Human-Elephant Conflicts in Tanzania: The need for a Manipulative Scientific Wildlife Management Strategy (Part Two)

More than 100 Elephants Raided farms in Kitanda Village, Nantumbo District, Ruvuma Region, Tanzania on 21 May 2020. Photo from Ruvuma TV video

How Did We Get Here? Why Have Elephants Become a Menace at Low Numbers?

We got to where we are with the elephant and other human and wildlife conflicts because, in simple terms, the authorities entrusted with the management of wildlife have not been doing their job as they should. More specifically, wildlife authorities have not been applying appropriate wildlife management strategy to prevent the problem from occurring.

The wildlife management strategy in Tanzania has generally been to let nature take its course, while focusing on protecting wildlife from poaching. This strategy dates back to the era of preservation, which is more than a century ago, and before the conservation idea was born around 1910. However, even this is just a more convenient date to mark the beginning of conservation as a specialized natural resource management discipline and movement based on properly articulated and universally agreed on concept embracing protection, as well as wise use. The latter implies application of animal harvest strategy. Application of habitat manipulation strategy is implied in the definition for environmental conservation as published in the World Conservation Strategy of 1982.

However, the actual beginnings of management of wildlife by applying animal harvest and/or habitat manipulation strategies date back to Biblical times (in the Moses’ Law) and the Mongol Republic in the 13th Century, respectively. This means letting nature take its course as a way of “managing” wildlife in this day and age is terribly outdated.

Letting nature take its course when animal and human populations are growing on fixed land is simply untenable. History has taught us that when animal populations are left to grow indefinitely in a fixed area without hunting/cropping, as was the often-quoted classic case of the Kaibab Forest deer in North-Central Arizona, USA, pretty soon “they will eat themselves out of house and home”, and the population will ultimately crush; that is, die en masse. Incidents like this happen when movement of animals is restricted by some physical barrier. The situation for the elephants in Tanzania is basically different, their movement are virtually unrestricted.

Indeed, for a long time, Tanzania has had large areas of protected areas and open areas that allow unrestricted movement to elephants. When elephants find themselves in areas where they cannot find enough food, water and cover, they move on freely in search of what they need. When in search of their needs, protected area boundary beacons, or those of farmland do not deter elephants from pursuing what they need. This is usually a seasonal event, occurring mainly during the dry season.

Elephants on trek in Northern Tanzania. Picture by Nigel Pavitt?JAI/Corbis

What is making this (2021) year’s HEC worrisome is not just the magnitude of the problem as described above, but also the fact that this time the elephant raids are occurring during the rainy season when food and water should not be a problem. The major problem then seems to be more like habitat shrinkage than food and water shortages. This means the protected areas of origin and associated buffer zones have been reduced in expanse such that they can no longer provide sufficient home range for such a big gregarious mammal as the elephant even during the rainy season. An adult elephant requires between 100-200 kg of a variety of plant material for food, depending on body size; and drinks up to 300 liters of water per day! One herd of elephants may have up to 40 individuals. As a result of habitat shrinkage, and high resource requirements, we are getting elephant migrations and raids when they are much fewer than they were 50 years ago.

Habitat Shrinkage as the Most Proximate Cause of Elephant Invasions and Damage

The question of habitat shrinkage in Tanzania is no longer academic, nor guesswork; it is real. There is now growing credible quantitative information that clearly show that the elephant habitat has shrunk tremendously over the past 50 years. The Tanzania Elephant Management Plan (TEMP) Team in its TEMP 2010-2015, for instance, quoted the African Elephant Specialist Group elephant database to have shown that elephant range in Tanzania had decreased from 458,315 sq.km in 1998 to approximately 370,000 sq.km in 2009.

However, what seems to be the most substantive loss of wildlife habitat to human use is the land that was officially withdrawn last year from the conservation estate through the Government’s decision to allow protected area encroachers to remain and be given ownership titles to those areas. Over 750,000 acres of wildlife habitat has been lost through the exercise that involved a committee of 8 ministers appointed by the late President J. Magufuli to examine and resolve the problem of conflicts between encroaching villages and protected area authorities. Out of 975 villages that had invaded game controlled areas, 920 were allowed to stay, and the remaining 55 were reported to be under consideration. The exercise entails degazettement of 12 game controlled areas and 7 forest reserves, covering an area of 707,659 acres and 46,745 acres, respectively.

The decision to degazette those protected areas came in the wake of people’s outcry beseeching the President’s mercy, claiming they were already established, and that some had no homes to go to, and could not afford to set up new homes. According to the Minster of Lands, Housing and Human Settlements Development, who was also the Chairman of the committee of 8 ministers that carried out the exercise, the major reason for degazetting those areas is that they were found to be no longer viable for respective conservation purposes. It is worth noting that game controlled areas were gazetted in the ‘50s, but to date many have not been clearly demarcated, and have no signs of management activities, hence their vulnerability to human encroachment. 

In addition to the 19 protected areas, settlements and other human activities found in the 500m buffer zones surrounding protected areas have been tentatively allowed to remain. If the national political stance remains as it was last year, and given the legal provision for “adverse property” clause, and the speed at which the Government has been handling such land matters, the occupied buffer zones will certainly ultimately be approved for human settlement. All this together amounts to a huge chunk of protected area estate to be taken away from wildlife habitat within a short span of time. This has considerable ecological impact on wildlife, especially animals with huge resource requirements like the elephant. The land withdrawn from wildlife through this exercise, together with other undocumented human encroachments, is certain to have reduced the habitat for the elephants significantly and forced them to go searching for their needs elsewhere.

The Way Forward: Instituting and Practicing Manipulative Scientific Wildlife Management Strategy

In any case, and whatever is the proximate reason for elephant migration and consequent damage to humans and their property, application of scientific research and habitat manipulation could have prevented the problem, or at least kept it at manageable level. Now, in order to prevent the crisis from worsening, and given the magnitude of the problem, the Government will do well to make coordinated and sustained efforts to ensure that available scientific research information, techniques, and ecological knowledge are being applied to contain the problem, while preventing further human encroachment on protected areas, buffer zones, and migration corridors. That is, in the short run; and it is largely the responsibility of management entities…it’s managers job.

In the long run, the wildlife policy and decision makers viz. the Wildlife Division, the Tanzania Wildlife Management Authority (TAWA), Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority, and even Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA) need to re-orient, or rather modernize, the country’s wildlife management strategy to keep pace with ecological changes. The most important aspect of this change is to apply manipulative strategies to keep pace with changing human and wildlife dynamics, with the view to maintaining harmony between humans and wildlife. At some point this will involve training and retraining personnel, as well as changing curricula to keep pace with changing wildlife management needs.

