New Non-Consumptive Wildlife Use Regulations - Member responses

Dear Paul and everyone, The Swahili version of the WMA regulations state that only the English version is binding. I suspect, though I don’t know, that these new regulations have a similar clause. The things that Paul has observed are completely consistent with my analysis of conservation under free market reforms, not just in Tanzania but in many other parts of the world. Basically there are some paradoxes between the structures needed to facilitate the spread of free markets, the ways in which NGO fund raising works, colonial institutional legacies, and the types of hard work and philosophical/ethical commitment necessary to actually do things democratically and equitably. There is a lot of analysis emerging on these problems, and some of it is mine. I have already plugged the most recent issue of Policy Matters on conservation and human rights, but I will plug it again here: it is timely and available online at: http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Publications/newsletter/PM15.pdf I also have something coming out in the next issue of Conservation and Society, which is also available online at: http://www.conservationandsociety.org/past-issues.php One of the challenges is to make this type of analysis available to diverse interested parties, for now I will leave it at this: It not longer makes sense to talk about conservation NGOs misleading Ministries or Vice Versa. In fact, we need to look beyond this type of outmoded institutional thinking to understand that what we are dealing with now are transnational networks of interest that cross-cut all kinds of institutions. These networks are what drive the way conservation gets done. This is not some sort of conspiracy theory, the members of these networks are diverse and not all agree with each other, in fact all of us on this list are members in some way or another. As such, as Paul is noting, we are all implicated and all have responsibilities vis-à-vis how things play out in the future of conservation both in Tanzania and globally. A starting point for thinking about this is Robert Chambers’s excellent essay, the Primacy of the Personal. Best to you all, Jim Igoe

Dear Sir/Madam, Keep up the good work. Concerning the new regulations, I think it is obvious that the majority of people who know about it are against it as they stand. On your web site you indicate you have not taken a position on this issue, please do. Could you possible post a page for a petition against the new regulations, as I will post your relevant link on our Lake Natron Camp website which gets many hits. We could pass the petition on to the ministry. Looking forward to your response. Sincerely, Tim Leach

Dear TNRF and all, The sights of people in utter poverty that were sitting beside the roads on my resent drive from Iringa to Arusha via Dodoma has me quite depressed and after two weeks away on safari with a breeze through my mind I have a few more comments to add to this debate, but firstly a question or two or ten. Incidentally all the comments about getting Kiswahili versions of these regulations out to the very people they affect are spot on so I ask - is anyone doing that? Most village resource officers are too scared to speak out against the Ministry, the ones that have been brave enough to do so have suffered and some quite badly. Surely the role of such officials is to inform their relevant community about any changes that the Ministry ‘suggests’ and to provide village member feedback to the Ministry? Does this actually happen or does this officer just inform communities of such changes? Do NGO’s take such dramatic changes out to communities? Does the Ministry just blatantly ignore community feedback? Which communities have ever defied such regulations on the basis of ‘we were never consulted, therefore we will not follow’? I suppose that all village communities that have signed agreements with non consumptive operators have in their way ignored the previous Wildlife Acts/regulations or have we all been guilty of just declaring ‘we operate cultural tourism not wildlife tourism’ so past wildlife laws do not apply? Secondly I ask members if they agree with the following statement or would like to comment. An international NGO with a long standing history of conservation activities in Tanzania has a current slogan “WILDLIFE, LAND AND PEOPLE’. I believe that this is completely the wrong way round and worry that such NGO’s are not only advising the Ministry but influencing MP’s with such slogans. This NGO’s slogan seems to me to be aimed at the Western mind and subscription/fund raising efforts and not at informing policy makers and funding bodies of the real issues. Is this how conservation NGO’s work these days? Are Ministries around Africa being misled? Are Western fund providers being misled? I say - People first as they ultimately control the resource, land next as a healthy landscape provides people with a life of possible empowerment and with even slightly happier and more empowered people and a healthy landscape – wildlife does better – particularly if those people earn good development funds by allowing the wildlife on ‘their’ lands. If we constantly block people from being the most important aspect of conservation work we will ultimately lose all the wildlife. With a constant media barrage misleading the local decision makers as well as the fund providers what chance does top down conservation efforts have? None I feel. It is high time that Conservation NGO’s and our Ministries consulted with all stakeholders, and that means all local communities (our Ministries will never know the issues unless they make this effort) and by doing so they will understand more and perhaps be better able to translate the real issues to the conservation players worldwide, the NGO’s as well as the general public. Poverty levels are quickly getting higher for many communities and as their natural resources dwindle because of a lack of realistic stewardship these communities face a bleak future. These regulations are not about poverty reduction they are about Ministry empowerment. Or is it just too much like hard work? It is all very well stating that Tanzanian citizens have to rise to the challenge but without hope most communities just seem resigned to their fate. All of us must spread some hope to these communities by sticking with them in their struggle against top down policies that do not consult with them, or with any other stakeholders for that matter. We cannot just ask why there are not rising to the challenge. Intimidation abounds and resignation is easier if you are poor. Again I ask- are these new regulations out and translated – are there village resources officers and NGO’s working with these communities? Will the feedback come? Please give me a little hope. Paul Oliver.

