Frontier Tanzania Environmental Research - Frontier-publications ...

Frontier Tanzania Environmental ResearchREPORT 122Social Surveys in the Kilombero Valley: apreliminary reportJanuary 2007 – December 2007Technical reportJew, E., Mansell, H., Boddam-Whetham, L., Dures, S., Seward, A.,Alexander, B.E., Hall, N., Steer, M.D. & Fanning, E., (eds)Ministry of Natural Resources andTourism, TanzaniaWildlife DivisionKilombero Valley Teak CompanyFrontier-TanzaniaUniversity of Dar es SalaamSociety for Environmental ExplorationIfakara2009

Suggested Technical Paper citation:Frontier Tanzania (2009) Jew, E., Mansell, H., Boddam-Whetham, L., Dures, S.,Seward, A., Alexander, B.E., Hall, N., Steer, M.D. & Fanning, E., (eds). SocialSurveys in the Kilombero Valley: a preliminary report. Frontier TanzaniaEnvironmental Report 122. The Society for Environmental Exploration, UK.ISSN: Print: 1479-1161Online: 1748-3670CD-Rom: 1748-5142iii

Kilombero Valley Teak Company (KVTC)KVTC was set up in 1992 by the Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC) with the aim of creating a viablehardwood reforestation project with teak plantations arranged in a mosaic between natural forests and other naturalvegetation. An area of 28,159 ha was leased by KVTC for this purpose. The company is presently undergoingcertification from the Forestry Stewardship Scheme (FSC) and ISO 14001. As part of the criteria for this certificationthey have been and will continue to contract professionals to undertake scientific surveys of the area.The University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM)The University of Dar es Salaam was established in July 1970 as a centre for learning and research in the arts and thephysical, natural, earth, marine, medical and human sciences. The University is surveying and mapping the flora andfauna of Tanzania and is conducting research into the maintenance and improvement of the environment and thesustainable exploitation of Tanzania’s natural resources.The Society for Environmental Exploration (SEE)The Society is a non-profit making company limited by guarantee and was formed in 1989. The Society’s objectives areto advance field research into environmental issues and implement practical projects contributing to the conservation ofnatural resources. Projects organised by The Society are joint initiatives developed in collaboration with nationalresearch agencies in co-operating countries.Frontier Tanzania Savanna Research Programme (FT SRP)The Society for Environmental Exploration and the University of Dar es Salaam have been conducting collaborativeresearch into environmental issues since July 1989 under the title of Frontier Tanzania, of which one comp onent is theFrontier Tanzania Savanna Research Programme (FT SRP). Since July 1998, the FT SRP has been working in theKilombero Valley undertaking conservation research and development activities including baseline studies of theKilombero river birds and fisheries, the puku antelope, the biodiversity of miombo areas, land use planning of IteteWard, facilitation of the establishment of a Community Based Organisation, and the development of an environmentaleducation programme.For more informationFrontier-Tanzania. PO Box 9473, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.Tel/Fax: 255-22-2700729. Email: frontier@africaonline.comKilombero Valley Teak Company (KVTC)P.O. Box 655, Ifakara, TanzaniaTel: 255-23-2625215Fax: 255-23-2625214E-mail: rmartyn@africaonline.co.tzWildlife DivisionP.O. Box 1994, Dar es Salaam, TanzaniaTel: 255-51-866418Fax: 255-51-865836 / 863496E-mail: wildlife-division@twiga.comDept. of Zoology & Marine BiologyUniversity of Dar es SalaamP.O. Box 35064, Dar es Salaam, TanzaniaTel: 255-22-2410462E-mail: zoology@udsm.ac.tzSociety for Environmental Exploration50-52 Rivington Street, London, EC2A 3QP. U.K.Tel: +44 20 76 13 24 22Fax: +44 20 76 13 29 92E-mail: devlopment@frontier.ac.ukInternet: www.frontier.ac.ukiv

AcknowledgementsThis report is the culmination of the advice, co-operation, hard work and expertise of manypeople. In particular, acknowledgements are due to the follow ing:WILDLIFE DIVISION (ULANGA)District Wildlife OfficerSOCIETY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EXPLORATIONManaging Director:Ms. Eibleis FanningOperations Manager:Mr. Kirk WilliamsResearch and Development Manager: Dr. Mark SteerResearch and Development Officers: Brittany AlexanderNatalie HallElisabeth WulffieldOlivia CouchmanUDSMFT Co-ordinatorsKVTCGeneral ManagerProject ManagerTechnical ManagerFRONTIER-TANZANIAPrinciple Investigators:Logistics Managers:Research Officers:Conservation Apprentices:Community Liaison Officers:Game Guards:Camp Assistants:Adam SewardEleanor JewSophie GombeerHeidi MansellKara SchroepferTuula SalonenMax EdkinsLaura WilliamsLucy Boddam-WhethamDaniela BaggioSimon DuresHannah JohnsonJessica IsdenJack ArnoldDavid CharlesAbbou KindembaJacob -A- NimboAroni Isaya MtutviPeter MsangamenoAbdul MwangalileGaston KandugulaHaji NgaungulaAnselamina RassoSiku Makunduv

Drivers:Sarah Kristian WandehaOmari MkamgiHaji JumaMohammed KipakaResearch Assistants: All those who participated in field phases 071 - 074:Katherine Bell, Elise Bokshowan, Kathryn de Kauwe , Vale ria Ferlini, Charles Ffoulkes, Stephen Jeffs,Hannah Johnson, Katherine Lord, Mohammed Masri, James Pascall-Smith, Beth Spencer, Alan Walker,Virginia Walsh, Jack Arnold, Amanda Block, Claire Burnett, Hannah Comley, David Cross, LeejahDorwood, Polly Harvey, Jess Isden, Richard MacDonald, Olivia Priest, Charlotte Venning, KateWatkis , Fran Baker, Matt Brooke, Celia Curry, Victoria Christensen, Vitto Cicca Romito, Lorna DeRosa, Kate Horn, Nikki Kalhra, Josh Kitson, Colin MacDougall, Katherine Middleton, OlgaNawalaniec, Harry Birks, Syreeta Davis , Paul Harry, Sally O’ Hare, Caroline Park, Sinead Rousseau,Jack Thompson and Kathleen Williamsvi

Table of ContentsAcknowledgements........................................................................................................v1. Executive Summary...................................................................................................92. Introduction..............................................................................................................102.1 History and Rationale of the Programme....................................................102.2 Key Research Areas.....................................................................................102.3. Study Site ..........................................................................................................112.3.1 Geography of the Valley.............................................................................112.4 People of the Valley.....................................................................................132.5 Wildlife of the Valley..................................................................................132.6 Woodland of the Valley..............................................................................142.7 Future of the Valley....................................................................................163. Social Survey Work ................................................................................................173.1 Introduction..................................................................................................173.2 Study locations .............................................................................................183.3 Methodology................................................................................................183.4 Demographic profile of interviewees in the Kilombero Valley...................193.4.1 Population details........................................................................................194. Crop Raiding in the Kilombero Valley....................................................................234.1 Summary......................................................................................................234.2 Introduction..................................................................................................234.3 Consequences for local people.......................................................................244.4 Consequences for conservation....................................................................244.5 Perceptions...................................................................................................254.6 Aims and objectives.....................................................................................254.7 Results: Crop Raiding..................................................................................264.8 Discussion.....................................................................................................384.8.1 Crop damage ............................................................................................385. Trophy Hunting and Local Communities ................................................................475.1 Summary......................................................................................................475.2 The impact of trophy hunting on local communities ......................................475.2.1 Introduction...............................................................................................475.2.2 Trophy hunting in Tanzania ......................................................................495.2.3 Aims and Objectives .................................................................................505.2.4 Questions...................................................................................................505.2.5 Results....................................................................................................505.2.6 Discussion................................................................................................665.2.7 Conclusion...............................................................................................696. References.............................................................................................................717

