Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile Composite Default screen International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 1 (2005) 150–166 ‘Serengeti shall not die’: Can the ambition be sustained? 1,2 2 3 1 Jafari R. Kideghesho , Eivin Røskaft , Bjørn P. Kaltenborn , Thadeo M. C. Tarimo Sokoine University of Agriculture, Department of Wildlife Management, Morogoro, Tanzania Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Biologisk Institutt, Trondheim, Norway Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Fakkelgården, Storhove, Norway Key words: Tanzania, Serengeti, Grzimek, Wildlife, Conservation, Protected areas ABSTRACT Serengeti, a World Heritage Site and a Biosphere Reserve, is increasingly being threatened by human factors, which undermine its natural resource base and, therefore, contradict the ambition contained in Grzimeks’ popular book ‘Serengeti Shall Not Die’. We discuss five forces against the ambition: rapid human population growth, poverty, illegal hunting, habitat destruction, and wildlife diseases. We also review some of the current strategies adopted in view of pre-empting the negative outcomes resulting from these forces by pointing out their deficiencies. We conclude that, although human population growth and poverty are underlying factors threatening the Ecosystem, the current mitigative strategies barely address them adequately. We, therefore, recommend that, for Grzimeks’ ambition to remain valid, the two factors should take priority. We also call for more research to establish the reasons making people exhibit unsustainable behaviours toward the resources. We further suggest learning from past mistakes in view of correcting the identified deficiencies. Support in the form of alternative sustainable livelihood strategies and discouraging all ecologically destructive policies are equally important. Drawing from experience of the Kenyan part of the Ecosystem we suggest banning of land privatization, commercial agriculture and other development policies conflicting with conservation interests around Serengeti National Park. INTRODUCTION Historical background of wildlife some parts of Tanzania. For example, Mgumia and conservation in Tanzania Oba (2003) showed that sacred groves and ritual sites represent a potential contribution to the Tanzania has a long history of wildlife conservation conservation of biodiversity in the miombo wood- dating back to the pre-colonial era. Although land among the Wanyamwezi people of central the notion of conservation among the pre-colonial Tanzania. In Tanzania’s Western Serengeti traditional societies is highly disputed (Redford Corridor, special respect accorded to sacred and Sanderson 2000; Songorwa et al. 2000), totemic species such as elephant (Loxodonta africana) and links and spiritual affiliation to particular animals, bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus) has reduced their plants or sites had benefited wildlife and habitats in Correspondence: J. R. Kideghesho, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Department of Wildlife Management, PO Box 3073, Chuo Kikuu, Morogoro, Tanzania. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Z:\Sapiens Publishing\Int J Biodiversity Sci & Management\A5116 - Bio Sci & Management - Sept 2005.vp 15 December 2005 11:57:42 Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile Composite Default screen ‘Serengeti shall not die’ Kideghesho et al. vulnerability to poaching compared to other edible economic justification of wildlife-based tourism, species. As far as we can ascertain, there are rather than ecological reasons, triggered more currently no cases of elephant hunting for meat support for creating PAs. Julius K Nyerere, the first within 45 km west of the park. Likewise the annual President of Tanzania, backed this economic offtake of bushbuck is the lowest (5%) compared to motive, as he was quoted saying, other species (Campbell and Hofer 1995). ‘I personally am not interested in animals. I do The German colonial administration (1885– not want to spend my holidays watching croco- 1919) enacted the first formal written wildlife law diles. Nevertheless, I am entirely in favour of to regulate hunting in 1891 (URT 1998). This was their survival. I believe that after diamonds and followed by the creation of a number of protected sisal, wild animals will provide Tanganyika with areas (PAs). By 1911, about 30,000 km or 5% of the its greatest source of income. Thousands of colony had been included within 15 PAs (Baldus Americans and Europeans have the strange urge et al. 2002). The British Administration (1919– to see these animals’ (quoted in Levine 2002) 1961) established Selous Game Reserve (GR) as the country’s first GR in 1922, followed by Ngorongoro Nyerere further affirmed the position and commit- Crater and Serengeti GRs in 1928 and 1929, ment of Tanzania to wildlife conservation through respectively (URT 1998). In 1928, an aspiration for a statement he released at the International Sympo- National Parks (NPs), a category prohibiting all sium on the Conservation of Nature and Natural human activities except research and game-viewing Resources held in September 1961 in Arusha, Tan- tourism, emerged. Strong advocacy for this idea zania. This statement has become known as the came from the politically powerful conservation Arusha Manifesto, and has since become an impor- societies in England, spearheaded by the Society tant landmark statement for wildlife conservation for the Preservation of the Flora and Fauna of the in the country (URT 1998). Empire (SPFFE) (Neumann 1992, 1996). Major Currently, Tanzania with an area of Richard Hingston, who was sent to Tanganyika by 945,087 km , has about 30% of its land surface the SPFFE in 1930 to investigate the needs and devoted to one form or another of wildlife pro- potential for developing a nature protection pro- tection (URT 1998). Tanzania’s wildlife policy, gramme, recommended the creation of NPs as a enacted in 1998, demonstrates an ambition to matter of urgency. include more areas with rich and unique biological The London Convention for Flora and Fauna values within the PA system, fostering ecological of Africa, held in 1933, obligated all signatories conservation and economic prosperity (URT (including Tanganyika) to investigate the poss- 1998). Udzungwa NP (1900 km ) was established ibilities of creating a system of national parks. immediately following the signature of the UN Administrators in Tanganyika, however, remained Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992. adamantly against this idea on grounds that the The size of Katavi NP was doubled in 1998 from strategy conflicted with African rights to such a 2253 to 4471 km (Kideghesho 2001). Saadan and degree that it could threaten the political stability Kitulo have been proposed for inclusion into the in the colony (Neumann 1992, 1996). Pressures NP system, while Ikorongo, Grumeti, Kijereshi and from powerful individuals in London, who consist- Usangu have been upgraded to GRs from their ently overstated the problem of what they termed previous status as Game Controlled Areas. ‘indiscriminate slaughter’ of wildlife by Africans, Despite these historical conservation efforts, the forced the colonial government to yield (Neumann wildlife habitats and species in Tanzania are 1996:90). The first game ordinance that gave the increasingly threatened. Already with 46 extinct governor a mandate to declare any area a NP was animal species, the country ranks third in Sub- enacted in 1940. Saharan Africa in terms of the number of animal After independence in 1961, no radical changes species threatened (177), after South Africa (282) were made to wildlife conservation policies to and Madagascar (254) (IUCN 2004). Of these 177 address the previously lost customary rights threatened animal species, 11, 69 and 72 fall in the (Neumann 1996; Rugumayo 1999; Levine 2002). categories of critically endangered, endangered This was contrary to pledges made during the free- and vulnerable, respectively (IUCN 2004). The dom movement campaigns (Levine 2002). The country also ranks the third in terms of the number International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 151 Z:\Sapiens Publishing\Int J Biodiversity Sci & Management\A5116 - Bio Sci & Management - Sept 2005.vp 15 December 2005 11:57:42 Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile Composite Default screen ‘Serengeti shall not die’ Kideghesho et al. of threatened plants in Africa, with some 239 threat- resistance triggered political disorder and the ened species, just behind Madagascar (276) and destruction of wildlife habitats and species through Cameroon (334) (IUCN 2004). Globally, Tanzania setting fires with malicious intent and spearing of moved from 20th position in 1996 to 14th in 2002 rhinos (Diceros bicornis) (Neumann 1992). on the list of countries with the highest number of A committee of enquiry appointed in 1956 to threatened species (IUCN 2003). Some species look into the matter recommended splitting of the (including those that are not globally threatened) park into Serengeti NP (SNP) and Ngorongoro are already locally extinct in some parts of Tanzania Conservation Area (NCA) so that, along with con- while some are prone to extinction (Newmark servation, the interests of the Maasai pastoralists 1996; Kideghesho 2001). could also be accommodated in the latter (Perkin The mounting pressures attributable primarily 1995). This recommendation was adopted and two to socio-economic factors such as demographic different ordinances, NCA Authority Cap. 413 of growth, poverty and market forces have led to 1959 and National Parks Ordinance, Cap. 412 poaching and habitat