Dear TNRF Secretariat,

I followed with interest the discussion that followed once you revealed the presense of the regulation. Very useful comments have been made as well lots of encouraging ideas suggested.

Questions:

1. Do you plan to provide an analysis and translation of the regulation into Kiswahili so that it is accessed by wananchi wasio wasomi? Or is it possible that it would be somewhere on another page of this web?

2. How soon will you carry the debate down to the "commons" especially to those whose part of their livelihood earnings was contributed by nonconcumptive hunting? Indeed so that they too have an opportunity to give their perspectives?

Hongera sana kwa kazi nzuri sana kwa umma wa Tanzania.

Toroka

I can see that this new regulations is written in English and it can be understood by few stakeholders. Can the Goverment translate this regulations in Kiswahili so that even local people can really understand what it is all about?

Also, can it known to all of us how this regulations are going to be institutionalized?

I understand that the Gov wants to have the general rules for the resources but I think a need to consult local people before signing the rules is very important other wise we will go back to 1970s - 1980s poaching episodes! local communities are willing to conserve the resource if at all they see a benefit and a control over it, but seems some members of the community they have no idea even on the initiatives of WMAs. Is very important to consider the role of poor rural people whose representation in the decision making is very poor despite them being using the same plots with wildlife. let TZ learn at least few things on community-wildlife positive relations from Kenya. I agree with some one who said let Tanzanians be responsible for this yes, but let us also consider those in the remote areas who has no even the radio, who represent them? I see that they are very marginalized. I am sure if it will go the way it is only those wajanja business people will benefit from it. is good to have both consumption and non consumption uses in the areas outside PAs but are the rules clear fro local communities on how to go through it? I am sure that more land will probably be turned into agriculture land as more fear for loss of land for wildlife will be realized. Jane Mary Ntalwila

In bringing our debate to the Tanzanian Government I suggest the words and advice from Africa’s greatest Statesman is appropriate, "Ultimately conservation is about people. If you don't have sustainable development around these (wildlife) parks, then people will have no interest in them, and the parks will not survive." Nelson Mandela, former President, South Africa. Part of his speech given when opening the extension of Marakele National park in South Africa, 1999. Tim Corfield