1. Executive SummaryEcosystems are changing rapidly in the face of increasing human populations anddemands for natural resources. These changes are forcing a radical rethink on theimplementation of conservation projects worldwide, and nowhere more so than insub-Saharan Africa. This report focuses on research undertaken by the Frontier-Tanzania Savanna Research Programme (FTSRP) in 2007 within the KilomberoValley of southern central Tanzania and the following conservation implications.A wide range of topics are discussed concerning the changing environments andactivities within the Kilombero Valley, how the human population and theenvironment interact throughout these changes, and how these changes can berecognised within a conservation paradigm. Topics include trophy hunting and cropraiding and the impact on local communities within the Kilombero Valley. Theimpact of agricultural expansion is discussed with regard to the impact it has on largemammal migration routes between the Kilombero Valley and the UdzungwaMountains, and research to identify biological indicators of these changes aredisplayed.This research illustrates that although significant changes are taking place within theKilombero Valley, there is potential for conservation initiatives to succeed. Action isrequired sooner rather than later, as the pressure of human growth is rapidly leading toland use change within the region, which could be catastrophic to the regions’ wildlife.9

2. Introduction2.1 History and Rationale of the ProgrammeThe Frontier Tanzania Savanna Research Programme (FTSRP) is a component ofFrontier Tanzania, a collaboration between the University of Dar es Salaam and theSociety for Environmental Exploration, established in 1989. Frontier Tanzania aims toundertake research into environmental issues within Tanzania, to facilitateunderstanding and to assist in the development of management policies.FTSRP has been working in the Kilombero Valley since July 1998, based inevergreen forest on the south side of the Kilombero River in the Ulanga District, nearthe villages of Itete and Iragua (Figure 2.1). Many conservation research anddevelopment activities were conducted, including baseline studies of the Kilomberoriver birds and fisheries, the puku antelope, the biodiversity of miombo areas, land useplanning of Itete Ward, facilitation of the establishment of a Community BasedOrganisation, and the development of an environmental education programme.In 2007 FTSRP continued research within the Kilombero Valley, but based on thenorthern side of the Kilombero River, in the Kilombero District near the villages ofMofu and Namwawala (Figure 2.1). Camp was established within the miombowoodland of the Namwai forest, within the Ruipa wildlife corridor. This area wasidentified in 2003/4 by Trevor Jones as being one of only two remaining wildlifecorridors connecting the Udzungwa Mountains with the Kilombero Valley (Jones et al.2007). The other remaining wildlife corridor is the Nyanganje corridor situated to theeast of Ifakara, the main town within the Kilombero Valley.One of the main objectives of FTSRPs presence in this area was to establish whetherthe Ruipa wildlife corridor is still being used as a corridor by large mammals, and toidentify the extent of any threats to the corridor. Throughout the course of this yearwe were able to undertake further research topics, outlined below.2.2 Key Research AreasThe main objective of research carried out by FTSRP within the Ruipa corridor is toestablish whether this corridor is still viable for the movement of wildlife through theKilombero Valley. Research methods used included the identification of largemammal tracks and the use of signs transects, in conjunction with human disturbancetransects. The same transects were conducted each phase, although due to changingwater levels throughout the year all transects were always accessible. This workaimed to establish which animals were using the area, and to identify any changes inthe use of the area throughout the year, both in terms of animals and people.Social surveys were conducted in 25 villages across the Kilombero Valley throughoutthe latter part of the year. Villages on both sides of the valley were surveyed, from theDistricts of Ulanga and Kilombero. A total of 375 people were questioned on a widerange of topics, including crop raiding, trophy hunting, elephant movement, predators,the Kilombero Valley Teak Company (KVTC), and immigration.10

Within the Ruipa corridor biodiversity assessments were conducted in areas withvarying levels of human disturbance. The aim of the biodiversity assessments was togather a full species list of the targeted taxa within the region, and to determine whichtaxa, if any, can be used as indicators of land degradation. Taxa surveyed includedbutterflies, small mammals, ants and spiders. Specimens are currently being identifiedby specialists.2.3. Study Site2.3.1 Geography of the ValleyThe Kilombero Valley is situated in south central Tanzania (8°32’ S 36°29 E), in theMorogoro Region, lying within the Kilombero and Ulanga Districts (Figure 1.1). Thevalley is part of the East Africa Rift Valley system, formed in Late Palaeozoic toMesozoic times. The Kilombero Valley seen today is a Cenozoic rift modification ofan earlier Permian (Karoo) rift basin (Nielsen et al., 2001). This structural basin runs250 km north to south and is composed of mainly siliclastic sediments, dominated byshales and feldspathic sandstones (Nielsen et al., 2001). The geological structure ofthe Kilombero Valley has given rise to the largest (796,735 ha) seasonally freshwaterlowland floodplain in East Africa (Wetlands International, 2007). The valley wasdesignated as a Ramsar site in 2002 due to its international, national and regionalimportance for ecology and biodiversity, forming part of the Greater SelousEcosystem, a World Heritage Site. The floodplain is fed by many rivers, of which themajor tributaries are Ruhudji, Mnyera, Mpanga and Pitu (Vanden Bossche andBernacsek, 1990) and there are huge variations in seasonal water dynamics, creating awide variety of wetland types which support one of the largest inland fisheries ofTanzania (Kangalawe and Liwenga, 2005).The wetlands are highly important in the support of community livelihoods inhabitingthe area, providing scope for agriculture, fishing and livestock keeping. Both rain fedand irrigated agriculture is undertaken. Soils are fertile, and are utilized to grow arange of crops including rice, maize, bananas, vegetables and cassava. (Kangalaweand Liwenga, 2005). These support both small scale subsistence farming of mainlyrice and maize, and large scale agricultural activities undertaken principally by theIllovo Sugar Company, Kilombero Farms Limited and the Kilombero Valley TeakCompany. Rains usually occur in two seasons, the long rains from mid November toearly January, and the short rains from March to June. However, in recent years therains have become increasingly erratic, and can occur at any time from November toJune. Average annual rainfall is in the region of 1200-1400 mm (Kangalawe andLiwenga, 2005).Part of the valley is designated as the Kilombero Game Controlled Area (KGCA),covering 6,500 km 2 (Tanzanian Wildlife Conservation Act 1974, cited in Haule, 1997)of the Kilombero River floodplain. This allows regulated tourist hunting, nonconsumptivetourism, human settlements and other human activities, research andeducation (Severre, 2003). There are four hunting concessions within the valley,which run trophy hunting safaris between December and July each year, and arelargely responsible for controlling illegal hunting within the KGCA.11

Figure 2.1: The KilomberoValley (right) with an orientationmap of Tanzania (above). (Mapscourtesy of KVTC)12