destruction and conse- of 1959, were enacted to manage the areas. The quently impaired the ecological integrity of many National Parks Ordinance prohibits all human Tanzanian ecosystems. This has ultimately led activities other than conservation, game viewing either to the loss of species or has driven them to the and research. verge of extinction (Newmark 1996; Kideghesho Along with SNP (14,763 km ) and NCA 2001; Brooks et al. 2002). The focus of this paper (8,288 km ), falling under the jurisdictions of is the Serengeti Ecosystem. It seeks to uncover Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA) and the NCA the forces contradicting the popular ambition Authority (NCAA) respectively, more PAs have ‘Serengeti Shall Not Die’ (Grzimek and Grzimek been gazetted in the ecosystem after independence 1960). It also reviews some strategies employed in 1961. The new PAs sought to provide a buffer to overcome these forces and attempts to iden- zone for SNP and to protect the corridors for tify deficiencies, which have decreased their ungulates migrating between SNP and the adjacent effectiveness. Maasai Mara National Reserve (MMNR) in Kenya. MMNR (1,368 km ) is managed by Narok County Council. Maswa Game Reserve (2,200 km ) was The Serengeti Ecosystem established in 1962 while Ikorongo and Grumeti The Serengeti Ecosystem, with an area of about were declared Game Controlled Areas (GCAs) 25,000 km , is situated between latitudes 1° and 3°S in 1974. The two GCAs along with Kijereshi and longitudes 34° and 36°E (Figure 1). The history (65.7 km ) were elevated to GRs following realiza- of creation of PAs in this ecosystem dates back to tion that the natural resources were still at risk and 1928 when Ngorongoro GR was gazetted, followed restriction in this category were inadequate to en- by the declaration of Serengeti as a partial and then sure effective protection of wildlife and the migra- a complete GR a year later (Rugumayo 1999). The tory corridors (John Muya, pers. comm. 2003). creation of these GRs infringed on the rights of Between Ikorongo (ca. 563 km ) and Grumeti GRs over 10,000 resident Maasai pastoralists, initially by (ca. 416 km ) lies Ikoma Open Area (IOA) (ca. prohibiting cultivation and later by forceful 600 km ) (Figure 1). The Department of Wildlife eviction. of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism The Ordinance passed in May 1940 contained a administers all GRs and GCAs. clause that declared Serengeti the first NP in British The SNP and MMNR permit neither human colonial Africa. However, little was done about this settlement nor the extraction of natural resources. due to World War II (Rugumayo 1999). A separate The legal uses are research and game viewing. In National Parks Ordinance passed in 1948 re- the GRs, trophy hunting and game cropping are affirmed Serengeti as a NP and established an allowed, although settlements are also prohibited. independent Board of Trustees (Neumann 1992). The upgrading of the GCAs to GRs in 1994, there- Calls for a full investigation of customary rights fore, involved relocation of the local people. Lim- within the proposed boundaries of the NP were ited cattle grazing, firewood collection, hunting ignored. This resulted in resentment, leading to (game cropping, resident and trophy hunting) and violence and sabotage. For example, the Maasai bee keeping are allowed in the Ikoma Open Area. 152 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management Z:\Sapiens Publishing\Int J Biodiversity Sci & Management\A5116 - Bio Sci & Management - Sept 2005.vp 15 December 2005 11:57:43 Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile Composite Default screen ‘Serengeti shall not die’ Kideghesho et al. Figure 1 Location of Serengeti National Park and Surrounding Protected Areas Forming the same ecosystem complex, Serengeti and Kenya’s Maasai Mara National Ngorongoro and Serengeti together were desig- Reserve (Norton-Griffiths 1995). The resident nated as one Biosphere Reserve in 1981. They herbivores found in Serengeti include warthog were inscribed separately on the World Heritage (Phacochaerus aethiopicus), eland (Tragelaphus oryx), List in 1979 and 1981 respectively (UNESCO 2003). impala (Aepyceros melampus), giraffe (Giraffa camelo- A unique combination of diverse habitats en- pardalis), topi (Damaliscus korrigum), hartebeest ables Serengeti to support over 30 species of large (Alcelaphus buselaphus), water buck (Kobus ellipsi- herbivores and nearly 500 species of birds (Sinclair prymnus), and Grant’s gazelle (Gazella grantii). 1995). These species include both migrant and resi- Elephants (Loxodonta africana) and hippo (Hippo- dent populations. Serengeti holds the largest and potamus amphibius) are both charismatic and key- one of the last migratory systems of ungulates in the stone species in the Ecosystem. world (Sinclair 1995). Some 1.4 million wildebeest The Ecosystem supports one of the highest popu- (Connochaetes taurinus), 0.2 million zebra (Equus lations of carnivores in savannah, with lion (Panthera burchelli) and 0.7 million Thompson’s gazelle leo) numbering up to 3000 individuals (Packer 1990, (Gazella thompsoni) migrate annually between 1996); leopard (Panthera pardus) ranging from 800 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 153 Z:\Sapiens Publishing\Int J Biodiversity Sci & Management\A5116 - Bio Sci & Management - Sept 2005.vp 15 December 2005 11:58:21 Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile Composite Default screen ‘Serengeti shall not die’ Kideghesho et al. to 1000 (Borner et al. 1987); spotted hyena (Crocuta destruction, and wildlife diseases – to show how crocuta) estimated at 9000 (Hofer and East 1995); they contradict this ambition of sustaining and cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus)and Black-backed Serengeti as the global asset. Our main focus is the jackal (Canis mesomelas), numbering 250 and 6300 western part of the Ecosystem. The part is defined respectively (Caro and Durant 1995). Total numbers as all buffer zones (all Open Areas and GRs) and of three species of mongoose – banded (Mungos Districts bordering the park in the west. mungo), dwarf (Helogale parvula)and slender (Herpestes sanguineus) – exceed 160,000 (Waser et al. Demographic factors 1995). Of the 500 bird species, some have restricted ranges, including rufous-tailed weaver (Histurgops Over the last five decades, the western part of ruficauda) (monotypic genus), Usambiro Barbet Serengeti Ecosystem has experienced rapid demo- (Trachyphonus usambiro), grey-crested helmet shrike graphic growth accompanied by the expansion of (Prionops poliolophus), grey-breasted francolin human settlements and increased livestock popula- (Francolinus rufopictus), Fischer’s lovebird (Agapornis tions. Between 1948 and 1978, the human popula- fischeri), and Karamoja apalis (Apalis karamojae) tion in the Eastern Lake Victoria basin increased (Stattersfield et al. 1998). from 1.5 to 3.3 million, but this growth is said to have had minimal effect on the areas adjoining SNP (MNRT 1985). Increased human settlement on the ‘SERENGETI SHALL NOT DIE’: fertile lands close to Lake Victoria stimulated move- FORCES AGAINST THE AMBITION ment to the periphery of the park. Between 1957 In 1959, Benhard Grzimek and his son Michael and 1967, the human population adjacent to SNP co-authored a book entitled ‘Serengeti Shall Not grew at a rate of 10% per annum. The natural rate Die’ (Grzimek and Grzimek 1960). The title of the of increase was 3.4% and immigration contributed book has not only amassed popularity worldwide, the remaining 6.6% (MNRT 1985). but has also been adopted as a ‘motto’ among Population growth around SNP has continued nature lovers. This has been inspired by a desire to to be an issue. For instance, between 1988 and 2002, see Serengeti survive to benefit current and future Serengeti and Bunda Districts recorded increases generations of humankind, both locally and of 56% and 30% in population and 71% and 51% globally. Although this ambition has somehow in the number of households, respectively (URT remained valid for nearly five decades, the socio- 1988; URT 2002). The current population in the economic and ecological changes in the region seven districts to the west of the park is over two prompt a growing debate over the future prospects million with annual growth rate exceeding the of this ecosystem. Huge pressures are threatening national average of 2.9% (Packer 1996; URT 2002). its ecological integrity. Huge pressures are threat- This growth is mainly due to migration from within ening its ecological integrity (see e.g. Campbell and and even from outside the Tanzania, especially Hofer 1995; Hilborn 1995; Mbano et al. 1995; Kenya (Kideghesho, unpublished data). Economic Sinclair and Arcese 1995; Loibooki et al. 2002). In potential due to good agricultural land, wildlife (as 1985, Bernhard Grzimek warned (MNRT 1985:2): a source of game meat), water bodies (rivers and Lake Victoria for fishing), and gold deposits have ‘But the rhinos are gone and the elephants have been the major population pull-factors to the area. been sadly reduced. Even more disturbing has Hackel (1999) lists three conservation problems been the tremendous growth in the number of associated with people settling in or using new people around the National Park. Areas, which areas, which are also applicable to Serengeti (see we knew as wilderness, are now heavily settled Table 1). and cultivated. Each day the park becomes more Associated with human population growth is the of an island, and pressures on its boundaries con- increase of livestock numbers. This adds pressure tinue to grow. We must urgently renew our vigi- on land, leading to overgrazing and land degrada- lant custodianship, lest we lose this asset for all tion. Statistics obtained from Serengeti District mankind.’ indicate that, between 1990 and 2002, the livestock In this section we discuss five factors – demo- units had increased by 52% from 175,680.5 to graphic factors, poverty, illegal hunting, habitat 266,624.5. This had lowered the carrying capacity, 154 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management Z:\Sapiens Publishing\Int J Biodiversity Sci & Management\A5116 - Bio Sci & Management - Sept 2005.vp 15 December 2005 11:58:22 Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile Composite Default screen ‘Serengeti shall not die’ Kideghesho et al. Table 1 Problems of settling close to Protected Areas (Hackel 1999) and how they apply to the Serengeti Ecosystem Problem Situation in Serengeti Disruption of ecological Human impact causes depressed activities of migratory herbivores leading to processes essential to maintain detrimental effects on vegetation dynamics (McNaughton and Banyikwa 1995) long-term biodiversity Disruption of migratory corridors can render migration in the Serengeti a global Endangered Biological Phenomenon (EBP) (Meffe and Carroll 1997) Increased hunting for home Poaching data in Serengeti illustrate the relationship between human population or market growth and pressure on wild resources (see discussion on illegal hunting) Increased pressure from local The expansion of cultivation and settlements forced realignments of the people to open protected boundaries of Maswa Game Reserve three times, causing 15% loss of the original lands for community use area (MNRT 1985) The pastoralists in Bunda District (viz. Hunyari, Mariwanda, Kihumbu, Nyamatoke, Kyandege and Mugeta villages) and Serengeti (Nyichoka and Park Nyigoti villages) are currently appealing to the Government to legalise access to critical grazing and water points in Grumeti and Ikorongo Game Reserves (Personal observation). Manchira and Rubana Rivers in the two reserves, respectively, are critical water sources for communities who constantly complain of denied access. However, these communities have admitted that they illegally access these resources due to lack of alternatives Table 2 The land available and land required* for live- considered a rural phenomenon. Between 22% stock grazing in Serengeti and Bunda Districts in 2002 and 39% of Tanzanians live below the food poverty line and basic needs poverty line, respectively (URT Livestock Land Land % of 2002). About 19.9% and 59.7% of the population units available requirement land 2 2 District (2002) (km ) (km ) exceeded live below US$1 and US$2 per day, respectively, while 41.6% live below the national poverty line a b a Serengeti 266 624.5 2456 3199.5 30.3 c c c (UNDP 2003). Serengeti is not exceptional – prob- Bunda 267 090 2408 3205.08 33.1 ably the situation is much worse. a b Sources: DALDO Serengeti District reports; URT Mara Region, in which much of Serengeti falls, 2003, DALDO Bunda District livestock reports. *The ranks sixth in terms of poverty among the 21 admin- land requirement is calculated based on livestock units istrative regions of Tanzania’s mainland, with a (LU), where 1 LU = 1 cow/bull = 2 goats or sheep = 5 regional annual per capita income of TAS 118,591 donkeys, and requires 1.2 ha (Kauzeni 1995) or US$119 (URT 2002). Gross annual income per household from crop production in Bunda and which was already considered to be exceeded a Serengeti is estimated at US$555 and 679 (Emerton decade ago (Kauzeni and Kiwasila 1994). Table 2 and Mfunda 1999), respectively. Kauzeni (1995) shows the land available for livestock grazing in and Johannesen (2002) reported a much lower Serengeti and Bunda Districts and the land income of between US$150 to 200 per household. required based on livestock number/units. Taking an average of 6 persons per each household for both districts (URT 2002), average expenditure for each individual is evidently far below US$1 per Poverty day. Poverty is defined in a variety of ways. The World Poor performance of agriculture and livestock Bank (WB 1992:26) defines it as ‘the inability in the area – attributed to land scarcity, drought, to attain a minimal standard of living.’ Chambers diseases and pests, poor soil fertility, lack of agricul- (1987:8–9) views it as ‘a state of deprivation associ- tural inputs and crop damage – is the main cause of ated with lack of incomes and assets, physical weak- poverty (Kauzeni 1995; Emerton and Mfunda 1999; ness, isolation, vulnerability and powerlessness.’ Johannesen 2002). The villagers often blame wild- Both definitions conform to the situation in many life conservation for exacerbating these factors rural areas of Tanzania, where poverty is (Kideghesho, unpublished data). The monetary International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 155 Z:\Sapiens Publishing\Int J Biodiversity Sci & Management\A5116 - Bio Sci & Management - Sept 2005.vp 15 December 2005 11:58:22 Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile Composite Default screen ‘Serengeti shall not die’ Kideghesho et al. cost of crop damage by wildlife may be as high as limited sources of income and virtually no livestock US$0.5 million a year for the whole of Western (Campbell et al. 2001; Loibooki et al. 2002). Serengeti: US$155 for each of 3,000 households Holmern et al. (2002) found that about 60.5% of who regularly suffer from crop damage (Emerton illegal hunters in Western Serengeti hunt for their and Mfunda 1999). own consumption while 8.5% hunt for cash and The above scenario constrains people’s liveli- 31% for both purposes. Illegal hunting earns the hoods, thus compelling the use of coping strategies hunters an annual income of US$200, a value close that involve setting priorities and making economic to or equivalent to average on-farm income choices that are ecologically destructive. Histori- (Holmern et al. 2002). cally, illegal hunting and encroachment on wildlife Wire snaring is a common technique used by habitats have been employed in Serengeti as both illegal hunters. The technique is very destructive coping and adaptive livelihood strategies among and wasteful as it also kills untargeted species. How- poor households (Campbell et al. 2001; Johannesen ever, it is the most preferred because it reduces the 2002; Loibooki et al. 2002). risk of arrest, as poachers spend the least time in the bush. Population growth and urbanisation have contributed to increased markets for game meat and consequently to escalating illegal hunting in Illegal hunting Serengeti (J. Chuwa pers. comm. 2003). Tarime Demand for game meat has been the main driver (particularly in villages bordering Kenya), for illegal hunting in Serengeti. However, between Serengeti (Mugumu town), Bunda, Magu and the 1970s and 1980s when commercial hunting for Bariadi Districts and even some parts of Kenya are trophies became rampant in many African coun- potential markets for bush meat from Serengeti. tries, Serengeti was one of the focal points. The Based on a 1991 aerial survey, Campbell and commercial poachers from outside the area tar- Hofer (1995) estimated that 210,000 herbivores geted the black rhinoceros and elephant. The for- (75,000 residents and 135,000 migratory) are mer was driven to the verge of extinction while the hunted illegally each year within 45 km west of the population of the latter decreased by 80% (Dublin protected areas. About 57% (118,922 off-take/ and Douglas-Hamilton 1987). Trophy hunting was year) are wildebeest. Mduma et al. (1998) suggest also linked to a dramatic decline of the buffalo that a harvest of 80,000 wildebeest per year is unsus- (Syncerus caffer) population from 63,144 in 1970 to tainable and may cause a total collapse of the popu- 15,144 in 1998 (TWCM 1999). lation by the year 2018. Campbell and Hofer’s ‘Operation Uhai’ (Uhai is Swahili word for life) estimated annual off-take is 50% higher, signifying was a countrywide war launched by the Tanzania an unpromising future for this species if the predic- government against poachers in 1989. The war tions of Mduma et al. are correct. In addition, the which comprised army, police and wildlife staff following seven resident species are estimated to resulted in arrest of many poachers and confisca- experience heavy hunting pressure: waterbuck tion of a large number of weapons (Baldus et al. (94.3%), eland (30.9%), giraffe (29.6%), impala 2003). This, along with a global ban on ivory under (28.7%), warthog (24.4%), topi (20.5%) and the Convention on International Trade in Endan- buffalo (19.5%) (Campbell and Hofer 1995). gered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES) of 1988, As discussed above, human demography is an kept the problem at minimum in the country and important factor dictating the magnitude of illegal it was virtually eliminated in Serengeti. hunting, along with other pressures on the eco- However, illegal hunting for game meat has system. On the basis of 1978 and 1988 national remained the major challenge to date. The census data, Campbell and Hofer (1995) estimated economic situation forces people to pursue illegal the number of poachers within 45 km west of hunting as a coping strategy to meet their Serengeti National Park boundary and associated livelihood requirements, i.e. protein and other protected areas to be 23,294 and 31,655, respec- household budgets, along with paying government tively. More recent estimates of illegal hunters levies and other contributions (Holmern et al. range between 52,000 and 60,000 (Campbell et al. 2002; Johannesen 2002; Loibooki et al. 2002). Over 2001; Loibooki et al. 2002), an increase of 90% from 75% of the illegal hunters in Serengeti have 1988 to 1998. 