Making the necessary change in the way wildlife is managed in Tanzania may sound complicated, involving, and costly. At the beginning it may well be all that, due to the magnitude of the problem, and having been left to grow unchecked for a long time. Sometimes all that is needed is using fire as a vegetation management tool and bored or shallow water wells as sources of drinking water during dry seasons. Generally, applying appropriate management techniques at appropriate time is much cheaper than the current fire-fighting techniques that are involving a number of stakeholders, including higher level leadership each time there is a fatal incident or huge conflict, many of whom contribute no substantive value to the solution.

Interestingly, our political leaders have on a couple of occasions hinted at the need to apply manipulative scientific wildlife management, without calling it such. Several years ago, elephants “disappeared” from Ruaha National Park, and in another instance, hippos were over crowded in mad pools and died in large numbers in Katavi National Park, and it was the late President John Magufuli and former Prime Minister Mizengo P. Pinda who identified the causes of the problems and suggested that water wells be dug for the animals during dry season to prevent mass die offs and migration. In one occasion the Late President Magufuli ordered park stuff to deliver water to the hippo pools and construct an artificial water trough for the animals. And last year the late President Magufuli reintroduced game harvesting, which, if done appropriately will contribute to the harvest strategy needed to control animal populations.

To cap it all, human-elephant conflicts in Tanzania are, for the most part, due to absence of manipulative scientific wildlife management strategy, which is now long overdue, and for which there is supportive legal, institutional, and political environment; and therefore, no good reason why it should not be applied to stem the problem and, indeed, other human-wildlife conflicts.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Human-Elephant Conflicts in Tanzania: The Need for a Manipulative Scientific Wildlife Management Strategy (Part One)

Image by Matt Cramblett (Unsplash

The elephants in Tanzania have recently become notorious for raiding farms, stampeding crops, and trekking along routes that cross into people’s paths to farms, schools and other human activities. In some areas like Kalulu in Tunduru, Ruvuma Region, elephants have been reported to stay on village land all year round! There are reports of elephants crossing through towns and villages and causing tremendous panic. In some cases, these invasions have resulted in human injuries and deaths. Last year, for example, elephants were reported to have caused 16 human deaths in one season in one ward alone out of 8 wards of Mvomero District, Morogoro Region! The seriousness of the problem differs from location to location. However, to date, cases of serious elephant crop damage and human deaths have been reported in more than half of the country’s regions and districts, and the problem seems to be growing and spreading. As pointed out at the beginning, damages of this magnitude are a recent development. So, what has gone wrong?

A Bit of History

Elephant damage to humans and farms is not a new problem in Tanzania. What is new is the magnitude and impact on humans. The problem per se goes back to the beginning of the 20th Century, and is variously reported to have been so serious in some parts of Tanzania that it prompted the establishment of the Elephant Control Department to deal with it. The Department did manage to keep the elephant damage problem in check. However, as years went by, and humans grew in numbers, their livelihood and development activities encroached on what was previously elephant habitat, a development that led to what we now know as human-elephant conflicts (HEC).

A survey conducted in 2009 by the Tanzania Elephant Management Team to ascertain the scale and distribution of HEC by district across Tanzania came up with results indicating that out of 64 districts that responded to the questionnaire and had elephant populations, 60 had HEC; and two of them, Rombo in Kilimanjaro Region, and Bunda in Mara Region, had each over 500 HEC incidents in 2009. As for human injury and deaths due to elephants, the Team reported an approximate average of 30-40 injuries, and 40-50 deaths per year across the country  between 2007-2009.

In recent months however, the problem has escalated to the extent of a single ward reporting more than 16 deaths in a year! And this is happening when there are institutions, zonal centers, and international development partners dedicated to dealing with HEC. So, what has gone wrong, and how can the scourge be stemmed?

If the answer to the question was to be given in one sentence, it would be something like: what has gone wrong is that the ever growing human population and development, and consequent expansion of human land use activities have resulted in increasing shrinkage of elephant habitat, and in turn resulted in reduced life support resources for the elephants to the extent that has compelled them to search for those resources outside wildlife protected areas and their usual home ranges. The latter include buffer zones to protected areas and established migratory routes such as the Kwakuchinja-Mbugwe wildlife corridor in Manyara Region.

The reason given above for growing HECs is the most proximate cause of the problem; but it is not the root cause, or ultimate cause. In my view, the root cause of the problem is outdated and inappropriate wildlife management strategy; and this applies to almost all human-wildlife conflicts in Tanzania. This article provides an overview of elephant population trends in Tanzania, concerns, Government responses, and questions over elephant migration and farm raids in the past 50 years with the view to highlighting proximate and, ultimately, the root cause and the strategy being recommended as the way forward towards lasting solution.

Elephant Population Concerns of the 80s and 90s: National and International Responses

In the 80s and 90s we heard and read more about elephants in relation to poaching and the urgency of the need to protect the species than we heard and read of their damage. We were thus concerned about losing the elephants to poachers at what appeared to be an increasingly alarming rate. Also, elsewhere in Africa the elephant populations were on the decline. Accordingly, the African elephant (Loxodonta Africana) was placed on the List of Threatened Species in the IUCN Red Data Book, which meant the use and trading of elephant products had to be done as per the regulations of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Subsequently, elephant hunting and trading in ivory were banned.

The Government of the United Republic of Tanzania (URT), for her part, made all possible efforts to protect her largest land mammal, which is also one of the major tourist attractions in the country. Efforts included increasing the number of game scouts, arms, surveillance, and increase of relevant gear and activities. They also included banning of ivory sales even if obtained lawfully. Our neighbors, Kenya, went to the extent of burning tons of ivory that the Government had lawfully obtained, in order to ensure there could not be any lawful sales of Kenyan ivory, an effort that would benefit Tanzania, as well. For, besides trade relationship, Kenya and Tanzania share a cross-border population of elephants that spends part of the year in Tsavo National Park, and part in Tanzania’s Mkomazi National Park.

In addition, Tanzania mounted special multipronged campaigns to combat poaching following various reports indicating the country to have lost a large part of her elephant population to poaching. Prof. Jaffari R. Kideghesho in his paper titled, “Elephant poaching crisis in Tanzania: a need to reverse the trend and the way forward” that was published in the Journal of Tropical Conservation Science Vol. 9(1) in 2016 reported a dramatic decline of elephant population to less than 30% between 1979 and 1987, being a drop from 316,000 to 85,000 elephants. This was a crisis that prompted the Government of URT to mount a nationwide anti-poaching operation code-named “Operation Uhai” in 1989.