2.4 People of the ValleyThe human population of the two districts surrounding the Kilombero Valley is in theregion of 514, 891, with an annual growth rate of 2.6% (Tanzania National Website,2003). There are 65 villages bordering the floodplain (Wetlands International, 2007)many of which are established in miombo woodland. The majority of people aresubsistence farmers, who rely on the production of rice for a wide range of livelihoodoutcomes. These include food security and the commercial sale of rice in order tomake cash payments for education and health services and construction material(Mwaseba et al., 2007). In 2003 there were severe food shortages in the region owingto poor harvests and resulting increased food prices (FEWS NET, 2003), and foodsecurity issues are constantly present.There are two major native tribes in the region, the Ndamba and the Porogoro. Othertribes with high representation include the Ngindo and the Hehe. In recent years aninflux of pastoralist tribes, in particular the Sukuma, Mang’ati and Maasai, hasentered the region from north-west and north-eastern Tanzania (Mwaseba et al., 2007).This has led to some conflict over land access issues and may have seriousimplications for future stability in the region. Average life expectancy in Tanzania is48 (2004 estimate, WHO, 2006), with malaria, tuberculosis, diarrhoea, and HIV/AIDSbeing responsible for the majority of deaths (Setel, 2000). Malaria is endemic to theregion (Mogensen et al., 2006), with a mean annual inoculation rate of over 300infectious bites per person per year (Smith et al., 1993). In 2003 there were 14,156reported deaths from malaria (WHO, 2005). HIV/AIDS is also rapidly becoming aserious issue, and while official statistics for AIDS rates in Tanzania are 6.5% (WHO,2006), unofficial rumours within the Kilombero District suggest that around 75% ofblood donors are infected. An estimated 140 000 adults and children in Tanzania diedfrom AIDS in 2005 (WHO, 2006),2.5 Wildlife of the ValleyThe floodplain is an important wildlife corridor and refuge, harbouring over 75% ofthe world’s population of puku antelope, (Kobus vardoni) (East, 1998). TheKilombero Valley also contains populations of elephant (Loxodonta africana), buffalo(Syncerus caffer) and many other species of antelope. There are also several predatorspecies, including lion (Panthera leo), leopard, (Panthera pardus), spotted hyena(Crocuta crocuta), and there have been infrequent sightings of the African wild dog(Lycaon pictus) Due to the proximity of the Selous Game Reserve to the KilomberoValley, there are animals migrating to and from the valley (Wetlands International,2007), and some moving further north towards the Udzungwa National Park. Thevalley is an Endemic Bird Area (EBA), an area with two or more endemic birdspecies, these include the Kilombero weaver (Ploceus burnieri), the Kilomberocisticola and the white tailed cisticola (Stevenson and Fanshawe, 2002). In addition tothis, the high numbers of migratory birds contribute to the area qualifying as anImportant Bird Area (IBA), and as such it meets every individual IBA criteria(Starkey et al., 2002). The Udzungwa National Park lies to the North of theKilombero Valley, where a range of endemic species are present. One of these whose13

ange extends into the valley is the Udzungwa red colobus monkey (Procolobusgordonorum), which inhabits fragmented patches of riverine and evergreen forest.2.6 Woodland of the ValleyThere is a range of vegetation assemblages within the Kilombero Valley, includingthe evergreen forests of the Udzungwa Mountains, riverine forest of the edges ofsome rivers and swamp grassland in the broad valleys where drainage is impeded(Kangalawe and Liwenga, 2005). However, there is one dominant vegetation type thatcan be found throughout the region, and is of particular importance to the people andwildlife of the valley and this is the miombo woodland. The Miombo-Mopaneecosystem is one of the largest remaining intact blocks of tropical dry forest in theworld (Conservation International, 2002; Abdallah and Monela, 2007). The ecosystemcovers almost 4 million km 2 across many countries in southern Africa; Angola,Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, The Democratic Republic of Congo, Zambia andZimbabwe (Figure 2.2). Of this ecosystem 2.7 million km 2 consists of miombowoodland (Baékus et al., 2006). Conservation International has categorised 1.16million km 2 of this as ‘wilderness’; areas that retain 70% or more of their originalhabitat, cover over 10,000km 2 and have a population density of less than 5 people perkm 2 (Conservation International, 2002).Miombo woodlands are generally dominated by tree species from three genera;Brachystegia, Julbernardia and Isoberlinia, from the legume subfamilyCaesalpinioideae, although their dominance can vary significantly within theecosystem (Banda et al., 2006). Miombo woodlands can be categorised into twodifferent types; dry miombo woodlands which occur in areas receiving less than1000mm of rainfall a year, and wet miombo woodlands occurring in areas receivingover 1000mm a year. Dry miombo has lower canopy heights, and impoverishedvegetation in comparison with wet miombo (Abdallah and Monela, 2007). Woodyplants make up more than 95% of plant biomass, though some areas are dominated bygrassland (Abdallah and Monela, 2007). There have been few detailed studies todifferentiate species diversity within miombo, and the importance of environmentaland dynamic factors such as soil conditions, fire and successional status upon speciescomposition is little known (Baékus et al., 2006).14

Figure 2.2: Distribution of the miombo ecosystem in southern Africa (source: TheMpingo Conservation Project, 2007)Miombo woodlands support over 40 million rural people directly, and indirectlysupport another 15 million urban dwellers (Abdallah and Monela, 2007). They aretherefore subject to massive resource use. Miombo accounts for 39.6% of total forestcover in Tanzania, and resides under various management schemes (Banda et al.,2006). Resources are extracted for use as medicines, fuel, food, fibres, andconstruction materials. Miombo woodland also provides a range of services that arenot as apparent as resource use, including cultural and spiritual values, climaticregulation, erosion and hydrological control (Abdallah and Monela, 2007).In Tanzania 97% of all annual wood extraction is used as firewood (Abdallah andMonela, 2007), in the region of 2.2 m 3 per person per annum (Foley and van Buren,1980). Charcoal is also commonly used as a fuel source; for example, within Dar esSalaam consumption rates are approximately 100 kg per person per year (Foley andvan Buren, 1980). Traditional techniques used to produce charcoal lose 70% of thecaloric value of the wood, therefore adding to the unsustainable nature of this practice(Luoga et al., 2002; Abdallah and Monela, 2007). The demand for charcoal isgrowing as the human population increases, and without a corresponding growth intechnological development many consumers are unable to switch to alternative energysources (Abdallah and Monela, 2007). For example, use of electricity for cooking isreported by only 1% of households in the country (NBS, 2002). Total fuel woodconsumption is an estimated 30 million m 3 per annum (Foley and van Buren, 1980).Deforestation rates in Tanzania are in the region of 91,276 ha/year (Dallu, 2002).Shifting cultivation accounts for 50% of deforestation on the Tanzanian mainland(Abdallah and Monela, 2007), with charcoal, illegal harvesting, mining livestockgrazing and fire also contributing (Dallu, 2002). More obscure issues regardingpoverty, overpopulation, inadequate agrarian policies, corruption and greed, ignorance15