156 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management Z:\Sapiens Publishing\Int J Biodiversity Sci & Management\A5116 - Bio Sci & Management - Sept 2005.vp 15 December 2005 11:58:23 Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile Composite Default screen ‘Serengeti shall not die’ Kideghesho et al. unplanned fire also affect woodland vegetation. Destruction of wildlife habitats Conversion of once-wooded vegetation to open Wildlife habitats provide shelter, breeding places, grasslands is said to have had an impact on browsers dispersal and foraging grounds along with move- in the North of SNP (Sinclair and Arcese 1995). ment and access to critical resources in other In 1995, Sinclair and Arcese (1995) estimated localities. These roles make them the critical com- that 40% of the Serengeti Ecosystem’s original ponents for ecological integrity and the long-term area (ca. 30,143 km in 1910) had been lost. They survival of any Ecosystem. Unfortunately, extensive reported that the loss was accelerating rather than utilization of land and other resources driven by abating and that it was taking place largely within human population growth, limited alternative the legal boundaries of the park. They further survival strategies for local people, land tenure and observed that the greatest loss had occurred development policies, is increasingly causing des- between the 1960s and 1990s, despite the great truction and outright loss of some critical habitats attention devoted to the area by researchers and in Serengeti Ecosystem. conservationists. According to Sinclair, (as quoted Failure to afford modern technologies and agri- by Morell 1997: 2059), ‘Thirty to 40% of the park cultural inputs has made expansion into new land – has changed its vegetation community in the last 25 including sensitive areas for wildlife, such as migra- years,’ and that ‘change should bring an accompa- tory corridors and dispersal areas – the most feas- nying change in the fauna.’ ible strategy for increasing agricultural output to One example of the implication of habitat cope with population growth. As in other parts of changes on fauna is the local extinction of roan Tanzania, firewood and charcoal are extensively antelope (Hippotragus equines) in many areas of used in both urban and rural areas around the Ecosystem due to the loss of its Combretum- Serengeti, due to a lack of alternative sources of dominated habitats (Campbell and Borner 1995; energy. The high market demand for charcoal and Sinclair 1995). Sinclair (2005) reported an extra- firewood increases the vulnerability of critical wild- ordinary loss of some 50% of bird species outside of life habitats. Electricity could be an alternative Serengeti due to habitat loss, along with a loss in source of energy, but most areas do not have access insect diversity due to human intervention in their to this service including some District Head- systems. Loss of tree cover in riverine forests has led quarters such as Mugumu, Serengeti. However, to the disappearance of the previously healthy even in areas with electricity, such as Bunda District, populations of trogons and large-casqued hornbills only few households can afford it, due to high instal- (Morell 1997). Some bird species, such as shrikes lation costs; and even in the few households with and thrushes, have moved into the park, while black the service, high tariffs make its use for cooking and and white colobus monkeys (Colobus angolensis), boiling water economically unaffordable. For most previously seen along the Grumeti River, have Tanzanians (including some senior government moved further west. Rural communities have also officials), electricity is used for lighting and radio. reported the disappearance and reduction of There is considerable encroachment for agricul- animal species in areas where they were previously ture in SNP and Maswa GR, and mining and settle- abundant, due to habitat loss. ment are taking place in migratory corridors. Despite the above pressures on habitats in the Villagers in Park Nyigoti in Serengeti District Tanzanian part of the Ecosystem, its land tenure reported that, during migration, it was becoming system, land use policies and market conditions common to find several wildebeest killed after have made it less prone to destruction compared to falling in the pits created by gold mining within the the Kenyan part. In Tanzania, the land belongs to village. They also revealed that the animals have the State, although most of it (except PAs) is held abandoned routes which are heavily settled by in a communal type of tenure – often called the humans (Park Nyigoti villagers, pers. comm. 2003). deemed right of occupancy. In Kenya, the land out- Also contributing to land degradation and loss side the core PAs is privately owned. In both coun- of ecological integrity are overgrazing by live- tries wildlife belongs to the State. In contrast to stock, deforestation and bush fires. The latter origi- private land tenure, State control of land has the nate mainly from human settlements along the advantage that the State can implement policies western boundary of the SNP. Deforestation and International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 157 Z:\Sapiens Publishing\Int J Biodiversity Sci & Management\A5116 - Bio Sci & Management - Sept 2005.vp 15 December 2005 11:58:23 Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile Composite Default screen ‘Serengeti shall not die’ Kideghesho et al. against land uses likely to cause detrimental wildebeest population by 80%. With 50% die-off, impacts on wildlife. it may take 20 years for the population to The private land tenure system in Kenya has led recover, while with 80% there may be no popula- to considerable negative impact on wildlife in tion recovery (Gereta et al. 2002). the Kenyan part of the Serengeti Ecosystem. The Failure of wildlife conservation to compete system had allowed the landowners to respond to effectively with alternative land uses in the area market opportunities for mechanized agriculture provides incentive for conversion to agriculture. (Homewood et al. 2001). Between 1975 and 1995, For example, decision by the landowners around the Kenyan part of Serengeti Ecosystem experi- MMNR to convert their rangelands into agriculture enced higher decrease in vegetation cover than the is ecologically costly but economically profitable: Tanzanian side. In the former, over 50,000 ha of the value of developing the land to full agricultural rangeland were converted to large-scale mecha- potential was 15 times greater than its use for nised wheat farms (Serneels and Lambin 2001). wildlife-based tourism along with limited agricul- This, along with fencing, had destroyed the wet ture and livestock. Profit earned by landowners for season dispersal and/or calving grounds for the devoting their land to wildlife conservation was resident wildebeest population, leading to a US$2.78 per hectare compared to US$43.21 for decrease of 81% from 119,000 in 1977 to 22,000 alternative use (Norton-Griffiths 1995). in 1997 (Ottichilo et al. 2001a). The total non- migratory wildlife population declined by 58% in Wildlife diseases the same period. Populations of giraffe, topi, buffalo and warthog declined by 73 to 88% while Although diseases in wildlife areas have received populations of waterbuck, Thompson and Grant minimal attention in the past, there is now a gazelles, kongoni, and eland decreased by about tendency to view this factor as one of the major 60% (Ottichilo et al. 2001b). According to Serneels constraints to the effective management of and Lambin (2001) the decline in the Kenyan biodiversity in Tanzania. Drastic drops of wildlife wildebeest population had little effect on Serengeti populations due to diseases in Tanzanian protected wildebeest population over the last decades. How- areas at different times have contributed to making ever, they warn that more land conversion closer to diseases an important agenda item for the effective Maasai Mara National Reserve would reduce the conservation and management of wildlife. dry season range for the Kenyan and Serengeti Recent and serious epidemics in Serengeti have population and consequently affect the entire been canine distemper virus (CDV) and rabies. ecosystem. In Tanzania, external investors have CDV killed about 1,000 out of 3,000 lions in earmarked the Lobo and Loliondo areas, east of 1993–94 (Harder et al. 1995; Morell 1995; Roelke- the SNP, as potential areas for large-scale agricul- Parker et al. 1996). The CDV epidemic spread north tural schemes. If the government errs in its political to Kenya’s Maasai Mara National Reserve, where it decisions and allow the project on grounds of also affected a large number of hyenas, foxes, and granting priority to food security, that will be leopards (Roelke-Parker et al. 1996). Rabies con- another tragedy to Serengeti wildlife. tributed to the drastic decline of wild dogs (Lycaon Recently, further development programmes pictus) and their ultimate decimation in the with potential negative impacts to Serengeti Eco- Serengeti and the Maasai Mara (Woodroffe and system have been proposed on the Kenyan side. Ginsberg 1997) in the 1990s. Domestic dogs (Canis The conservationists are concerned that, if imple- familiaris) on the perimeter of the Serengeti mented, the programmes may affect the water National Park (estimated at 30,000) have been quantity in Mara River – a dry season refuge for over identified as the source of both epidemics. Lack of a million wildebeest and zebra of the Serengeti. vaccination against the two diseases had made these The proposed programmes are Mau forest de- animals potential agents of transmission (Morell gazettement, irrigation