In a more recent elephant poaching crisis Kideghesho reported the elephant population to have dropped from 142,788 in 2006, to 109,051 in 2009, adding that subsequently the situation worsened with an average of 30 elephants being killed every day, and that in 2013 the elephant population in Tanzania stood at 50,500 and plummeted further to 43, 521 in 2015, representing a drop of about 60% in a span of 5 years. This is in spite of another nation-wide anti-poaching operation of 2013 that was massive but had to be suspended after one month of operation due to various anomalies. In the absence of another high impact effort, it can be assumed that the population has continued to decrease.

With such a tremendous decline in numbers, everybody wanted to protect the pachyderm at all costs; for what it was worth to conservation, as well as to the national economy.  And the efforts paid off. An article posted by Reuters on Internet attributing its information to the Presidency in Dar es Salaam in July 2019, reported Tanzania’s elephant population as being on rebound and having gone up from 43,330 to 60,000 between 2014 and July 2019. Ironically, last month (April 2021) the African bush elephant was placed on the IUCN Red Data Book list for endangered species, a status that signifies a more serious state of species decline and one requiring more stringent protective measures. Although there might be a need to scientifically reconcile the statistics that are being put out regarding elephant population growth and decline, it is certain that, overall, the elephant population has declined drastically in the last 50 years, during which time Tanzania’s human population has more than doubled!  

Elephant Population Concerns of the Last 5 Years: Community, National and International Responses

Given the overall alarming decline of the elephant population in Tanzania, one would expect the Government and the people of Tanzania, as well as the international conservation community to be more concerned about the decline in numbers and therefore aiming to increase efforts to help the elephant population to recover. Indeed, this is the essence of placing the elephant on the Endangered Species List, sustained national anti-poaching efforts, and increasing international financial, as well as technical assistance. However, the situation is not the same for the communities living in proximity to protected areas and migratory routes.

In the past few years, the situation for communities towards elephants has changed to the extent that if the elephant wasn’t protected by national and international legislation, people would be hunting it down with the aim of getting rid of it; as they would any vermin. This is because the elephant has now turned out to be a dreaded menace.

It started with what was seen as incidental and sometimes considered to be accidental damage to farm crops by families of elephants as they trekked from one area to another in search of food, water and, often, both. The movements were more or less restricted to areas known or perceived to be historical elephant routes of some families of elephants migrating to former ranges or areas they had known before. This was largely in the first decade of 2000s.

Even in the earlier years of the second decade of 2000s stories of elephant damage were few and far apart. However, in the past five or so years the number and seriousness of incidents, and areas affected by the scourge have been growing alarmingly. Elephants have now reached vermin proportions. Consequently, affected communities and wildlife management authorities, with the help of some international organizations, have devised ways and techniques to keep elephants away from human settlements. These have included communities keeping vigil in groups, and game personnel camping out to physically drive elephants away. Efforts to drive elephants away from farms and settlements have also included using chillies along farm boundaries, making loud noises, and using strong lights, bees, vehicles, helicopters and even drones.

 A makeshift hut for night vigils to chase away elephants. Photo by Adam C. Stein.

None of the techniques that have been used to date has proved to have lasting effectiveness, as elephants have soon learned to avoid them or ignore them. Farmers have even tried to switch to crops that are not known to be eaten by elephants. This has not worked, either; for the elephants have learnt to feed on new crops, as well.

The situation is very frustrating for the communities affected by the elephant problem, for there seems to be no solution in sight. In my opinion, what is being experienced with regard to elephants should not be happening in Tanzania in the 21st Century; given the drastically reduced elephant population size, the large expanse of land area with natural vegetation that is suitable for elephant needs; a long history of wildlife conservation dating back to 1880s; the expertise in terms of number of people trained to professional level in wildlife science, ecology, management, and other related fields; having an over 40 years’ old wildlife research institute (the Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute); assistance by development partners (WWF, WCS, AWF, etc); and a full complement of legal, institutional, and administrative framework. So, why is it happening, or how did we get to where we are with the elephant problem and other human and wildlife conflicts?

The answers to these questions are comprehensively explored in Part Two of this article. Please have a read and as always, comments and feedback are welcome.

TANZANIA IN URGENT NEED FOR AN INTEGRATIVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION STRATEGY – Nov. 19^st, 2020

[This article was written and initially published on LinkedIn, before finding out that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT) had launched a wildlife conservation strategy in October 2020. I subsequently withdrew it for fear of redundancy. I have since read the essentials of the MNRT strategy and noted that the two differ in essential aspects of concept, process and implementation; and therefore decided to republish it for what it’s worth to any future efforts to stem man and wildlife conflicts.]

Saying that Tanzania is in urgent need for a wildlife conservation strategy may sound very surprising; given  that about a third of its land is set aside for wildlife conservation, offers some of the best wildlife viewing and tourist hunting experiences  in the world; and is, arguably, one of the world leaders in wildlife conservation.

Indeed, when performance in wildlife conservation is rated based on the total area allocated for the purpose, the number of species (biodiversity), and the sheer biomass of wild fauna found in protected areas, Tanzania is easily among the top ten. However, in spite of these and other superlatives, the following developments are pointing to some serious trends in man and wildlife relationship in Tanzania that threaten some animal species survival, as well as human life and property. These include:

• Rising frequency of reported cases of human and wildlife conflicts in the form of attacks and farm crop raids by wild animals, and consequent increases in losses of human life and limb, farm crops, and livestock.
•  Increasing loss of wildlife habitat to human activities.  These include parts of wildlife protected areas and corridors being converted officially or otherwise to farm land, settlements, urban centers, industrial estates, or grazing land.
•  Increasing invasions of protected areas by livestock.
•  Increasing cases of cattle or otherwise open rangelands being invaded by wildlife.

In the past we used to point accusing fingers at leaders for lack of political will to resolve man and wildlife conflicts, now we have it; but the problem is still growing.  Nowadays District Commissioners, Regional Commissioners and/or Government Ministers rush to sites of conflicts each time there is need for their intervention, or in cases of emergencies involving human death, or detained livestock. The latter are usually detained while awaiting resolution of conflicts by relevant higher authorities other than local law enforcement officers.