I have followed the ongoing debate about the new regulations, and I agree that they should be challenged. I am sure there is more to this debate than I can purport to understand, not being a Tanzanian, and having only joined this mailing list on the eve of the commencement of this debate. I hope to understand the context of the debate better as it unfolds. One thing that strikes me about the debate though, is the absence of the villagers and their representatives in the ongoing debate. Granted that the villagers cannot for obvious reasons be heard directly in this discussion, but where are the representatives of Tanzania civil society organizations whose mandate is to protect the interests the villagers? And I know a number of them who are members of TNRF! I think this is an important concern because in spite of all the good points being made from a conservation perspective, the truth is that the signing of these regulations and the ensuing controversy manifests a political problem. The tendency to centralise decision making over natural resources in a context where governance is decentralised by law as is the management of village land is a function of a governance deficit, and the struggle against it is a political struggle. I imagine this is what drives Mike Jones to wish for a Tanzanian Cicero. I fear that as long as this debate is seen to pit the government of Tanzania against the conservation lobby and/or tour operators or professional conservationists of largely Western origin, we are fighting a losing battle. The only real and sustainable hope we have of getting the government to pay attention is to get this debate to be owned and pushed by villagers in their village assemblies and through their village governments, who have seen the potential benefits coming from non-consumptive tourism. And even then, it shall still require concerted struggle. Michael -- Michael Ochieng Odhiambo Executive Director Resource Conflict Institute (RECONCILE)

Where indeed is the Tanzanian Cicero? His absence in matters to do with the wildlife sector has been long and very noticeable! This matter is not about how much money the government makes out of wildlife, or how much safari operators or villagers make, it is about the unsustainable use and gradual destruction of what is arguably the worlds most spectacular assemblage of large mammals. The resource is slipping away through everyone's fingers because of the focus on economic expediency and lack of a conservation ethic that views land, the communities of plants, animals and people that live on the land as related components of a rich biological capital that can be used forever with proper stewardship. The only people who can solve the problem are Tanzanian's and while the world may mourn the loss of Tanzania's wildlife, it is Tanzanians who are responsible for the current situation and its is only Tanzanians who can take the responsibility for solving the problems. A Tanzanian Cicero is sorely needed indeed! Mike Jones Sand County Foundation, Africa Programme

In one sweeping step, the new regulations transform the WMA process from an enabling one to a destructive one. Devolution of wildlife management authority promised communities a share of the billion-dollar tourism industry in Tanzania . The Wildlife Division’s new Regulations are even worse than the obstruction, incompetence and foot-dragging that characterized the last 4 years. They are nothing less than a “bait-and-switch,” where communities, local and international NGOs were duped into thinking they were helping people and wildlife. It appears that civil society organizations have used their scarce resources to establish tourism enterprises and new protected areas only to have them grabbed by the Wildlife Division’s ongoing, illegal and unchecked quest for power and revenues. Why should district and village governments subsidize the Wildlife Division by setting up protected areas for them? How many communities and NGOs would have undertaken such enterprises if these regulations existed at the outset? Likely none. If the Wildlife Division is actually interested in protecting the interests of communities and wildlife, it should immediately ensure that no less than 90% of the revenues generated by these regulations will remain with the village governments and CBOs that have established non-consumptive tourist developments on what is unequivocally their land. This arrangement, while it would restrict innovation and disadvantage areas with marginal wildlife resources, would at least show good faith on the part of the Wildlife Division. Anything less than a material demonstration of good faith would signal a sinister bid to take control of Village Land and a retreat from the Government of Tanzania’s Policy to devolve authority for wildlife management. This kind of land-grab should be opposed by every villager, every representative of village and district government, every Member of Parliament, and everyone in Tanzania . Name withheld by request

I apologise for the tenor of my posting of yesterday (first line below...) - I know many people feel that it was out of line.

I was sincerely reflecting the views of people that I know well much more closely connected to the issues than myself, including a Masai Village leader, a young Masai Lawyer and a few tour company operators. They rightly would not feel able to express those sentiments in public, and i felt I could serve them by synthesising their present views into a radical manifesto.

"While I admire Paul Oliver’s optimism, I fear that the time for engaging with the Wildlife Department is rapidly slipping away....."