of mechanized farming and 1995; Roelke-Parker et al. 1996). However, the asso- the development of the Amala Weir Hydropower ciation between domestic dogs, rabies and project (Gereta et al. 2002). Using the ecohydrology disappearance of wild dogs is contested (Dye model, Gereta et al. (2002) predicted that the pro- 1996; East and Hofer 1996). Another disease is jects might cause severe drought and thus reduce rinderpest: an outbreak killed several hundred 158 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management Z:\Sapiens Publishing\Int J Biodiversity Sci & Management\A5116 - Bio Sci & Management - Sept 2005.vp 15 December 2005 11:58:24 Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile Composite Default screen ‘Serengeti shall not die’ Kideghesho et al. buffaloes in the Serengeti-Ngorongoro area in 1982 observe the principles of good governance. Apathy (EMERCSA 2002). and resentment towards wildlife conservation increased among the rural communities, a scenario unhealthy for conservation. SUSTAINING THE AMBITION: Generally, the above events have lowered the SOME STRATEGIES AND THEIR credibility of the government and its conservation DRAWBACKS agencies as communities have lost trust. There is Some strategies are being adopted in order to poor acceptability and scepticism towards conserva- ensure that Serengeti survives. However, these have tion initiatives aiming at promoting conservation not been sufficiently effective in meeting the and development, despite the promise they hold intended objectives. In this section, an attempt is for communities. made to show why these strategies are flawed. Anti-poaching activities Provision of adequate conservation status It is claimed that improved anti-poaching opera- to wildlife areas tions have resulted in a substantial increase in the One strategy has been to create new PAs or upgrade number of poachers arrested annually (Joseph areas from lower to higher categories. In Serengeti, Chuwa, pers. comm. 2003). Between 1995 and the GCAs have recently been elevated to GR. In the 2002, SNP staff (excluding Game Reserves, Village legal context, GCAs are the least restrictive category Game Scouts and Anti-poaching Unit) arrested of PAs in Tanzania (URT 1974b). They, therefore, 7359 poachers, an average of 1051 per annum present lower opportunity costs to people in terms (J. Chuwa, Pers. comm. 2003). Considering the of land and other resources. This has rendered high number of poachers estimated to be living in many GCAs prone to degradation in the face of the area (ca. 52,000 to 60,000) (Loibooki et al. increasing human population and unsustainable 2002), this achievement is insignificant. Between land uses. July 2002 and June 2003, 433 court cases were filed As pointed out earlier, Ikorongo, Grumeti and against poachers in the four Districts of Western Kijereshi were declared GCAs in 1974 (URT 1974a) Serengeti – about 0.72% of the estimated poachers. in order to provide a buffer zone for Serengeti This may suggest that, despite heavy investment in National Park and protect corridors for migratory anti-poaching operations, the strategy is not effec- herbivores in the western part. However, this status tive in overcoming the problem of poaching, which could not meet the objectives for which these GCAs is one of the serious threats to the ecosystem. were established. Therefore, a consultative meeting in 1984 between the Wildlife Department and Community participation in conservation Bunda and Serengeti District Councils proposed and management of wildlife upgrading them to GRs. The Mara Region Develop- ment Council endorsed and submitted this pro- Community conservation (or participation in con- posal to central government in 1985. However, the servation) is increasingly gaining prominence as a intervention was needlessly delayed until 1994 major paradigm of conservation work in Africa. It (URT 1994). And yet after gazettement, effective seeks to address the deficiencies of the ‘fences and enforcement was delayed until 2000. fines’ approach. The latter is believed to have failed The process of establishment of the GRs was to conserve wildlife mainly due to shrinkage of fundamentally flawed because the ten-year time lag government budgets (Gibson and Marks 1995; allowed more developments and expansion onto Songorwa 1999: Newmark and Hough 2000; Baldus previously unoccupied lands. The local communi- et al. 2003). Community participation entails ties, therefore, resented the process as this meant the involvement of communities in designing, plan- loss of economic opportunities. Later, as the pro- ning, decision-making, benefit sharing, implemen- cess became a matter of urgency, implementation tation and evaluation and monitoring. was effected as a ‘fire fighting’ or ‘crash In the Serengeti Region, the approach has programme’ culminating with forceful eviction, enjoyed considerable publicity through two com- human rights violations, and a general failure to munity conservation programmes: Community International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 159 Z:\Sapiens Publishing\Int J Biodiversity Sci & Management\A5116 - Bio Sci & Management - Sept 2005.vp 15 December 2005 11:58:24 Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile Composite Default screen ‘Serengeti shall not die’ Kideghesho et al. Conservation Service (CCS) and Serengeti (through cropping schemes) and social services Regional Conservation Project (SCRP) run by (e.g. health and education facilities). Despite being Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA) and Wildlife popular, compared to other components of Division (WD), respectively. The two initiatives are, participation, benefit-based strategy is flawed, however, flawed in that their main focus had been and thus its efficacy in meeting conservation objec- on benefit provision. Only minimal emphasis is tives is limited. Some of the flaws constraining the given to other components of participation, strategy are discussed below. thus rendering the communities the ‘passive beneficiaries.’ The perception among the communities is that Priority compared to other strategies genuine participation is lacking, and that the wild- The benefit-based strategy receives low priority life managers often reserve the right to the final say compared to the promotion of the unpopular on what should or should not be done. The exercise ‘fences and fines’ approach, in which the wildlife of developing the General Management Plan managers still invest heavily. For example, SNP (GMP) for Ikorongo and Grumeti GRs in 2000 may records (as of 2004) indicate that the Law Enforce- be cited as an example. The communities were ment Department (LED) had 172 staff, 18 centres/ invited along with other stakeholders to the ranger posts, and 21 vehicles, in contrast to 18, 6 planning workshops, giving an impression that the and 4, respectively, for the Community Conser- process was participatory. The communities, how- vation Service (CCS). The budgets allocated to ever, complained later that their interests did not the two departments from 1999 to 2004 were appear in the draft GMP document as agreed dur- US$862,000 and 361,000, respectively. Donor ing the planning sessions. Some of the provisions agencies also direct most of their support in the identified and agreed upon during the planning form of vehicles, uniforms and ammunitions to exercise were access to water points for livestock LED. Villagers in Robanda, Serengeti District, criti- during the dry season, salt licks and visits to sacred cised Frankfurt Zoological Society [FZS: a donor groves. However, these activities have remained organisation] for neglecting the development illegal and liable to penalties, prompting the local aspect of the people while investing heavily in people to question the logic of being invited to the supporting anti-poaching activities. planning workshops if their ideas and interests are ignored (Villagers bordering Grumeti GR, pers. comm. 2004). The nature and types of the benefits granted Most of the conservation-induced costs (such as Benefit-based strategy property damage and opportunity costs) are borne The benefit-based strategy is a key component of and felt by individuals and households rather than many community conservation programmes. Such the entire community. However, conservation- a strategy aims at motivating rural residents to align related benefits often accrue communally (in the their behaviours with conservation goals. It is con- form of social amenities such as the construction of sidered as a positive rather than negative incentive. roads, classrooms and dispensaries) rather than to The latter – relying primarily on regulation and individuals and households. This means that the control – is considered to be necessary, but ‘insuffi- victims of the wildlife costs are insufficiently com- cient and inherently unstable’ (Murphree in pensated. Additionally, these benefits are not easily Hutton 2004:586). Through the strategy the target realised by the victims, since they rarely solve the beneficiaries are expected to ‘surrender access to, actual problems caused by wildlife, such as food or curtail illegal offtake of, native species and their insecurity and conservation-induced opportunity habitats’ (Barrett and Arcese 1995: 1074) for the costs. A classroom or a tarmac road has lower value interest of conservation. The assumption behind than a bag of maize to a person who is starving (due this is that lack of benefits prompts illegal use to crop raiding by elephant); as a villager in and/or active destruction of the resource Nyichoka, Serengeti District, observed, ‘even if (Emerton 2001). Examples of the benefits that are the classrooms are decent like ikulu (State house), often provided include low cost game meat children cannot concentrate with empty stomachs.’ 