The President has on several occasions issued directives to resolve conflicts such as de-gazetting areas under human pressure and that seem to have lost their conservation values. These are usually Controlled Areas that are deemed to no longer have viable populations of wildlife. Other presidential interventions have included orders for the arrest of culprits; directives for leaders to investigate the conflicts in question and propose courses of action; or removal of villages from protected areas.

In spite of intervention at different levels of government administration and political leadership, efforts by management authorities such as TANAPA and TAWA, law enforcement by State organs, and support by local and international stakeholders through innovative programs, man and wildlife conflicts have continued to grow in ways that render present conflict mitigation approaches and efforts ineffective.

The most critical indicator that the political will and all the present efforts directed at stemming human and wildlife conflicts are not effective, is that some communities seem to have even defied presidential directives, which is the highest level of administrative intervention and the highest authority on matters of land ownership and disposal in the country.

Communities that defy government orders to relocate from protected areas present a special conservation problem. For, not only do these communities continue to reduce wildlife habitat as their populations continue to grow and their demand for the land increases, but they are also setting examples for others. This, in turn, accelerates wildlife habitat loss with its attendant problems such as increased poaching and zoonotic diseases, as well as animal raids.

In the past, habitat loss would force certain species of affected wildlife to seek reprieve like taking alternative routes or seek alternative habitat away from their natural range, as was the case of Serangeti wildebeests, which sought refuge in the Maasai-Mara area across the Tanzania-Kenyan border when the area around Lake Victoria became unavailable. Fortunately, this has turned out to be a huge success; both for the survival of the species, as well as the growth of the national economy. As for the species, having complementary habitat has enabled the wildebeests to multiply into incredibly huge numbers; whereas migrating across the Maasai-Mara River has created a world renowned phenomenon tourist attraction  for the Serengeti National Park that is drawing tourists in droves from across the world.

Indeed the Serengeti wildebeest migration phenomenon is unique; and will remain unique for ever; as such a combination of occurrence of opportunities and events is no longer possible.

The forging of a migratory route and establishment of seasonal habitat for such a large population of herbivores was possible then, but it is no longer possible today; as protected areas have become literary besieged by human settlements and other development activities. The problem is that protected areas are not only besieged, but are being encroached upon at a rate that is threatening the survival of the wildlife within, such that gregarious species with large range requirements are forced to find reprieve. Unfortunately, when they do, they do so in ways that end up in conflict with human activities.  In recent years, for example, elephants have become notorious for raiding farms and marching through settlements in their search for water, alternative habitat, or simply to forage for the night or day. In so doing, they have wrecked havoc on farmlands, and maimed and killed a number of people. To date, over 10 districts falling in different agro-ecological zones across the country have reported elephant raids and attacks, some resulting in human deaths.

With human population and need for land growing, while livestock keeping by some tribes continue to be nomadic, Tanzania is not likely to see these conflicts abating soon. What seems certain is that wildlife will increasingly continue to lose its habitat to man and livestock, while man continues to lose life and limb, crops and livestock to wildlife. This is in addition to man continuing to lose crops to livestock, as the latter move from shrinking range and water resources.

In some areas wildlife has already lost more than half of its original habitat while it continues to grow in numbers and its habitat requirements; and at the same time man and his activities continue to grow and extend into wildlife areas. The net result is more wildlife habitat loss. The case in example is the Kwakuchinja-Mbugwe Wildlife Corridor (KMWC), which is a very important wildlife migratory route between Lake Manyara National Park and Tarangire National Park.  

 Kwakuchinja-Mbugwe Wildlife Corridor is, arguably, the corridor that has received the most attention by researchers and other stakeholders in the past 30 years, most of the latter seeking to resolve the human and wildlife conflicts in the area; yet the situation remains critical. 

Historically KMWC consisted of 5 migratory routes serving as avenue for some 25 species of mammals to migrate between the two parks; with several species remaining in the area all year round, and therefore constituting a resident population. Unfortunately, the situation has changed drastically due to growing human activities including settlements, farming, livestock keeping, fishing, and the phosphate mining. The 2019 Change Assessment Study by researchers from the College of African Wildlife Management, Mweka; Brigam Young Univ. of Utah, USA; and the Tanzania Wildlife Management Authority, reported the area under agriculture to have increased by 35.6% between 2002 and 2017, whereas woodland had decreased by 67.7% during the same period. And this is in spite of the conflict situation in the area having been declared as ‘critical’ back in 2004, and several stakeholders having taken various actions to redress the problem.

In my opinion, the solution to frequent and growing human and wildlife conflicts is to formulate an integrative wildlife conservation strategy through a participatory process that would take into account wildlife conservation needs relative to those of human social and economic development for the entire country by involving all respective stakeholders in its formulation. This would entail having all stakeholders working together to come up with an agreed-on integrative national wildlife conservation strategy.

 As has been demonstrated in the past, getting stakeholders to agree on land use changes with implications to subsequent jurisdiction over the land in question is not an easy task.  For instance, it took efforts lasting from the 1980s to 2009 to transfer Marang Forest Reserve from the then Forest and Beekeeping Division (FBD) to Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA), an exercise that involved combining the Marang Forest with Lake Manyara National Park into one, and to be managed under TANAPA. This means it took more than quarter a century for FBD and TANAPA to come to agreement over this change. This was in spite of the fact that at that time the two entities were under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT), and the Permanent Secretary (PS) of the Ministry and the Director of Forestry (DOF) sat on TANAPA’s Board of Trustees, plus the land transfer in question required just shifting the boundaries of contiguous protected areas for better protection of wildlife in the area, without compromising the protection of the forest. Besides, the move was deemed necessary by TANAPA, and was in the best interest of MNRT, under which both FBD and TANAPA fell. Moreover, the change was for the greater good in achieving national conservation objectives; yet it was that difficult.

If making decisions involving land transfer between two entities concerning land in juxtaposition and under same ministry could experience a stalemate lasting for so long due to turf wars, one can reasonably expect decisions involving several different land uses with differing objectives and under different administrative entities to take much longer time than was the case of FBD and TANAPA, if efforts are not made to avoid such occurrences. This calls for an integrative wildlife conservation strategy that would serve as a living guide in resolving present, as well as future man and wildlife conflicts.