These regulations have potentially serious implications for the future of community-based wildlife management (CBWM) and wildlife populations on village lands. In essence they will disrupt all current revenue flows to villages from wildlife on their lands arising from tourism business partnerships currently in operation. The regulations represent a potential loss of critical revenue for many local villages (in some cases up to USD100,000 per year - which as most will agree is a lot of money for a village). In essence these regulations go against the MKUKUTA and remove much needed revenue at local level for rural development - schools, clinics, scholarships for kids etc. They also break the crucial link between sustainable natural resource management and rural development - between wildlife conservation and improved rural livelihoods. They are also a loss for tourism businesses which have worked with rural communities over many years to develop successful partnerships and added value to communal rangelands, through increasingly innovative arrangements, including land and wildlife easements. And lastly, the regulations will remove most of the incentive for rural communities to keep wildlife on their land - why should they, if they can't benefit from it? The regulations are very probably ultra vires - conflicting with the Village Land Act, and the Local Government Act. Their implementation would arguably precipitate a contradiction with the Wildlife Policy of 2007 (the 1998 policy was amended in March 2007 and the amended policy has still not been publicised). The regulations were passed with no consultation with rural communities, local government, NGOs or the business community (TCT and TATO were certainly not consulted). The regulations display a substantial lack of understanding about the economics of wildlife management - and fiscal management. In regard to the former, it is a well known fact that centralisation of wildlife control and benefit flows (i.e. centralised revenue collection) on communal lands leads to a loss of incentive for rural land holders to conserve their wildlife - since they can't benefit from it (enough). In regards to the latter, short-term revenue collection maximisation strategies are being pursued at the expense of longer-term pro-community and pro-business development that would broaden the tax base considerably through encouraging vibrant business development in remote rural areas for the benefit of poor Tanzanians - somewhat contrary to some of the government's stated headline policies. The result is that everyone will loose in the long-term. The regulations send a message to Tanzanians that wildlife is to be controlled by the government for the government, and rural communities will bear the cost, as the government pleases. Note that while the regulations are very detailed about revenue collection and control of non-consumptive wildlife use, they are totally silent on the return of the revenue to the communities on whose land the wildlife resides, and who bear the costs. Two useful parallels to look at are (i) The consumptive wildlife-use industry which is chronically mismanaged (both ecologically and economically) (ii) The Forest Sector - where the FBD has pursued an enlightened policy of devolution leading to the creation over over 1800 village forest reserves, and increasing levels of benefits beginning to flow from them. Ironically, the new regulations lay claim to the wildlife revenues in some of these forest reserves as well, potentially undoing the hard work of the Forest and Beekeeping Division and its partnership with rural communities across Tanzania. Name withheld

Technically I suspect that most people will agree that clients can pay the levels of fees being listed by the new regulations – a great wilderness experience with a good guide off the beaten track is something worth paying a premium for perhaps even over and above National Park levels. But in all of the areas where there are communities are they aware of this current legislation and aware of exactly what the government is demanding tourists pay. My point is that if all the communities were to be made aware of what price the government has now put on their lands then with enough lobbying and time the payments could be made and then the government paid by the villages (rather than the other way around). That would mean however that villages register a legal entity that starts paying income tax. Ake Lindstrom African Summits