160 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management Z:\Sapiens Publishing\Int J Biodiversity Sci & Management\A5116 - Bio Sci & Management - Sept 2005.vp 15 December 2005 11:58:25 Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile Composite Default screen ‘Serengeti shall not die’ Kideghesho et al. Another problem with communal benefits is 2002). In Maasai Mara, returns for landowners that they can hardly be distributed evenly. The from agriculture and ranching were 15 times share for households/individuals incurring serious greater than from conservation (Norton-Griffiths losses due to conservation is the same as that gained 1995). Therefore wildlife conservation is more of a by the least affected and those reaping the benefits liability rather than an asset, making it illegally (e.g. through poaching). For example, it is disadvantageous for people to forego their current impractical to bar a poacher from walking on a road activities in favour of conservation goals. constructed by a conservation agency or denying his son the right to sit in a classroom donated Sustainability of the benefits through a conservation initiative. There is also a tendency for local elite to monopolise the benefits. As already mentioned, conservation-related bene- fits are granted in order to win local support for conservation. Likewise, these benefits are often Total benefits are too small to balance the costs believed (in theory) to aim at reducing poverty The conservation-related benefits that trickle down since this is the main driving force triggering to rural communities are too small to balance the poaching and other unsustainable activities. For costs of conservation. Emerton and Mfunda’s communities to access these benefits, however, (1999) cost–benefit analysis at individual house- stakeholders from developed countries (i.e. donors hold level shows that each of the 9,500 households and tourists) are critically important. Virtually all in Western Serengeti indirectly receives an average conservation projects or programmes in Africa of US$2.5 per year as benefit-sharing through the depend on donor funding and revenues generated implementation of development projects. The through tourism. wildlife-related costs range from US$155 per house- Experience shows that most of the conservation hold for farmers adjacent to the Serengeti National projects have been vulnerable to collapse since the Park and Grumeti and Ikorongo GR to more than host governments or departments are unwilling, or US$770 a year for illegal cultivators inside the can rarely afford, to fund these projects after the Reserve. The Secretary of the Pastoralists in donor pullout. The Norwegian Agency for Develop- Hunyari ward, Bunda District, elaborated this by ment Cooperation (NORAD) funds SRCP and, as saying: the project will end in 2006, there has been a sub- stantial reduction of budget allocation every year in ‘This is a joke! Few shillings used to construct two what is termed as ‘smooth landing’. Experience of classrooms and two kilograms of bush meat we similar projects in Tanzania such as Matumizi buy from SRCP (Serengeti Regional Conserva- Bora ya Malihai Idodi and Pawaga (MBOMIPA) tion Project) per year can not match up to loss of and the Selous Conservation Project (SCP) has pasture and water sustaining our cattle amount- indicated the government’s reluctance to take over ing to 70,000. Nor could they (classrooms and the responsibilities after donors have pulled out on meat) be able to restore our dignity, which is the grounds of inadequate financial capacity openly being abused by game rangers when they (Songorwa 2004). This scenario may suggest that get us inside the reserve. What is the use of no miracles will emerge for SRCP. The unwilling- school if it means loss of the cattle which pro- ness and/or inability of the Tanzanian government vides food, clothes and school requirements for to fund these projects signals that even the minimal children who are intended to attend to this benefits that accrue to communities are to be termi- school.’ nated. On the other hand, tourism is susceptible to Moreover the ‘ecologically damaging’ activities are factors such as political instability, economic hard- more economically profitable compared to bene- ship, or terrorism. This again reduces the reliability fits people receive in order to abstain from these of the industry as a viable source of benefits to (destructive) activities. For example, illegal hunt- communities. Since the benefits are intended to ing in Western Serengeti generates an economic change people’s behaviours, their curtailment may value 45 times greater than that derived from the inevitably turn people to illegal and unsustainable SRCP community cropping scheme (Holmern et al. activities. International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 161 Z:\Sapiens Publishing\Int J Biodiversity Sci & Management\A5116 - Bio Sci & Management - Sept 2005.vp 15 December 2005 11:58:25 Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile Composite Default screen ‘Serengeti shall not die’ Kideghesho et al. Establishment of Wildlife Management Areas ‘History has taught us a lot. We were forced out of Serengeti (National Park). First the boundary The Wildlife Policy of Tanzania prescribes the was moved from Naabi Hill to Banagi River in establishment of Wildlife Management Areas 1950s. Then, in 1960s Mochatongarori became (WMAs) as a pragmatic way of empowering people the new boundary and later we were pushed to to manage and benefit from wildlife on their Romoti River in 1970s. In 1974 Ikorongo and lands. In Western Serengeti, Ikona WMA is being Grumeti were set aside as Game Controlled established to this end. Five villages bordering Areas and we were promised to remain in and Ikorongo and Grumeti GRs (Robanda, Park continue to enjoy resources critical to our house- Nyigoti, Nyichoka, Natta-mbiso and Nyakitono) are holds, although in few weeks we were relocated the intended beneficiaries. However, the optimum because of the so-called villagisation policy. Our acceptability of the intervention is likely to be con- attempt to go back and make living from our strained by past history, policy, and institutional lands in Ikorongo and Grumeti after failure of failures. villagisation policy was defeated by the govern- Perceptions that politicians and government ment in 1994 by mere baptizing the areas as bureaucrats have hijacked the idea of WMAs have Game Reserves. We were therefore forced out lowered the credibility of the intervention. The of the reserve and we therefore lost Manchira District authorities are accused for giving orders River, which was critical source of water and salt contradicting the guidelines of WMAs, deciding on for domestic use and livestock. Further to this we the type of investors and ‘protecting’ them even in lost our grazing land, settlements, sacred sites cases where they have failed to observe the con- and mining areas, which served as a source of tracts. Scepticism is furthered by the fact that there employment to our youth. Today they want to are fewer local representatives on the board than baptize our land with the name WMAs. As usual District officials and that no law has been enacted to we see a lot of promises here! But next year the back this intervention. The participation of some name will change and we (communities) will be organizations, which have had historical conflicts forced out. Can’t these people be advised that we over wildlife conservation with local people, has are fed up? What is the difference between this amplified the cynicism that the creation of WMA is policy and several other government policies, an impending land grab by the government and which we have heard of before? Is it not true that foreigners (Nyichoka Villagers, pers. com. 2003). despite a lot of good promises these policies At the conservation stakeholder meeting held in ended in vain? Where is ujamaa vijijini (villagi- Robanda village on 16 September 2003, villagers sation policy)? where is Azimio la Arusha were less convinced that Frankfurt Zoological (Arusha Declaration)?’ Society (FZS), whose priority for decades has been ‘wildlife against people’, could stand for the interests of the local people. One villager had this CONCLUSION AND to say in the meeting: RECOMMENDATIONS ‘WMA cannot be a good thing to us (communi- Serengeti has ecological importance as the last ties), if it is spearheaded by Frankfurt. The his- intact plains ecosystem supporting the Earth’s tory of Frankfurt since Grzimek’s time has been largest populations of terrestrial mammals. The to save wildlife at the expense of our life. And designation of protected areas and the designation there is no sign that this practice has changed as of the area as a Biosphere Reserve and World to date it is still donating new vehicles and guns Heritage Site should have been important mea- to TANAPA as if there is a war to fight.’ sures for guaranteeing the ecological integrity and Communities are also worried about the likely viability of Serengeti. However, as trends discussed increased restrictions to access over resources, in this paper show, Serengeti – a global asset – such as grazing land and water, within the current remains endangered. Further, interventions other proposed boundaries of WMAs. Narrating the his- than creation of the protected areas – such as com- tory of relocation in Serengeti, an octogenarian munity participation, benefit-based strategy, anti- in Nyichoka says: poaching, and the creation of WMAs – are also 162 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management Z:\Sapiens Publishing\Int J Biodiversity Sci & Management\A5116 - Bio Sci & Management - Sept 2005.vp 15 December 2005 11:58:26 Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile Composite Default screen ‘Serengeti shall not die’ Kideghesho et al. flawed as observed in this paper due to problems of contribution in conservation activities; (2) review implementation. The following specific recom- the mechanisms for benefit sharing to ensure that mendations are essential for Grzimeks’ ambition to they are evenly distributed, adequate to offset the be sustained: conservation-induced costs and they can outweigh those generated by alternative land uses; (3) the Making human population growth a matter of priority: government, its agencies and donors have to prove Although population growth is one of the under- to people that, unlike in the past, they are credible lying causes of threats facing Serengeti Ecosystem, and trustworthy and, therefore, the initiatives or none of the current strategies addresses it ade- programmes they propose will work; and (4) quately. Overlooking this factor is synonymous to wildlife staff, donor organizations and other stake- treating the symptoms rather than the causes. holders also need to change their attitude regard- Unless a proactive intervention is sought, it is ing local people and the way conservation should apparent that human population will keep on grow- be pursued – sensitization may help. ing and, therefore, demand for more land and resources will increase. As population increases, the Discourage land privatization and commercial agricul- effectiveness of the current strategies will be diluted ture: The detrimental impact of private land tenure and conflicts will intensify. The possible strategies on wildlife around the Kenyan part of Serengeti may include developing the active policies to Ecosystem should serve as a precaution against reduce immigrants from other areas by limiting the adopting similar policies around Serengeti. The population-pull factors. current state/communal land tenure and policies restricting commercial and mechanization agricul- Provide alternative sustainable livelihood strategies: ture should be maintained. Further, practical ways The agenda of human survival is critical if forces seeking to harmonize the development policies threatening the ecosystem are to be halted. It is around the Ecosystem should be developed by both illogical for anyone to accept a scenario where countries sharing the Ecosystem. preservation of biodiversity implies starvation. To reduce the pressures on natural resources and habi- Participatory land use planning: The appropriate tats, strategies may include: (1) devising a special zones should be determined for particular uses. policy which will obligate other regions of the The uses that are incompatible with conservation country to provide employment opportunities to should be discouraged in critical wildlife areas young people from Serengeti area; (2) supporting such as migratory corridors, calving and dispersal the agricultural sector by subsidizing inputs, pro- grounds viding credits and access to markets, and control- ling problem animals; and (3) securing and ACKNOWLEDGEMENT subsidizing the alternative sources of energy (e.g. biogas and electricity) to reduce dependency on We are grateful to the Norwegian Council for fuelwood. Higher Education’s Programme for Development Research and Education (NUFU) for financial Knowledge on the nature of illegal activities: The current support; Norwegian Institute for Nature Research strategies suggest that there is either lack or inade- (NINA), Norwegian University of Science and quacy of this knowledge. Knowing why local people Technology (NTNU) and Sokoine University exhibit a particular unsustainable behaviour may of Agriculture (SUA) for their facilitation role; and be useful in devising more pragmatic solutions Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI) for to current challenges facing the ecosystem. More granting permission to conduct this study. We also research programmes in this area are, therefore, thank Serengeti Regional Conservation Project imperative. (SRCP) for accommodation and other support Learning from mistakes and correct identified deficiencies: during the entire period of research work. Thanks Current conservation-related flaws in Serengeti are also due to communities around Serengeti can be a good entry point to safeguarding the who volunteered information during the study. ecosystem: (1) ensure the genuine participation Finally, we thank the anonymous reviewers who of local people and value their concerns and commented constructively on the manuscript. International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 163 Z:\Sapiens Publishing\Int J Biodiversity Sci & Management\A5116 - Bio Sci & Management - Sept 2005.vp 15 December 2005 11:58:26 Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile Composite Default screen ‘Serengeti shall not die’ Kideghesho et al. REFERENCES Baldus RD. Introduction: Conservation by the people. East ML and Hofer H. Wild dogs in the Serengeti In Baldus RD and Siege L, Experience With Commu- ecosystem: What really happened? Trends in Ecology nity Based Wildlife Conservation in Tanzania. and Evolution 1996;11(12):509 Tanzania Wildlife Discussion Paper No. 29, Dar es EMERCSA. Southern Africa environmental issues. Salaam; 2002:1–4 A newsletter of the SARDC IMERCSA Baldus R, Kibonde B and Siege L. Seeking conser- (Musokotwane Environment Resource Centre for vation partnership in the Selous Game Reserve, Southern Africa). CEP Fact Sheet www.sardc.net/ Tanzania. Parks 2003;13(1):50–61 imercsa/programs/CE. 2002 Barrett, CB and Arcese, P. Are integrated conserva- Emerton L. Why wildlife conservation has not eco- tion-development projects (ICDPs) sustainable – nomically benefited communities in Africa. In on the conservation of large mammals in Sub- Hulme D, Murphree MW (eds), African Wildlife and Saharan Africa. World Development 1995;23: Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Commu- 1073–84 nity Conservation. Harare, Zimbabwe: WEAVER; Borner M, Fitzgibbon CD, Caro TM, Lindsay WK, 2001:208–6 Collins DA and Holt ME. The decline of the Emerton L and Mfunda I. Making wildlife economically Serengeti Thompson’s gazelle population. viable for communities living around the western Oecologia 1987;73:32–40 Serengeti, Tanzania. IUCN; 1999 Brooks TM, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Gereta E, Wolanski E, Borner M and Serneels S. Use of Fonseca GAB, Rylands AB, Konstant WR, Flick P, ecohydrology model to predict the impact on the Pilgrim J, Oldfield S, Magin G et al. Habitat loss and Serengeti Ecosystem of deforestation, irrigation extinction in the hotspots of biodiversity. Conserva- and the proposed Amara Weir water diversion pro- tion Biology 2002;16(4):909–23 ject in Kenya. Ecobiology & Hydrobiology 2002; Campbell K and Borner M. Population trends and (2):135–42 distribution of Serengeti herbivores: Implications Grzimek, B. and Grzimek, M. Serengeti shall not die. for management. In Sinclair A and Arcese P (eds), Penguin Books, London;1960 Serengeti II: Dynamics, Management, and Conservation Hackel JD. Community conservation and the future of of Ecosystem. Chicago and London: The University Africa’s wildlife. Conservation Biology 1999:13(4): of Chicago Press; 1995:117–45 726–34 Campbell K and Hofer H. People and wildlife: Spatial Harder TC, Kenter M, Appel MJG, Roelke-Parker ME, dynamics and zones of interaction. In Sinclair A Barrett T and Osterhaus ADME. Phylogenic and Arcese P (eds), Serengeti II: Dynamics, Manage- evidence of Canine Distemper Virus in Serengeti’s ment and Conservation of an Ecosystem. Chicago: The lions. Vaccine 1995;13:521–3 University of Chicago Press, 1995:534–70 Hilborn R. A model to evaluate alternative manage- Campbell K, Nelson V and Loibooki M. Sustainable use ment policies for the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem. In of wildland resources: Ecological, economic and social Sinclair A and Arcese P (eds), Serengeti II: Dynamics, interactions. An analysis of illegal hunting of wildlife in Management, and Conservation of an Ecosystem. Serengeti National Park. London: DFID; 2001 Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press; Caro TM and Durant SM. The importance of behav- 1995:506–33 ioral ecology for conservation biology: examples Hofer H and East M. Population dynamics, popula- from Serengeti carnivores. In Sinclair A, Arcese P tion size, and the commuting system of Serengeti (eds), Serengeti II: Dynamics, Management and Con- spotted hyenas. In Sinclair A and Arcese P (eds), servation of an Ecosystem. Chicago: University of Serengeti II: Dynamics, management, and conservation Chicago Press; 1995:451–72 of an ecosystem. Chicago: University of Chicago Chambers R. Rural Development – Putting the Last First. Press; 1995:332–63 New York: Longman Scientific and Technical Holmern T, Røskaft E, Mbaruka J, Mkama SY and Report; 1987 Muya J. Uneconomical game cropping in a com- Dublin HT and Douglas-Hamilton I. Status and trends munity-based conservation project outside the of elephants in the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem. Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. Oryx 2002; African Journal of Ecology 1987;25:19–33 (36):364–72 Dye C. Serengeti wild dogs: What really happened? Homewood K, Lambin EF, Coast E, Kariuki A, Kikula Trends in Ecology and Evolution 1996;11(5):188–9 I, Kivelia J, Said M, Serneels S and Thompson M. 164 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management Z:\Sapiens Publishing\Int J Biodiversity Sci & Management\A5116 - Bio Sci & Management - Sept 2005.vp 15 December 2005 11:58:27 Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile Composite Default screen ‘Serengeti shall not die’ Kideghesho et al. Long-term changes in Serengeti-Mara wildebeest Meffe GK and Carroll CR, eds. Principles of Conservation and land cover: Pastoralism, population, or poli- Biology. 