Although what is being proposed is nominally a wildlife conservation strategy, it involves decisions and actions that concern a number of other sectors in substantive manner. The sectors include those concerned with land, national land use planning, human settlement, regional and local government administration, protected areas, environment, forestry, wetlands, biodiversity, human settlement, agriculture, livestock development, water catchment conservation and utilization, mineral development, national and local economy, community development, etc. With such a long list of stakeholders that are substantively impacted or impact wildlife conservation, it is imperative that any effort aimed at formulating a wildlife conservation strategy involves them substantively, hence the need for their participation in its formulation.  Being many also increases the possibility and number of turf wars that could arise and render the exercise ineffectual, or even impossible. It is therefore proposed that the formulation of an integrative wildlife conservation strategy be carried out within the ambit of the Prime Minister’s office or that of the President. 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

TAWA: ISIWE TU KULINDA WANYAMAPORI

This article was also published in “Jamhuri” newspaper Issue No. 216 of November 17-23, 2015 as a feature under the title,”TAWA: Isiwe tu Kulinda Wanyamapori “. An English abstract can be provided on request.

……………………………………………………………

Kwanza kabisa naipongeza Wizara ya Maliasili na Utalii, na hasa Idara ya Wanyamapori kwa kuanzisha Mamlaka ya Usimamizi wa Wanyamapori Tanzania inayojulikana zaidi kwa jina la Kiingereza, Tanzania Wildlife Management Authority; kifupi, TAWA.

Kuna sababu kadhaa za kupongeza Wizara na Idara kwa kuanzisha TAWA, lakini kuu, nionavyo mimi, ni mbili; kwanza ni ugumu uliokuwepo katika mchakato hadi kufikia hatua iliyofikiwa, na pili ni umuhimu wa kuwa na chombo hicho. Nitafafanua kidogo kuhusu sababu hizi kwa manufaa ya hatua za baadaye katika kukamilisha Chombo hiki kiutendaji.

Kuanzisha mamlaka ya kitaifa ya usimamizi wa wanyamapori haikuwa rahisi hata kidogo. Jitihada za kuanzisha chombo hicho zilianza tangu kwenye miaka ya Themanini (1980s). Kuna mambo kadhaa yaliyokwaza mchakato huo na wakati mwingine kusita kwa muda kabla ya kuanza tena. Mambo haya ni pamoja na kubadilishabadilisha viongozi muhimu, hasa kwenye nafasi ya Waziri wa Maliasili na Utalii na Mkurugenzi wa Wanyamapori.

Yamkini mabadiliko ya mara kwa mara kwa nafasi ya Mkurugenzi wa Wanyamapori na kukaimiwa kwa muda mrefu yakawa ndiyo yameathiri mwenendo wa mchakato wa kuanzisha TAWA kuliko jambo lolote lile.

Jambo jingine lililoleta ugumu katika mchakato na kuchelewesha maamuzi ni kile kilichoonekana kuwa mgongano wa kimaslahi. Hili lilijitokeza zaidi ilipokuwa imependekezwa TAWA kusimamia masuala yote ya uhifadhi nchini na mbuga zote za kuhifadhi wanyama, ikiwa ni pamoja na hifadhi zilizokuwa chini ya shirika la Hifadhi za Taifa (TANAPA) na Hifadhi ya Ngorongoro.

TAWA kwa jinsi ilivyoanzishwa sasa haisimamii hifadhi zilizo chini ya TANAPA, wala Hifadhi ya Ngorongoro. Naipongeza Wizara kwa kuweza kufikia uamuzi huo, hasa kwa vile kufanya vinginevyo ingeathiri tija kitaasisi, na ufanisi wa uhifadhi kitaifa.

Jambo la pili kuu linalofanya Wizara ya Maliasili na Utalii na Idara ya Wanyamapori kustahili pongezi ni umuhimu wa chombo hicho katika juhudi za serikali kuhifadhi wanyamapori.

Umuhimu wa kwanza wa kuwa na TAWA ni kuwa na chombo huru chenye mamlaka kisheria kusimamia uhifadhi na matumizi ya wanyamapori. Kutokana na kuwa na mamlaka hii kisheria, TAWA inaweza kufanya maamuzi yoyote kwa wakati, jambo ambalo litapunguza urasimu na kuziba mianya ya rushwa, ziwe za kweli, au kufikirika. Hili ni jambo litakaloongeza tija katika shughuli zote za uhifadhi na matumizi ya wanyamapori.

Aidha nina imani kuwa, kwa kuwa na mamlaka kamili kisheria, na inayoongozwa na bodi, TAWA itaweza kuwa na rasilimali za kuiwezesha kushinda pale ambapo Idara ya Wanyamapori ilionekana kuelemewa ama kushindwa, kama vile kupambana na ujangili.

Kwa kutimiza majukumu yake kwa ufanisi, si tu kutaiwezesha TAWA kuhifadhi wanyamapori kwa mafanikio zaidi, bali pia kutaongeza pato la Taifa kutokana na matumizi bora ya wanyamapori, ikiwa ni pamoja na utalii na uwindaji.

Hata hivyo TAWA haiwezi kupata mafanikio hayo niliyoyataja hapo juu kwa vile tu ni mamlaka huru iliyowekwa kisheria. Kuna mambo ambayo yanatakiwa kuwepo ili chombo hicho kiweze kupatata mafanikio yanayolengwa.

Kama ilivyo kwenye jina lake, TAWA inatakiwa kuwa chombo cha usimamizi zaidi kuliko vinginevyo. Usimamizi hapa ina maana ya kutenda shughuli za kustawisha wanyamapori, na siyo kuwalinda tu.

Kwa bahati mbaya, ukiangalia kilichoainishwa kwenye rasimu ya sheria kwa sifa kuu ya wafanyakazi wa Mamlaka, utaona kuwa sheria inalenga zaidi ulinzi wa kijeshi kuliko usimamizi (management) wa wanyamapori. Usimamizi umetajwa tu kwenye sifa za Mkurugenzi Mkuu!

Aidha inaelekea katika kuunda Bodi ya Wakurugenzi inayosimamia Mamlaka kilichozingatiwa zaidi ni uwakilishi wa wadau kitaasisi, na si taaluma ya usimamizi wa ustawi wa wanyamapori na mazingira yake.

Taaluma ya usimamizi wa ustawi wa wanyamapori na mazingira yake kutopewa kipaumbele stahili katika sheria ya Mamlaka na chombo kinachoisimamia in dosari kubwa sana katika jitihada za kuongeza juhudi, maarifa na tija katika uhifadhi wa wanyama nchini. Na hasa sheria hii inapokuwa imetungwa katika zama ambazo ulimwengu mzima unafanya jitihada za makusudi kuondokana na matumizi ya bunduki na kujikita zaidi katika usimamizi na ulinzi shirikishi, kwa maana ya kushirikisha wananchi na taasisi husika.