I was shocked to read these insensitive regulations and in my opinion I suspect such intent may well have been sitting around in draft form for years, waiting for a Minister to sign. If that is indeed the case I sincerely hope that past Ministers rejected such drastic and negative measures. By blatantly disempowering the citizens of Tanzania with any wildlife ownership or direct income option in such a fashion the very Ministry that is responsible for the health of wildlife in Tanzania has overnight caused not only the demise of wildlife over vast areas of this country, they have stripped away the hope and much needed wildlife generated income of ten of thousands of their citizens. These citizens do not live close to the growing town economies and have become dependant on this direct income from the non consumptive photographic industry in recent years. These communities decide where these funds are most needed in their own community. This is an important aspect of these agreements with the photographic industry – these communities know their own needs and where wildlife options can be exploited better than any Government office. They do not want to be told that they have no wildlife income option; they want sensible collective income generating resources that they can wholly decide upon. The Central Government’s role should be to advise on these options so that outsiders do not over exploit these community held natural resourses. Tanzania‘s Wildlife Division have long sought to find solutions to the problem of lost wildlife habitat caused by the expansion of farming activities or poaching excesses. The government’s income from trophy hunting has been reduced in vast areas over this past two decades. Many once viable hunting concessions have been over shot because of sub division, been cleared for charcoal and then farmed or degraded by one cause or another. Pastoralists and hunter gathering cultures have slowly been pushed on to smaller parcels of land to make way for farming cultures and their activities. This has led to conflict between all these different cultures and as people that depend on natural resources are pushed onto less endowed environments these marginal lands (that supported wildlife and the trophy hunting industry) have become over utilized and in some areas where pastoralists have seen their cattle economy falter because these lands are poor, desperate farming activities have been tried. These once wildlife productive dry land habitats are under siege and as poor people move onto them their lives become harder and the wildlife option for all is being lost to these citizens of Tanzania as well as the trophy hunters and Wildlife Division. In 1986 a well intentioned paper was written by Marcus Boner entitled “The growing Isolation of Tarangire National Park” and the recommendations included a suggested change in status for the vast bush lands East of this park from Game Controlled and Open Areas to a second Conservation Area (after Ngorongoro). This paper led the Maasai residents of these areas to the conclusion that their land was about to be taken away from them and that they would perhaps never have any land right future on which to build income options. We then witnessed increased claims of village land tenure which the Land Act of a few years later supported. The village land certificates subsequently issued went only up to the border of the Game Controlled Area. Once this was discovered these villages sought ways of claiming the land closer to the Tarangire Eastern border – they supported legally binding contracts with the photographic operators (these agreements were actually given written support by the Wildlife Division and TANAPA in 1990/1), they gave written permission to farmers to clear extensive areas some of which were inside the Game Controlled area – land that was not included in their village certificates. Some parties, with the help of village communities, even obtained title deeds within the GCA. The point I am trying to make is that the resident’s of any area outside a National Park or Game Reserve will ultimately decide on the land use and if the threat of a fully protected area is seen as likely to be imposed on their land or that the Natural Resource of ‘their’ land will be benefiting others, these communities will stake their claim by clearing the land to farm themselves or by issuing hundreds of 99 acre plots to outsiders to farm. Why do communities do this? I believe the answer is simple. These communities do not trust the Central Government and have never felt that any real empowerment of wildlife ownership has been forthcoming from the Ministry. If the future ownership and therefore benefits of a forest or water or wildlife –any village Natural Recourse-is in doubt, they actually have no option but to impose their ownership by changing the very nature of that resource. Their lives depend on this. Remove the wildlife by clearing the land and the problem with central government goes away! There was a glimmer of hope that turned into solid income from photographic non consumptive tourism during the 90.s and with the introduction of the Wildlife Management Areas Act the small amount of trust evaporated and these new regulations prove that the comments made over the past years by such communities, namely that Central Government will never allow us to fully own any wildlife resource, have been proven correct. All my statements about the Government being more far sighted than that seem ridiculed indeed. Dear Minister, These communities have the ultimate control over these lands-they live and depend on these natural resources. If you take away the wildlife income option the wildlife will disappear forever. No hunting or photographic safari income will come the way of Central Government and cultural tourism doesn’t want to view farmed fields surrounded by dying cultures! Please empower these communities with a wildlife option once and for all. Let them decide between a hunting or photographic operators presence on their village lands. Tax them on their income but let it be their income. You do not have to give any consumptive powers away.. If the villagers choose hunting – you still license it. Your ministry should be seducing these communities to keep wildlife on their land not forcing them to abandon it. They may choose to farm, if so that’s fine as well. Many communities have done that in the past- without your blessings and against previous wildlife Acts or regulations. Don’t set in motion a mass clearing of healthy bush land that supports good wildlife and is the cultural basis for pastoralist and hunter gatherer cultures. Tanzania will loose! Cultures will be lost and a great natural heritage squandered. Your citizens deserve better leadership than the short sightedness displayed in these new and incestuous regulations. Paul Oliver.