and carelessness, under-evaluation of natural forests and open access to general areasalso affect deforestation rates (Abdallah and Monela, 2007). For example, studies inMalawi and Mozambique have shown that the prevalence of HIV/AIDS is having alarge impact on the utilisation of miombo woodland resources, a trend that requiresmanagement plans to take into consideration the increasing HIV/AIDS pandemicthroughout southern Africa (FAO, 2007). As the ability of affected households tocultivate their land diminishes, they tend to rely increasingly on gathering fromwoodlands for their daily subsistence needs, income and natural medicines. Areaswith higher HIV/AIDS prevalence were shown to be experiencing a more rapiddecline in woodland quality and availability than those with lower rates (FAO, 2007).The degree to which HIV/AIDS impacted on the resource use was very dependent ona range of socio-economic factors particular to those villages concerned. Thisdemonstrates that adjustment of forestry management plans in response to thesefindings will need full participation on a very local basis from people actuallyexperiencing the demand for natural resources as a result of HIV/AIDS (FAO, 2007).In conjunction with the extra pressures placed upon miombo from the growingprevalence of HIV/AIDS, there are additional potential problems resulting fromincreasingly erratic weather patterns. Reduction in rainfall quantities andpredictability may lead to crop failure and food shortages, forcing rural people to turnever more to miombo products for sustenance (Abdallah and Monela, 2007). Thesecomplex socio-economic problems need to be fully understood before adequatesolutions to deforestation and degradation can be produced (Abdallah and Monela,2007).Results of degradation can be far reaching, from loss of soil quality creating fooddeficiencies to inadequate water supplies. Within Tanzania much of miombowoodland is held under general lands, which lack any management institution, andtherefore they are rapidly being lost to deforestation (Abdallah and Monela, 2007).Logging in public lands within Tanzania is in the region of 6.38 m 3 ha- 1 per year,vastly exceeding the mean annual increment (MAI) of 4.35 m 3 ha- 1 (Luoga et al.,2002) and is highly unsustainable. The intensity with which an area is utilised isdependent upon its proximity to roads and settlements, previous use patterns andaccessibility. Miombo woodlands are in a state of rapid change (Baékus et al., 2006)and effective management plans are required urgently to safeguard their future.2.7 Future of the ValleyThe Kilombero Valley holds some of the most fertile lands and rich fisheries ofTanzania. However, internal population growth and the influx of people fromdifferent areas has created an increased demand for food, and therefore the use ofwetland resources has increased and intensified over the past few decades (Kangalaweand Liwenga, 2005). The increase in both subsistence farming and the continuedexpansion of commercial agriculture ventures is threatening the continued stability ofthe ecosystem through deforestation and soil degradation due to increased clearanceof land for agriculture and increasing livestock numbers. This is leading to a conflictof interest between environmental conservation and the livelihoods of localcommunities, and resource use conflict between different users will increase in thefuture (Kangalawe and Liwenga, 2005). This is already being experienced within theKilombero Valley as the increasing numbers of pastoral herds-people and their cattle16

are leading to increased rates of environmental degradation and civil unrest, due toconflict over natural resources.The increasing levels of deforestation have all but closed important wildlife corridorsbetween the protected areas to the north and south, and habitat in unprotected areas isdwindling rapidly. The consequences of habitat loss and fragmentation in this areamay threaten endemic species with restricted ranges, lead to the loss of ecologicalniches resulting in local population extinctions, the loss of fauna with large homeranges, a loss in genetic variability within populations, and increased occurrence ofhuman-wildlife conflict (Berry et al., 2002; Githiru and Lens, 2007; Osborn andParker, 2003).However, with good resource management strategies and conservation policies itshould be possible to create conditions where the local communities can continue todevelop, but not at the expense of wildlife population and natural resources.3. Social Survey Work3.1 IntroductionSocial surveys were carried out within 25 villages in two Districts of the KilomberoValley. In total 375 people were interviewed, giving their opinions upon a wide range17

of topics designed to discover the impact that environmental and conservation issueshave on life within the Kilombero Valley.3.2 Study locationsKilombero DistrictChamotoIdeteIhengeIkwambiKisegeseMbasaMbinguMkangawaloMlimba ‘A’MngetaMofuNamwawalaUtenguleUlanga DistrictIdundaIgumbiroIraguaItete MiniziniItete NjiwaKichanganiKidugaloLulviliMadabadabaMavimbaMilolaNakafuluTable 3.13.3 MethodologyUpon arrival in each village we located the Village Chairman or another seniormember of the Village Committee. Occasionally there would be no available seniormember, and we were unable to interview, and had to return to the village on anotheroccasion. We introduced ourselves and asked for permission to interview 15 membersof the village, which was invariably granted. It was then usual for the Chairman toarrange an area in which to conduct interviews, and then to gather suitable availableinterviewees. Interviewee selection was random, usually defined upon personnelavailability. We usually required a balance between male and female, and asked for arange of ages if possible. In some cases the Chairman had prior commitments and wasunable to assist us to such a great extent. In these cases the Community LiaisonOfficer, Mr. David Charles, would arrange an area and locate interviewees. Onseveral occasions it was possible to request the interviews on the days previous to theintended interview date. This helped significantly to reduce time delays on the day ofthe interviews, and also guaranteed the interviews. In some cases the Chairman wouldremain with the interviewees during the interview, however, we requested that thisshould not be the case, as it is possible that the presence of village officials mayprevent interviewees from voicing unfavourable opinions regarding village issues.Data were collected through a questionnaire containing 28 questions and wasdelivered as a structured interview with three interviewees at a time. Although this isnot ideal, as previous answers may be copied by subsequent interviewees, this was themost practical arrangement. Efforts were made to reduce this potential bias by varyingthe first respondent, and not allowing other interviewees to interrupt the speaker. Wealso tried to limit the impact that third parties would have on the interviewees by18

conducting the interviews in private. This was occasionally difficult to achieve aslarge crowds regularly accumulated around us.Interviews lasted between 45 and 60 minutes and were usually conductedsuccessively. On some occasions the interviews were conducted over two days. Mr.Charles asked the question and then translated the answers to two assistants; a FTSRPstaff member and a volunteer. Mr Charles also recorded one set of answers.3.4 Demographic profile of interviewees in the Kilombero ValleyIn the following sections topics are analysed based on the results obtained for theentire region.3.4.1 Population detailsAcross the Kilombero Valley 375 people were interviewed, 130 women and 245 men.3.4.1.1 Age StructureAge Male Female Total14 and under 1 0 115-19 3 4 720-24 13 13 2625-29 40 14 5430-34 36 27 6335-39 36 25 6140-44 28 16 4445-49 30 13 4350-54 22 7 2955-59 11 4 1560-64 9 4 1365-69 4 2 670-74 7 775+ 2 2don’t know 3 1 4Table 3.2. Age structure of interviewees in the Kilombero Valley19

Percentage of interviewees representing each age groupAge group75+70-7465-6960-6455-5950-5445-4940-4435-3930-3425-2920-2415-1914 and underMaleFemale20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25PercentageFigure 3.1. Percentage of interviewees representing each age group3.4.1.2 EducationEducation levels of interviewees6%1%2%7%NonePrimarySecondaryTertiaryOther84%Figure 3.2. Education levels of interviewees20

3.4.1.3 Immigration190 people interviewed (50.67%) had moved into their village from another area. 185(49.33%) people were born in their village.3.4.1.4 TribesTribe No. of members Tribe No. of membersPogoro 109 Nyamwezi 2Ndamba 65 Yao 2WaHehe 39 Zigua 2Ngindo 30 Chidabaga 1Bena 25 Haya 1Ngoni 24 Jita 1Sukuma 23 Kinga 1Nyakyusa 11 Lugulu 1Chaga 5 Mbunga 1Ndwewe 5 Mha 1Gogo 4 Msobe 1Rangi 4 Ndali 1Fipa 3 Nyasa 1Makonde 3 Nyiramba 1Ndengereko 3 Pare 1Sangu 3 none 1Table 3.3. Tribes that interviewees belong toThree of the main tribes represented here (Pogoro, Ndamba and Ngindo) originate inthe Kilombero Valley. The Ndamba tribe come from along the Kilombero River,while the Porgoro and Ngindo come from slightly further south, in the Ulanga District.The WaHehe originate in Iringa, and represent one of the largest groups ofimmigrants.3.4.1.5 OccupationThe majority of people we questioned were subsistence farmers, with 123 women and209 men giving agricultural farming as their sole occupation. An additional 13 peoplealso were subsistence pastoralists, totalling 345 subsistence farmers, 92% of allpeople interviewed. Of those with other occupations (Table 3) only 11 people did notmention farming as their occupation, and it appeared from following questions thateveryone performed some level of agricultural cultivation.Position Women Men21