Ni jambo ambalo kwa sasa linaeleweka katika medani za uhifadhi kuwa, ili uhifadhi wa maliasili yoyote uwe endelevu na ulete maendeleo endelevu, hakuna budi kushirikisha na kuwa rafiki kwa wananchi husika. Hivyo kuegemea zaidi mtutu wa bunduki inakuwa kurudi nyuma.

Hapa kwetu Tanzania, mbali na uhitaji wa kushirikisha wananchi katika uhifadhi wa wanyamapori, ipo haja ya kuzamia zaidi kwenye masuala ya kustawisha wanyamapori kutokana na athari za tabia nchi, matumizi mabaya ya ardhi, na ongezeko la mahitaji ya ardhi kwa shughuli nyinginezo za maendeleo. Hii itakuwa mada ya siku nyingine.

Mbali na kasoro hizo zinazoonekana ndani ya rasimu ya TAWA, kuna kasoro za kimchakato ambazo ni muhimu zikaangaliwa mapema iwezekanavyo, ama sivyo Mamlaka inaweza isiweze kutekeleza majukumu yake kwa muda mrefu kutokana na kukosa uhalali, ama kukosa kanuni na miongozo muhimu katika mfumo wa utendaji.

VITA DHIDI YA UJANGILI IMGUSE MTANZANIA WA KAWAIDA

This article was also published in “Jamhuri” newspaper Issue No. 215 of November 10-16, 2015 as a feature under the title,”Vita dhidi ya ujangili Imguse Kila Mtanzania”. An English abstract can be provided on request.

Kati ya mambo makuu yanayodhohofisha juhudi za kuhifadhi wanyamapori, hususan kupambana na ujangili, ni juhudi hizo kutoonekana kumhusu mwananchi wa kawaida. Juhudi za uhifadhi na kumpambana na ujangili zinaonekana kutomhusu Mtanzania wa kawaida kwa sababu mbali mbali, na hasa yafuatayo.

Jambo la kwanza ni wanyamapori kuonekana kama ni kwa ajilli ya watalii kutoka nje ya nchi. Hili ni jambo ambalo limeendelea kuwa hivyo kiutendaji na kimiundombinu hata baada ya Watanzania wazawa kuonesha kupenda sana kuangalia wanyama.

Kiashiria kikubwa cha kuonesha hamu kubwa Watanzania waliyo nayo kuona wanyama imejionesha kila mwaka wakati wa Saba Saba. Kipindi hicho cha wiki moja, banda au tuseme eneo la wanyama linavuta watu wengi zaidi kuliko banda jingine lolote. Wingi wa watu katika eneo hilo linaweza kuwa kubwa kiasi kwamba wakati wote kuna nafasi ya kusimama tu, na hivyo kuwa na msukumano na kutoku na wa nafasi wala muda wa watu kuangalia wanyama wakatosheka.

Kipindi hicho hicho cha Saba Saba huwa inatolewa fursa ya watu kwenda kutalii kwenye Hifadhi ya Mikumi. Nako wingi wa watu wanaojiandikisha kutaka kwenda kutalii kwenye hifadhi hiyo kunaonesha kuwepo Watanzania wengi ambao wangependa kutembelea hifadhi za wanyamapori kama kuna uwezekano huo.

Hamu au kiu ya kuona wanyama inayojidhihirisha wakati wa Saba Saba inaelekea haijafanyiwa kazi stahili. Bado, japo ada za viingilio kwa Watanzania katika hifadhi za wanyamapori vipo chini, miundombinu ndani ya hifadhi hizo na mazingira mazima ya utalii siyo rafiki kwa Mtanzania wa kawaida.

Mbali na kutoonekana juhudi za makusudi za kuelekeza utalii kwa Watanzania wa kawaida, matumizi mengine ya wanyamapori yamebakia yakiwa yanaelekezwa kwa watumiaji wenye uwezo mkubwa kifedha, hususan wawindaji wa kigeni.

Aidha, juhudi zilizoelekezwa kumnufaisha mwananchi kupitia Jumuiya za Hifadhi za Wanyamapori (WMAs) zinakabiliwa na matatizo mengi ya kiufundi kiasi kwamba nia hiyo ya serikali ya tangu miaka ya sabini bado haijaleta manufaa ya kweli kwa Mtanzania wa kawaida.

Pamoja na utalii, kikubwa kingine ambacho Mtanzania wa kawaida angependa kunufaika nacho, ni kupata nyama ya porini kwa kitoweo. Na hili siyo la Watanzania tu, au watu wa nchi maskini, ni jambo la ulimwengu mzima. Kwa mfano, ni jambo la kawaida huko Marekani na Canada kwa raia wa kawaida kukata leseni ya kuwinda mnyamapori na akatumia nyama yake kwa kitoweo. Aidha, ni jambo la kawaida kukuta mtu kaweka nyama ya mnyama ukubwa wa swala, na hata ukubwa wa pofu kwenye jokofu (freezer) kwa matumizi ya mwaka mzima.

Katika nchi hizo, hata kwenye migahawa, midogo (restaurants) kwa mikubwa (hotels), wanatumia nyamapori (venison) kihalali kabisa. Hapa kwetu nyama hiyo inatumika sehemu chache, lakini kiuhalifu; maana nyama inapatikana isivyo halali! Tuliwahi kuwa na shirika la uwindishaji na uvunaji wa wanyamapori, Tanzania Wildlife Corporation (TAWICO), ambalo sasa hivi halipo; na hakuna mbadala.

Mwananchi wa kawaida, hasa yule anayeishi karibu na mbuga za wanyama, asipoweza kupata kitoweo na manufaa mengine kutokana na wanyamapori kihalali, inamfanya asione umuhimu wa kuhifadhi wanyama hao. Na zaidi anapata adha, kero na hasara kutokana na uharibifu wa wanyama kwa mazao na mifugo yake. Na hivyo kauli za kwamba utalii na uwindaji una mchango mkubwa katika pato la Taifa zinakuwa hazina maana kwake. Hali hii si salama kwa wanyamapori.

Kuna mambo yanayoweza kufanywa kumwezesha mwananchi kupata kitoweo cha nyamapori kihalali. Kimsingi sera na sheria vinaruhusu, ila kinachokosekana ni kanuni na miongozo sahihi na usimamizi wa dhati. Kukosekana kwa mambo haya ni kati ya changamoto kuu zinazoikabili Idara ya Wanyamapori na Mamlaka iliyoundwa karibuni kusimamia uhifadhi na matumizi ya wanyamapori, Mamlaka ya Uhifadhi wa Wanyamapori, Kiingereza Tanzania Wildlife Management Authority (TAWA).