2nd ed. Sunderland, Massachusetts: cies? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of Sinauer Associates, Inc, Publishers. 1997:729 the United States of America 2001;98(22):12544–49 Mgumia FH and Oba G. Potential role of sacred groves Hutton J. Sustainable use and incentive-driven con- in biodiversity conservation in Tanzania. Environ- servation. Game and Wildlife Science 2004;21(3): mental Conservation 2003;30(3):259–65 583–90 MNRT. Toward a Regional Conservation Strategy for IUCN. 2003 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species the Serengeti: Report of a Workshop held at <www.redlist.org>. Gland, Switzerland; 2003 Serengeti Wildlife Research Centre, Seronera IUCN. 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Tanzania 2–4 December 1985. Seronera, <www.iucnredlist.org>. Gland, Switzerland; 2004 Tanzania: Ministry of Natural Resources and Johannesen AB. Wildlife conservation policies and Tourism; 1985 incentives to hunt: an empirical analysis of illegal Morell V. Dog fight erupts over animal studies in the hunting in Western Serengeti, Tanzania. Serengeti. Science 1995;270(1540):1302–3 Presented at the Congress of Environmental and Morell V. Counting creatures of the Serengeti, great Resource Economists. 2002; California, USA and small. Science 1997;278(5346):2058–60 Kauzeni AS. A paradigm for community wildlife Neumann RP. Political ecology of wildlife conserva- management: The case of protected areas of the tion in the Mt. Meru area of Northeast Tanzania. Serengeti Region Ecosystem. Dar es Salaam: Land Degradation & Rehabilitation 1992;3:99–113 Institute of Resource Assessment, University of Neumann RP. Dukes, Earls, and Ersatz Edens: Aristo- Dar es Salaam; 1995:40 cratic nature preservationist in colonial Africa. Kauzeni AS and Kiwasila HL. Serengeti Regional Con- Environment and Planning D: Society and Space servation Strategy: A socio-economic study. Dar es 1996;14:99–122 Salaam, Tanzania: Institute of Resource Assess- Newmark WD. Insularization of Tanzanian parks and ment. University of Dar Es Salaam; 1994 the local extinction of large mammals. Conservation Kideghesho JR. Mitigating the loss of wildlife habi- Biology 1996;10:1549–56 tats in Tanzania: Current and future strategies. Newmark WD and Hough JL. Conserving wildlife in Tanzania Journal of Forestry and Nature Conservation Africa: Integrated Conservation and Development 2001;74:149–61 Projects and Beyond. Journal of Biological Science Levine A. Convergence or convenience? International 2000;50(7):585–92 conservation NGOs and development assistance Norton-Griffiths M. Economic incentives to develop in Tanzania. World Development 2002;30(6): the rangelands of the Serengeti: Implications for 1043–55 wildlife conservation. In Sinclair ARE and Arcese P Loibooki M, Hofer H, Campbell KLI and East ML. (eds), Serengeti II: Dynamics, Management, and Con- Bushmeat hunting by communities adjacent to the servation of an Ecosystem. Chicago, USA: University Serengeti National Park, Tanzania: the import- of Chicago Press; 1995:506–33 ance of livestock ownership and alternative Ottichilo WK, de Leeuw J and Prins HHT.. Population sources of protein and income. Environmental trends of resident wildebeest [Connochaetes Conservation 2002;29(3):391–8 taurinus hecki (Neumann)] and factors influencing Mbano BNN, Malpas RC, Maige MKS, Symonds PAK them in the Masai Mara ecosystem, Kenya. and Thompson DM. The Serengeti Regional Con- Biological Conservation 2001a;97(3):271–82 servation Strategy. In Sinclair A and Arcese P Ottichilo WK, de Leeuw J, Skidmore AK, Prins HHT (eds), Serengeti II. Dynamics, managements and conser- and Said MY. Population trends of large non- vation of an ecosystem. Chicago: The University of migratory wild herbivores and livestock in the Chicago Press; 1995:605–16 Masai Mara ecosystem, Kenya, between 1977 and McNaughton SJ and Banyikwa FF. Plant communities 1997. African Journal of Ecology 2001b;38: 202–16 and herbivory. In Sinclair ARE and Arcese P (eds), Packer C. Serengeti lion report to TANAPA, SWRI, Serengeti II. Dynamics, Management and Conservation MWEKA and Wildlife Division, Tanzania; 1990 of an Ecosystem. Chicago: The University of Chicago Packer C. Who rules the park? Wildlife Conservation Press; 1995:49–70 1996;99:36–9 Mduma SAR, Hilborn R and Sinclair ARE. Limits of Perkin S. Multiple land use in the Serengeti region: exploitation of serengeti wildebeest and implica- The Ngorongoro conservation area. In Sinclair A tions for its management. In Newbery DM, Brown and Arcese P (eds), Serengeti II: Dynamics, Manage- NJ and Prins HHT (eds), Dynamics of Tropical Com- ment, and Conservation of an Ecosystem. Chicago, munities. London; 1998:243–65 USA: University of Chicago Press; 1995: 506–33 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 165 Z:\Sapiens Publishing\Int J Biodiversity Sci & Management\A5116 - Bio Sci & Management - Sept 2005.vp 15 December 2005 11:58:28 Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile Composite Default screen ‘Serengeti shall not die’ Kideghesho et al. Redford KH and Sanderson SE. Extracting humans Stattersfield AJ, Crosby MJ, Long AJ and Wege DC. from nature. Conservation Biology 2000;14(5): Endemic bird areas of the world: Priorities for biodiversity 1362–4 conservation. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Roelke-Parker EM, Munson L, Packer C, Kock R, BirdLife International; 1998 Cleaveland M, Carpenter SJ, O’ Brien A, TWCM. Aerial census in Serengeti. Arusha, Tanzania: Pospoischil R, Hofmann-Lehmann H, Lutz GLM Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute, Arusha; et al. A Canine Distemper Virus epidemic 1999 in Serengeti lions (Pathera leo). Nature 1996; UNDP. Human Development Report 2003: Millenium 379(6564):441–5 Development Goals: A compact among nations to end Rugumayo CR. The politics of conservation and devel- human poverty. http://www.undp.org.np/ publica- opment. On actors, interface and participation. tions/hdr2003/; 2003 The Case of Ngorogoro conservation Area, UNESCO. World Heritage List. <http://whc. Tanzania. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Norwegian unesco.org>; 2003 University of Science and Technology; 1999 URT. Government Notice No. 229 of November 8, Serneels S and Lambin EF. Impact of land-use changes 1974. United Republic of Tanzania; 1974a on the wildebeest migration in the northern part URT. Wildlife Conservation Act No. 12 of 1974. of the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem. Journal of United Republic of Tanzania; 1974b Biogeography 2001;28(3):391–407 URT. Population census. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Sinclair ARE. Serengeti past and present. In Sinclair A Bureau of Statistics, President’s Office, Planning and Arcese P (eds), Serengeti II: Dynamics, Manage- Commission; 1988 ment and Conservation of an Ecosystem. Chicago: The URT. Government Notice No. 10 of 1994. United University of Chicago Press; 1995:3–30 Republic of Tanzania; 1994 Sinclair ARE. Essay by Dr Anthony Sinclair; February URT. Wildlife Policy of Tanzania. Dar es Salaam, 2005 Tanzania: Ministry of Natural Resources and Sinclair ARE and Arcese P. Serengeti in the context of Tourism; 1998 worldwide conservation efforts. In Sinclair A and URT. Population and housing census. Dar es Salaam, Arcese P (eds), Serengeti II: Dynamics, Management Tanzania: Bureau of Stastistics, President’s Office, and Conservation of an Ecosystem. Chicago: Univer- Planning Commission; 2002 sity Press of Chicago; 1995:31–46 URT. PEDP (Primary Education Development Plan) Songorwa AN. Community-based wildlife manage- performance report for Serengeti District Council ment (CWM) in Tanzania: Are the communities from 2001–2003. President’s Office, Ministry of interested? World Development 1999;7(12):2061–79 Regional and Local Governments; 2003 Songorwa AN. Wildlife conservation for community Waser PM, Elliott LF and Creel SR.. Habitat variation development: Experiences from Selous Conserva- and mongoose demography. In Sinclair ARE and tion Programme and other community-based Arcese P (eds), Serengeti II: Dynamics, Management wildlife management programmes in Tanzania. and Conservation of an Ecosystem. Chicago: Univer- “Uongozi” Journal of Management Development 2004; sity of Chicago Press; 1995:421–48 16(1):50–77 WB (World Bank). Poverty reduction handbook and opera- Songorwa AN, Buhrs T and Hughey KFD. tional directives. Washington, DC; 1992. Community-based wildlife management in Africa: Woodroffe R and Ginsberg JR. Past and future causes A critical assessment of the literature. Natural of wild dogs’ population decline. In Woodroffe R, Resources Journal 2000;40(3):603–43 Ginsberg JR, Macdonald DW and the IUCN/SSC SRCP. Annual Report July 1998 to July 1999. Ministry Canid Specialist Group (eds). The African wild dog: of Natural Resources and Tourism (Wildlife status survey and conservation action plan 58–74. Department). Serengeti Regional Conservation Gland, Switzerland: IUCN; 1997 Project; 1999 166 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management Z:\Sapiens Publishing\Int J Biodiversity Sci & Management\A5116 - Bio Sci & Management - Sept 2005.vp 15 December 2005 11:58:28
International Journal of Biodiversity Science & Management – Taylor & Francis
Published: Sep 1, 2005
Keywords: TANZANIA; SERENGETI; GRZIMEK; WILDLIFE; CONSERVATION; PROTECTED AREAS
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.