Village Executive Positions 1 6Business activities 2 3Fishermen 3Student 3Tailor 2Rector 2Teacher 2Nurse 1Revenue collector 1Carpenter 1Operates small tractors 1Chef at Mofu secondary school 1Mason 1Table 3.4. Other occupations of interviewees3.5.1.6 Size of householdThe average household size was 5.9 people. Household sizes are displayed in Figure3.Number of people per household7060Number of respondents504030201001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 29 30 100Number of people in householdFigure 3.3. Number of people per householdThis gives a general overview of the demographics of people interviewed throughoutthe social survey.22

4. Crop Raiding in the Kilombero Valley4.1 SummaryThe extent of crop damage caused by wild animals and the impacts it has onlivelihoods in the Kilombero Valley, central-southern Tanzania, was identifiedthrough structured interviews with 375 farmers. Crop raiding in the valley is thoughtto be increasing, although more damage may be attributed to small to medium sizedmammals including bushpigs (Potamochoerus larvatus) rodents (Rodentia sp.) andyellow baboons (Papio cynocephalus) than was previously the case. Damage causedby large mammals such as elephants (Africana loxodonta) and hippopotami(Hippopotamus amphibius) is still significant. The impacts of crop damage on thelivelihoods of the subsistence farmers in the region are widespread, with 84% ofpeople experiencing food shortages. Other impacts include heightened levels ofpoverty, lack of sleep, lack of access to health services, and decreased education.Traditional methods of deterrent including noise, fire and prolonged presence in thefields are largely ineffective due to habituation. Farmers in the area require help toreduce the levels of crop raiding, and feel that the provision of game guards would bethe most effective solution. However, research elsewhere suggests that this may notbe a long term solution to crop raiding, and that the use of fences may be necessary.Implementing fences has wide-ranging consequences, and any mitigation techniquemust be area and species specific.4.2 IntroductionCrop raiding is the movement of wild animals from their natural habitat onto agriculturalland where they consume or damage a crop that was intended for human consumption(Sillero-Zubiri and Switzer, 2004). This type of human-wildlife conflict is becomingincreasingly recognised within conservation and development programmes as a seriousissue (Hill, 2000; Hoare, 1999). Despite this relatively recent acknowle dgment cropraiding is by no means a new phenomenon; indeed, there are records of crop raidingstretching back millennia (Osborn, 1998; Naughton-Treves, 1997; Thouless and Sakwa,1995; Fernando et al., 2005). Crop raiding and livestock depredation (Butler, 2000)occur worldwide, but some areas, notably Africa and Asia, are more affected thanothers with the most conflict occurring most around the borders of protected areas(Naughton-Treves, 1997). Human-wildlife conflict is becoming increasingly severe inthese areas due to the expansion of agriculture into ‘buffer’ zones, therebycompressing wildlife into smaller areas (Osborn, 2004; Thouless and Sakwa, 1995).Large mammals are usually recognised as responsible for crop raiding, althoughdamage caused by insects and rodents is often significant (Naughton-Treves, 1997).In Africa, subsistence farmers appear to be the most affected by crop raiding (Sitati etal., 2005) and many crops are damaged, particularly mainstay crops such as rice andmaize. Crop raiding results in major proportions of the crop being unsuitable forhuman use. This leads to substantial livelihood consequences for subsistencepastoralists, farmers and foresters including loss of income, food shortages and socialneeds (Lee and Graham, 2006). It also produces antagonism within local communitiestowards the problem species, undermining conservation programmes in the region.Therefore reducing levels of crop raiding is not only beneficial to local people; it will23

also generate more favourable attitudes towards conservation, which in turn leads to agreater chance of success for conservation initiatives.4.3 Consequences for local peopleThe loss of major staple crops such as rice and maize can have wide ranging impactsupon subsistence farmers as they are produced for a wide range of livelihoodoutcomes, including food security, education and health services and building houses.Reduction in household production of rice, resulting in insufficient quantities to feedthe family until the next harvesting period, results in a shift to other staples, andeventually the purchase of food stuff with cash. This necessarily diverts the cash awayfrom other areas, causing other types of deprivation. Therefore food security is notwholly dependent on household rice production alone, but should be understoodwithin the wider framework of household livelihood strategies (Mwaseba et al., 2007).Protein availability to families, traditionally gathered as a by-product of snaring andtrapping to reduce crop damage, has been greatly reduced as a result of changingwildlife protection laws (Hill, 2000), thereby compounding food shortages andexacerbating resentment to wildlife conservation efforts.Other impacts of crop raiding on livelihoods can include injury and death; financiallosses incurred through crop raiding and livestock mortality; impacts on livestockhusbandry such as access to waterholes and quality grazing; and the impact on day today living, including firewood and water collection, travel to school and time lost dueto protecting crops at night (Lee and Graham, 2006). These wide-ranging impactshave consequences for community development and poverty alleviation.4.4 Consequences for conservationWildlife-human conflict occurs as a result of humans and animals coming intoincreased proximity to one another. This is particularly the case with elephants, whoare often cited as the major crop raiding offenders. Eighty percent of the range ofelephants in Africa lies outside protected areas (Hoare, 1999) and their numbers anddistribution will always be vulnerable to agricultural practices expanding intoelephant habitat (Hoare and du Toit, 1999). Elephant populations are able to persist inareas where human settlements occur within a matrix of untransformed elephanthabitat, until a point where the matrix design reverses and patches of elephant habitatexist within a matrix of human settlement. When this becomes the case elephantsurvival in this area is reliant on the size and connectivity of the elephant habitatpatches, if they are insufficient the elephants will move away (Hoare and du Toit,1999).Crop raiding increases in zones surrounding protected areas due to both the expansionof animals from protected areas into surrounding buffer zones and the expansion ofthe human population from human-dominated landscapes into the same buffer zones.Conflict in these areas is exacerbated by negative perceptions created from theimplementation of National Parks where areas were rendered inaccessible to people,and wild animals were seen as having a land advantage over the local people, or beingof political value (Lee and Graham, 2006). These perceptions result in increased24