Tatizo kubwa lipo kwenye ucheleweshaji mkubwa wa mchakato wa kutunga vyombo/viwezeshi (instruments) vya kutekeleza sera; ukianzia hatua ya kutunga sheria, halafu kanuni, na kutoka hapo ipatikane miongozo ya utekelezaji. Uzoefu uliopo sasa, ni kwamba kutoka hatua moja kwenda nyingine inatumia hadi miaka kumi na kuzidi. Mathalani, masuala kadhaa kuhusu mwananchi kutumia wanyamapori yaliyokuwa kwenye sheria ya wanyamapori ya mwaka 1974 hayakutungiwa viwezeshi hadi sheria imetungwa upya mwaka 2009; na hata hivyo vingine bado!

Aidha, pale ambapo imewezekana kuunda miongozo, bado taarifa zinachelewa, ama haziwafikii kabisa wananchi. Ucheleweshaji wa viweshaji vya kutekeleza sera au sheria vinafanya tuwe na sera au sheria isiyotekelezeka hadi kufikia kutunga sera na sheria nyingine!

Katika hali hiyo, serikali inaweza kuridhika kuwa inafanya juhudi bali inashindwa kukamilisha mchakato kutokana na ukosefu wa fedha. Hili halijulikani kwa wananchi; na kama hata lingejulikana isingesaidia. Bado wanyamapori wanabakia kutokuwa na faida inayomgusa mtu wa kawaida kupitia njia halali. Hivyo hata kaulimbiu za vita dhidi ya ujangili zinazodai wanyamapori ni kwa faida ya wote zinaonekana kuwa danganya toto.

Kwa hali hiyo, inapotokea jangili akampa mwananchi pesa au nyama, mwananchi huyo anakuwa hana sababu ya kusaidia serikali kwa kutoa taarifa kuhusu jangili huyo. Mbali na utalii na na matumizi ya wanyamapori kuonekana kutomgusa mwananchi wa kawaida, hata kaulimbiu zinazotolewa kuhusu vita dhidi ya ujangili hazijamgusa mwananchi huyo kimuktadha, kimaudhui, na kitaswira.

Kutumia kaulimbiu ni jambo zuri sana na ambalo linaweza kuongeza ufanisi katika vita dhidi ya ujangili kwa gharama ndogo. Nazipongeza sana asasi na taasisi zilizoanzisha mbinu hii muhimu. Ukweli ni kwamba kutumia kaulimbiu (sloganeering) ni mbinu nzuri sana katika kampeni za makatazo, mapambano, au kuzuia mwenendo; kwa maana zinalenga kugusa fikra au dhamira, na ukiishafanikiwa kubadili fikra au dhamira, kinachokuwa kimebakia ni mlengwa kufanya maamuzi sahihi mwenyewe. Ila ukikosea, matokeo yanaweza kuwa mabaya, na hata yakawe kinyume cha kilicholengwa.

Kwa bahati mbaya kaulimbiu zinazorushwa kwenye moja ya televisheni hapa nchini zina makosa kadhaa ya kiufundi ambayo yanapunguza ufanisi katika kuwagusa wananchi na kuwashirikisha katika vita dhidi ya ujangili. Mbali na hili, kaulimbinu hizo, kama ambavyo tumekwishaona haziakisi hali halisi ya juhudi na manufaa yanayoonekana kwa wananchi.

Kwa ujumla iko haja ya serikali kujipanga upya kuhusu ushirikishaji wa wananchi katika vita dhidi ya ujangili na uhifadhi wa wanyamapori kwa ujumla. Ni muhimu sana kupata ushirikiano wa wananchi wa kawaida, na ushirikiano huo hautapatikana iwapo wananchi wenyewe hawaoni manufaa, na juhudi za kulinda wanyama hao haziwagusi moja kwa moja na kwa mtu mmoja mmoja.

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION IN TANZANIA (PART THREE)

The Practice, Conclusion and Recommendation
In practice the conservation of wildlife involves (1) planning (2) legislation (3) general administration (4) law enforcement (5) natural resources management (6) public relations, (7) research and training, and (8) conservation education. Tanzania has generally done very well in instituting the necessary framework to cater for all the activities involved in wildlife conservation. Observations, however, indicate deficiencies in planning, public relations, law enforcement and conservation education.
Unfortunately, the deficient areas are of critical importance in fighting poaching and integrating the socio-economic needs of the public with those of conservation, as well as gaining support of the public for the cause. And this is what seems to have rendered Government efforts ineffective in containing poaching, encroachment and habit destruction. Occasionally, the Government has taken specific measures to correct for these deficiencies or counter their effects such as mounting campaigns and operations. Examples include imposing a moratorium on hunting in the mid-Seventies and one on ivory trade, commissioning probes and research teams, de-gazetting portions of protected areas, and carrying out massive anti-poaching operations such as the “Save the Rhino Campaign” and Operation Uhai of the late Eighties and, more recently, Operation Tokomeza of last year.
In spite of all these measures, poaching, human encroachment on protected areas, and habitat destruction continue to threaten the survival of Tanzania’s wildlife. The situation is so serious for certain species and protected areas that it has raised the concern of the Tanzanian public, as well as that of the international community. The futility of the conventional efforts and the occasional radical ones in containing poaching and habitat destruction underscores the need to review the present wildlife conservation policy.
The need to review the wildlife conservation policy, which entails instituting a new national wildlife conservation strategy, has been acknowledged by the government, and work to that effect is said to have started. However, it is important to impress upon the Government of the need to move quickly this time round, by avoiding huddles and bottlenecks that seem to have plagued the Division every time there is such an effort.
Experience shows that instituting policies from concept to its promulgation can take up to 10 years, and enacting of respective legislation may take just as long, or more. When that happens, the law thus enacted may not correspond to the policy. In other words the policy and law to implement it may be incongruent. When this is coupled with lack of institutional memory, the incongruence may be such that a person looking at the two instruments may be led to think that the two are not related, and that the law has been enacted without a policy. For instance, when discussing poaching concerns with a very senior official in the Division last month, he cited as one of the reasons for continued poaching, the “fact” that the process to institute the present wildlife conservation legal framework as having been upside down; meaning the policy was preceded by the law! The policy was promulgated in 1998, and the law was enacted in 2009! Previously, there had been formalized efforts to institute a wildlife policy since 1983! These efforts did not yield a policy due to, among other things, a number of national legal, political and economic reforms.
It is worth noting that the Wildlife Conservation Act of 1974 was not preceded by a policy, save for the Arusha Manifesto of 1961. Moreover, some of the regulations the law provided for, for example those of WMAs, were not passed until 2005. Others were not passed until WCA of 2009 was enacted!
When there is a lapse of a decade (s) between the institution of one legal instrument and another, there is bound to be disconnects and contradictions between the policy and respective law arising from the need for the law to take into account developments in the national policy and legal environment, as well as that of politics, social and economics. When this happens it renders the policy outdated; or even contradictory. Moreover, wildlife conservation legal framework has to abide by international conventions that the country may have ratified or acceded to during the period in question.
Ideally, once the law is in place, the Minister responsible for wildlife has to move quickly to pass regulations and guidelines to lend effect to the law. Unfortunately this process, too, has been tardy; with guidelines generally taking more than five years to come into effect! By the time some of them are ready for enforcement, respective policy and/or law are due for review. This, in effect, makes the main instruments as good as being absent.
To fill the void for enforceable laws in times of dire need for intervention, the ministry responsible for wildlife, currently the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, has often resorted to mounting operations to respond to specific situations or appointed commissions and committees to advise on specific issues. The results and impacts of such one-time-off responses have been ephemeral, with problems in question cropping up soon after. Obviously this is not sustainable, and cannot secure the future for wildlife, especially for the endangered species of fauna and flora. It is therefore a foregone conclusion that the Government needs to develop a more robust approach to instituting and enforcing legal instruments to conserve its wildlife resource.
In summary, Tanzania’s efforts to conserve wildlife in the last century have been commendable, and her achievements in terms of the magnitude of the protected area estate and abundance of some species are tremendous; but the future of certain species and protected areas cannot be ascertained without changing the policy and law. Although the Government appears to acknowledge this, the pace at which efforts are presently being made to institute legal instruments is too slow to rescue species such as the black rhino and the African elephant, as well as threatened protected areas. There is therefore a need for the Government to institute a strategy that would ensure a prompt process to institute a harmonious legal framework, if presently endangered species have to be saved.

