animals that are shot annually into hunting quota
thus deriving greater economic benefit to the villagers, using regulations
50 and
53 of the WMA Regulations;<br>
o Explore and make use of mechanical and electrical deterrents, which are
non lethal; and<br>
o Sensitizing and educating villagers on the economic value of wildlife.</p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>

Attachment	Size
E-INFO-WWF_WMA Assessment_Final_Report_2007.pdf	605.1 KB