antagonism and further difficulties in attempting to achieve a harmonious relationshipbetween the elephants and the local people.4.5 PerceptionsPeople living in areas close to protected areas often believe that crop raiding by largemammals is the biggest problem that results from this proximity (Hill,1997;Naughton-Treves, 1997; De Boer & Baquete, 1998; Gillingham & Lee, 1999).However, several studies show that the greatest damage to crops is caused by smalleranimals such as bushpigs, birds and rodents that are resident within the farmlandmatrix rather than larger mammals that move into the farmland from the wildlife areas(Gillingham & Lee, 2003). However, when asked directly about the impact of cropraiding farmers are more likely to focus on extreme events (Lee and Graham, 2006)where a significant proportion of the crop was damaged in one occasion, rather thanthe ‘background’ damage caused continually by smaller animals. This focus onextreme events may lead to a skewed reporting of crop damage, as, whetherintentionally or unintentionally, claims of damage become exaggerated through theemphasis of these events and they can be taken to be the normal level of crop raidingrather than the exception. Deliberate exaggeration of claims can result from severalmotivating factors, for example, protestation over conservation legislation, (Madden,2004) or other issues with local government or large local companies. It can also bedriven by a desire to gain compensation, especially in areas where the government isseen to be the custodians of wildlife as any impact of wildlife on water resources orcrops is seen to be a direct cost to the local people. It is seen as the governments’responsibility rather than a consequence of being part of the system in which wildlifeand humans co-exist, and compensation is expected (Lee and Graham, 2006). Thiscan lead to large mammals, in particular elephants, being used a scapegoat for a widerange of unrelated issues, leading to retribution against them as a means ofdemonstrating that something is being done about the problem (Lee and Graham,2006). Compensation for human-wildlife conflict as a solution to these issues has hadvery limited success (Bulte and Rondeau, 2007). Additionally using elephants asscapegoats has the effect of increasing perceptions that elephants are bad, andtherefore leads to more accusations against them, and so on. Much of this stems from‘ownership’ issues. If the wildlife is seen to be owned by the government it can beused as a way of venting frustration at the government. Changing this so thatcustodianship of wildlife is given to local people may alter this attitude (Barbier, 1992;Metcalfe, 1994). Giving responsibility to local people for the use of their wildliferesources is one of the underlying motives of community based wildlife managementprogrammes.4.6 Aims and objectivesThe increase in agricultural activity within the Kilombero Valley created by theincrease in human population has led to crop raiding in this region becoming a seriousissue (Siege and Baldus, 2000), but the consequences of this to local people are not fullyestablished. The majority of studies assessing the impact of crop raiding oncommunities tend to assess the economic costs of crop loss. In subsistencecommunities the economic impacts are only one of a number important issues25

esulting from crop raiding to affect the household. These ‘hidden costs’ of humanwildlifeconflicts have not been fully examined and understanding these issues willassist in the development of strategies to mitigate crop raiding.• Assessment of the type and amount of crop raiding in the Kilombero Valley• Assessment of the impact of crop raiding upon livelihoods in the KilomberoValley• Identification of possible mitigation techniques.4.7 Results: Crop RaidingQuestion 3: How much land do you farm?(Valid answers n=372; Unclassified answers n=3)Less Than 11.0-1.92.0-2.93.0-3.94.0-4.96.0-6.98.0-8.910.0-19.920.0-29.930+Figure 4.1 Total land area farmed for all crops26

Question 4: Which crops do you grow, including those grown in small quantities?(n=375)12010080Percentage6040200Rice Maize Cassava BananaCropFigure 4.2 Percentage of far mers growing main crops5443Percentage322110ufutaGround NutsCow-PeaSweet PotatoMilletbeanspeasorangespapayasesametomatoesCocoacoconutCropVegetablesPumpkinpigeon peatarot rootsMbasi (type of bean)Figure 4.3 Percentage of farmers growing crops in small quantitieslemonspotatopeanutscarrotssunflowerDate palmTeak27

Table4.1: Crop diversityCropcombinationRiceonlyMaizeonlyRice & maizeonlyNoriceNomaizeRice, maize &other cropsRice &other cropsMaize &other cropsNo rice ormaizeNo. offarms133 4 129 14 150 83 27 9 2Percentage 35.47 1.07 34.40 3.73 40.00 22.13 7.20 2.40 0.53160140Number of Farms120100806040200Rice OnlyMaizeOnlyRice &MaizeOnlyNo Rice No Maize Rice,Maize &OtherCropsRice &OtherCropsMaize &OtherCropsNo Riceor MaizeCrop DiversityFigure 4.4 Crop Diversity28

Question 5: Which animals damage your crops?(n=375. More than one type of animal could be cited, and occasionally the particularcrop was mentioned. Listed in descending order).Table 4.2. Animals damaging all types of cropsAnimalNo. ofrespondentsBushpig 310Elephant 231Hippo 159Birds 144Puku 102Buffalo 75Cattle 46Lions 2Duiker 22Warthog 16Porcupine 12Zebra 11Guinea fowl 6dik dik 3Reedbuck 6Frog/toad 5Rodents 146Cane rat 135Hare 7Monkey 55Baboon 208Vervet monkey 106Colobus monkey 3Blue monkey 1Insect 47Caterpillar 24Locusts 6Ants 3Following these questions the respondents were asked for the animal that wasresponsible for the most damage to each crop. Although we asked for one species thatdid the most damage, we were often told that some species did equal amounts ofdamage to the cropsQuestion 6: Which animal does the most damage to rice crops?(n=361. This did notapply to 14 people who did not grow rice).People were able to give more than one answer. Displayed in descending order.29

Table 4.3. Animals responsible for the most damage to rice cropsNo of people citingspeciesPercentageElephant 100 27.70Bushpig 91 25.21Birds 70 19.39Hippo 62 17.17Baboon 48 13.30Puku 41 11.36cattle 31 8.59Rodents 26 7.20insect 27 7.48cane rat 19 5.26buffalo 12 3.32Monkey 8 2.22VervetMonkeys5 1.39catepillar 4 1.11Warthog 3 0.83Eland 1 0.28Hartebeest 1 0.28locust 1 0.28zebra 1 0.28toads/frog 1 0.28termites 1 0.28Question 7: Which animals do the most damage to other crops?(n= 261 . 113 people indicated that this was not applicable to them, 1 person saidnothing damaged the other crops. More than one animal could be cited. Displayed indescending order).30

Table 4.4: Animals responsible for the most damage to other cropsAnimalNo. of people citingspeciesPercentageBaboon 101 38.70Bushpig 85 32.57Vervetmonkey36 13.79Rodents 33 12.64Elephants 29 11.11Monkey 26 9.96Hippo 10 3.83Cattle 7 2.68Birds 6 2.30Buffalo 5 1.92Cane rat 5 1.92Puku 3 1.15Insects 2 0.77Zebra 2 0.77Warthog 1 0.38Bushbuck 1 0.38Porcupine 1 0.38Hare 1 0.38Question 8: At what time of year and stage in crop growth do animals do the mostdamage?A range of times were given for crop damage, from November through to June.However, March to April, through the rainy season was the time most respondentsthought the most damage occurred (11 respondents). This corresponded with the cropsjust beginning to reach maturity. Other damage occurred during seeding and when thecrops were just beginning to sprout, from November to February. Rodents werethought to cause damage throughout the year.31

Question 9: What sort of losses do you suffer?(n=375, 279 answers were suitable for calculation - 96 answers were unquantifiable)Number of Respondents807060504030201000-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100Percentage Crop LossFigure 4.5 Percentage crop loss as a result of crop raidingQuestion 10: How do these losses affect your daily life?(n=375) There were 788 effects given, which were categorised into the followinggroups:Table 4.5: Socio-economic effects resulting from crop raidingAffect No. of respondents PercentageIssues relating to health 62 16.53Education 87 23.20Building houses 18 4.80Food shortages 314 83.73Agricultural impact 21 5.60Other food issues 3 0.80Cant afford clothes 9 2.40Cant afford other goods 4 1.07Inability to meet general social needs 59 15.73Cant meet other plans 21 5.60Hinders development 26 6.93Lack of money/decreased income/hard42.93161life/povertyNone 1 0.27Everything 2 0.5332

Question 11: How does this affect your weekly activities?N=375, 487 effects given.Table 4.6. Effect on weekly activitiesCrop raiding effectsNo. of respondentsEffect on other activitiesOther income generating activities 59 15.78Other unspecified activities 96 25.67Farming activities 28 7.49Development 14 3.74Lack of sleep 48 12.83Effects on childrenDifficulties getting to school 33 8.82Missing school 98 26.20Lack of parental care/home17.9167alone/workPoor family care 6 1.60No effectsThey know how to work to prevent3.4813negative effectsNo effect on children 15 4.01No effects 10 2.67Don’t know 1 0.27No answer 1 0.27Question 12: How often is your shamba damaged?(n=375)• Occurs on a regular basis; every day, every season, or every year (362)• Not often (2)• Seems to have stopped (1)• Occurs every two years (3)*• Occurs every three years (3)*• No answer (1)• Not in the area long enough to comment (1)• Not every year (1)• Variable- sometimes a lot, sometimes none (1)*It is possible that there was some confusion here, and they meant that they either lostthe entire crop every two or three years, or that it increased in intensity every two tothree years.33