***********************End*********************

Wildlife Conservation in Tanzania (Part Two)

The Institutional Framework
As a result of, and in complement to the comprehensive legislation, the government has a number of institutions charged with administering or providing services to various aspects of wildlife conservation. Major among these is the Wildlife Division, formerly the Game Division, and previous to that, the Wildlife Department, in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism.
The Wildlife Division is the government organ responsible for the protection and utilization of all wildlife in the country. The Division administers and manages a number of protected areas and institutions, in addition to controlling the utilization of wildlife in open areas as provided for in the Wildlife Conservation Act (WCA).
The Division also provides technical assistance to parastatals (public institutions) and local government organs entrusted with the management of protected areas other than those managed by the Division itself, which are referred to as National Projects. As such, all institutions concerned with the various aspects of conservation in the country are supervised or work in close collaboration with the Wildlife Division.
As implied above, although wildlife is owned by the State on behalf of the people, the administration and management of certain wildlife conservation areas and activity have been delegated to parastatals and, occasionally, to private individuals and entities through legislation. As this delegation has been effected in manner that suggests independence/autonomy, these entities are treated here as comparable in authority to Wildlife Division with regard to respective wildlife resource.
The table below presents the major wildlife conservation entities and respective responsibilities.

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION IN TANZANIA (Part One)

Introduction
This article is largely an updated version of my article of the same title that appeared in the first issue of Kakakuona Magazine of 1989, being published here as a primer to subsequent discussions, as it contains important basic historical and current facts that serve as an introduction of the subject to the new and un-initiated reader. Moreover, what was written on the state of conservation then in terms of practice, problems and challenges is still true today; save for the expansion of the protected area estate in terms of reserves and national parks and a few changes in the framework.
One noteworthy change that is likely to make substantive difference in the practice and effectiveness of wildlife conservation efforts is the establishment of the Tanzania Wildlife Authority (TAWA) that is currently in the making.
The article is presented in three parts: Part 1 presents the historical and legal basis; Part 2 presents the institutional framework, and Part 3, the practice, challenges and conclusion.

A map of Tanzania showing the wildlife protected area estate in terms of parks, conservation area and reserve

“Parks Tanzania” by Bamse

Part 1: A Bit of History and Legal  Background

Wildlife as deliberate and formalized efforts to protect wildlife for extended use has been practiced in Tanzania since 1896; the year the German colonial government instituted the first game law. A number of laws have since been enacted which have facilitated the building up one of the most elaborate institutional frameworks for the conservation of wildlife on the continent. As a result, Tanzania has one of the largest protected area estates with the richest and abundant wildlife resources in the world.National parks, Ngorongoro Conservation Area, and game reserves cover about 13.4 of the country’s land surface (see map above and lists below).

As for the abundance of animals, Serengeti alone, for example, has over three (3) million large mammals and out of this, various statistics show wildebeests to be over 1.5 million strong, zebra 200,000, and gazelles 260,000.

The legislation that has enabled Tanzania to set aside so much land for the protection of wild fauna and facilitated its continued protection in and outside protected areas include the following ordinances and acts (both repealed and current): The Fauna Conservation Ordinance of the then Tanganyika Territory No. 17 of 1951, Wildlife Conservation Act No. 12 of 1974 with its 1978 and 2005 amendments, Wildlife Conservation Act No. 5 of 2009, National Parks Ordinance Cap. 412 of 1959, the National Parks Ordinance Chapter 282 of the 2002 revised edition (RE), Ngorongoro Conservation Area Ordinance Cap. 413 of 1959 and its 1975 amendment, and the Marine Parks and Reserves Act No. 29 of 1994.
Other pieces of legislation that are of relevance to wildlife conservation include the Forest Ordinance Cap.389 of 1951, the Forest Act No. 7 of 2002, Environmental Management Act No. 3 of 2004, Grass Fires (Control) Ordinance Cap. 135 of 1943, Natural Resources Ordinance Cap. 259 of 1951 and Cap. 259 RE 2002, and the Range Development and Management Act No. 51 of 1964, to mention just the major ones.

Also providing direction and guidance to conservation efforts and affording additional protection to wildlife are the several world and regional conventions that Tanzania has ratified or acceded to. These include the London Convention for the Protection of Flora and Fauna (The London Convention), The African Convention for the Protection of Nature and Natural Resources (The African Convention), the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the World Heritage Convention.