Question 13: Has crop damage increased, decreased or stayed the same over time?(n=375)Table 4.7. Trends in crop raiding over timeno. ofrespondentspercentageincreased 307 81.87decreased 21 5.60stayed the same 39 10.40don’t know 2 0.53n/a 1 0.27Comments attached to these answers (number of people commenting in parentheses):• Bushpig damage has decreased, but cattle damage has increased (1)• Insect damage has increased, but game animals have decreased (1)• Crop raiding has decreased due to an increase in human population (3)• Cattle are a big problem (1)Question 15: What do you do to deter animals from damaging your crops?(n=375) 768 comments given, which were categorised into the following groups:Table 4.8. Crop raiding deterrents used and negative remarks concerning it.Deterrent methodNo. ofrespondentsPercentageAggressive deterrentsNoise 266 70.93Throw stones 48 12.80Dogs 19 5.07Chase them/scare them away 19 5.07Spotlighting 9 2.40Total 361 48.46Passive deterrentsFire 66 17.60Fences 27 7.20Burning rubber to make smell 18 4.80Scarecrows 5 1.33Clear area so no cover for canerats4 1.07Total 120 16.10Removal of problem animalsPoison 26 6.93Traps 26 6.9334

Pitfall traps 19 5.07Arrows 11 2.93Snares 10 2.67Pesticides 4 1.07Catapults 4 1.07Destroy birds nests 2 0.53Kill them 1 0.27Total 103 13.82Community/authorityinvolvementInformation to wildlife officers 42 11.20Form co-operative groups 8 2.13Confine cattle, village officerfor compensation1 0.27Total 51 6.84Lifestyle/farming changeMove to field 108 28.80Crop rotation 2 0.53Total 110 14.77Negative remarksNothing works 2 0.53Do nothing 5 1.33Only women make noise 1 0.27Nothing-because she is a woman 1 0.27Can’t do anything about cane rats 1 0.27Hard to stop the cows due to conflict 5 1.33Fire is not used- spreads, or have nothing toburn2 0.53Animals are habituated 2 0.53Very hard to control baboons without a gun 1 0.27Used to use poison for mice-no longer eat it 1 0.27Used to live at farm, make noise, usecatapults2 0.53No answer 1 0.27Total 24 6.4035

15%7%48%14%16%Aggressive deterrrentPassive deterrentRemoval of problem animalsCommunity/authority involvementlifestyle/farming changeFigure 4.6: Percentage of different Crop raiding deterrents usedQuestion 16: What do you think should be done about animals that damage yourcrops? (n=375). 523 suggestions given.Table 4.9. Required assistance to limit crop raidingAssistance required No. of respondents PercentagePest removalAgrochemicals 2 0.53Spraying for birds 2 0.53Kill the animals 41 10.93Spraying fields for insects 2 0.53Poison 61 16.27Pesticides 27 7.20Traps 6 1.60nets 22 5.87‘Scaring’ and prevention techniquesGame guards, firearms, prompt responses 266 70.93Need fences between wild areas and farmland 15 4.00Other land issue solutionsKVTC should limit teak 3 0.80Clear demarcation of boundaries 2 0.53Conserve/restore habitat 3 0.80Remove trees to keep baboons away 3 0.8036

Electric fences should be removed 6 1.60Political solutionsGovernment should assist in some way 26 6.93Collaboration between farmers 1 0.27Ask opinion of villagers 2 0.53Agricultural education 11 2.93Evict pastoralists/reduce cattle numbers 18 4.80Safari companies should assist withanimals/pastoralists4 1.07No remarksNo answer 3 0.80Do nothing 2 0.53Don’t know 3 0.80Crop raiding commentsThere were 313 comments made surrounding the issue of crop raiding. Several aredisplayed below.• ‘Crop raiding has changed-10 years ago used to be elephants and big gamenow it is all birds and bushpigs’ Mbasa• ‘The government should provide compensation for the loss of crops, eithermoney, or the amount of crops that we have lost, because the crops would giveus money for food and for other social services like health. We don’t evenhave enough money to send the children to school’ Kisegese• ‘Crop raiding has increased because there is nothing to deal with theproblems. Once COTACO company came and sprayed pesticide that killedmany birds but now the problem is still there’ Mngeta• ‘….need help to control crop raiding as the children need to go to school and Ineed to provide for them…..depend on the rice to sell as well as for food’Idunda• ‘….government should help with animal problems as starvation is gettingworse every year’ Idunda• ‘….remove animals that crop damage, so we can plant many more crops andnot worry about crop raiding’ Ihenge• ‘I think government should help us to get pesticides-have to sow seeds 3 or 4times to get one harvest’ Namwawala37

4.8 Discussion4.8.1 Crop damageThe majority of farmers within the Kilombero Valley are small scale subsistencefarmers, with 74% farming less than 2 ha. Therefore any crop damage by largespecies is likely to be catastrophic, In spite of their large size elephants can movequite fast with a walking speed of 4-6 km/h, which potentially allows them to movethrough an extensive area of agriculture in one night. When running they can attainspeeds up to 60 km/h. The main crops grown are staples, grown mainly for personalconsumption; maize, rice, cassava and banana. 34% of farmers grow only rice andmaize, leaving them vulnerable to food shortages if animals damage these crops, ascrop diversification is an important way of coping with food shortages (Kangalaweand Liwenga, 2005). Only 3.73% do not grow rice, whereas 40% do not grow maize.Any loss in these crops can have substantial effects on the livelihoods of subsistencefarmers, leading to food shortages and resulting hardships (Mwaseba et al., 2007).The estimated crop loss experienced throughout the Kilombero Valley as a result ofdamage by wild animals was an average of 63.32%. Even allowing for exaggeratedclaims of crop raiding the number of people responding as such across such a largearea allows us to give weight to these findings.Crop raiding speciesBushpig was the most commonly cited animal for causing damage to all crops, withother major species including elephants, baboons, hippos, rodents and cane rat. Whenasked for the species that caused the most damage to rice crops farmers suggested thatelephants were the worst offenders (27.7%), followed by bushpig (25.21%), birds(19.39%), hippo (17.17%), and baboon 13.30%). Baboon (38.70%) and bushpig(32.75%) caused the most damage to other crops. Puku, buffalo, vervet monkeys andcattle also caused widespread damage.Responsibility of animals causing damage varied according to the spatial context, forexample, zebra caused damage to rice crops in villages near the floodplain, whereas inareas near the forests baboons and elephants caused more damage. It also variesdepending on distance from the village, as demonstrated by a comment from a farmerin Itete Njiwa:‘Shambas far from the village experience hippo and elephants etc, those closer havebig problem with cattle’Damage also varied significantly on a temporal scale, with the months of Novemberto April seeing the worst levels of crop damage, coinciding with the sprouting and andfirst stages of maturity of the crops. There has been little evidence to suggest thatthere are clear relationships between natural food availability or elephant density withthe level of elephant damage, suggesting that the most plausible relationship is thatthe level of crop damage is due to the optimum foraging theory (Begon et al., 1986)when animals will maximise the quality of their nutrient intake wherever possible(Hoare, 2000). However, there may be a secondary effect within the KilomberoValley, where harvesting times relate to the fluctuating levels of water within thevalley, as the river floods a result of the rains the animals move out of the floodplainmoving higher into the hills. A seasonal peak in the late wet season has been shownelsewhere in savanna elephant ranges, with animals destroying maturing crops (Hoare,38

1999). When water sources higher in the hills begin to diminish and the flood watershave dwindled the animals move back down to the valley, where they will stay untilthe floodplains flood again. This downward travel probably occurs in June and July,coinciding with mature crops ready for harvesting.ElephantsIt has been demonstrated that there are several factors that will influence the levelsand intensity of crop raiding by elephants. These include the distance from areas ofelephant refuges, the distance to permanent water, the levels of crop cover and theintensity of the cultivation (Lee and Graham, 2006). In areas where settlements andcultivation zones are patchily distributed the farmland is isolated within a matrix ofnatural habitat resulting in an increase in crop raiding intensity. Larger farm areaswith high levels of agricultural crop cover are effectively consolidated barriers ofagricultural land, and as such receive much less damage (Lee and Graham, 2006),although it is also argued that conflict is exacerbated in areas where there issubstantial agricultural area and a fragmented mosaic of small forest patches thatremains utilised by elephants (Fernando, 2005)..Elephants are likely to be listed as causing the most damage to rice due to the largeamount of damage they can cause in one raid. Smaller mammals may raid on a morefrequent basis causing less damage on each occasion, and even though the cumulativedamage they cause may be greater than a single elephant raid, the impact of theelephant raid leads to the perception that they area the worst offenders (Hoare, 2000Naughton-treves, 1998) Reported levels of crop damage by elephants are typically 5-10% of total crop loss (Hoare, 2000), demonstrating that it is possible that they are notactually as responsible for damage as is claimed.BaboonsBaboons were thought to be responsible for a significant amount of crop damage, andthis was very dependent on whether there was suitable habitat for them in the vicinity.Crops affected were predominantly maize; in Kidugalo no one grows maize ‘becauseof the baboons’. This preference for maize has been seen elsewhere; (Hill 2000)found that in agricultural areas adjacent to the Budongo Forest Reserve in Ugandababoons caused most crop raiding incidents, targeting predominantly cassava andmaize. There are several villages within the Kilombero where baboons are a seriousissue. In Mbasa children have been killed by baboons, and people are running out ofmethods with which to defend their fields:‘Baboons know they are not allowed in the fields, but they are not afraid of childrenso they attack them. They are habituated to noise and fire etc’The issue of baboons no longer showing fear towards people was also highlighted byHill (2000).Villagers in Ihenge also commented on the baboons:‘Need help to stop baboon and bushpig because they haven’t been able to stop themand their populations have increased, government should help’39

‘[I] need help to stop baboons, who stop [me] cultivating many crops as [I] couldevery year’RodentsSeveral villagers commented that rodents are becoming an increasing problem,especially in most villages. One of the overriding issues with rodents is that theydamage crops after harvest as well as when they are in the fields:‘The mice attack the crops in the field, and also when they are stored in the house aswell’ Farmer in ChamotoRodents are recognised as serious problems in other areas too, in the Philippinesrodents occasionally cause total crop loss, and are the most damaging vertebrates torice (Ahmed and Fiedler, 2002).The human cost of crop raidingFood security needs – defined by the World Bank (1986) as ‘access by all people atall times to enough food for an active, healthy life’ – can be defined by household riceproduction, but it is also dependent upon other issues relating to the household’sresources that are made available by the adequate production of rice, and are alsoimportant. Although food can be obtained from the market, food security is seenlocally as associated with the availability of foods grown at home, due to the lack ofmoney with which to buy the food that is available in the markets. Maize and rice arecrops of commercial importance (Kangalawe and Liwenga, 2005), and moneyobtained from their sale is intended for health and education costs, constructionmaterials and clothing (Mwaseba et al., 2007), and therefore the diversion of cashfrom these results in further social depredation.Hill (2000) reported that successful guarding of crops against baboons requiredattendance at the field throughout the day, which may not be possible due to otheractivities (school; trading in local markets; taking crops to the grinding mill) thatrequire attention. However, in most cases the farmers have to decide whether toattend to their crops or to participate in other activities. As a successful harvest isvital for food security for the rest of the year other activities are necessarilyabandoned. Owing to the crops requiring protection during the day from baboons,and at night from elephants and other large mammals, there is very little opportunityfor other tasks to be completed.The severity of the impact of crop raiding on daily life was evident within theKilombero. 314 people (84%) claimed to suffer food shortages as a result of cropdamage. A similar level (98%) was reported in households in India. Other majorimpacts include the increased levels of poverty caused as a result of crop damage(43%). Effects on education were cited by 23% of people, mainly through theinability to pay school fees, buy books, stationery and school uniforms. The impacton education was further illustrated with 26% of people saying that children failed toattend school during harvesting period. One teacher told us that attendance duringharvesting was less than 50%. 9% of people said that children continued to attendschool, but with much greater difficulties, in some cases having to walk for 4 hours toattend, in other cases walking 5-6 km. Five people claimed that there is also an40

increased level of danger, as there is a greater chance of attack by wild animals fromthrough the farmland. Children are also expected to assist in guarding the farm, andto be in complete charge should a parent be ill. Children of the age of 4-5 (Igumbiro)or 6 (Mlimba ‘A’) are often left at home alone, and the parents do not know whetherthey are attending school or have enough food.Many of the socio-economic problems seen in the Kilombero have been recognisedelsewhere, for example Hoare (2000) cites ‘opportunity costs’ as includingrestrictions on people’s movements; competition with elephants for water resources;the need to guard property leading to loss of sleep; reduced school attendance; pooremployment opportunities and greater exposure to malaria (Hoare, 2000).Trends in crop raiding in the KilomberoWhen asked if crop raiding had increased, decreased or stayed the same, 81.87% ofrespondents thought that it had increased. Several people indicated that the type ofcrop raiding had changed:‘Crop damage has changed from elephants and big game to small mammals, about 10years ago’ Comments from three people in Mbasa‘…increased as mice and birds reproduce’ comments from 2 people in Utengule‘...insects have increased, game animals have decreased’ Mkangawalo‘…increased because of cows wild animals stayed the same. Wild animal damage isseasonal -during the rainy season. Pastoralists scare the animals away’ Ikwambi‘…increased due to cattle, [wild] animals stayed the same.’ IkwambiIt also appears that some people are aware of possible causal factors of changinglevels of crop raiding, although people tended to use the same reasons to justifydifferent perspectives on crop raiding levels. For example:‘Crop raiding problems are due to encroachment onto their land by people’Mkangawalo‘….no deaths from animals because the [human] population is expanding and moreland is used for agriculture’ One respondent from Mlimba ‘A’.‘…[Crop raiding has] decreased as there are more people so the animals move away’One respondent from MngetaPeople in Kidugalo Lulvili, Madabadaba, Iragua, Nakafulu, Milola, Mavimba,Kichangani, Igumbiro said that crop damage had increased since the electric fenceswere put in by the Kilombero Valley Teak Company. Although elephant numberswere reported as increasing (Section 4.4) the major problems with crop damageseemed to be generated from increased numbers in rodents, baboons, bushpig andcattle. The increased number of cattle in the region not only leads to damage of crops,41

ut the influence of pastoralist tribes is also impacting on the socio-economic status ofthe area.MITIGATIONDeterrent methods usedAggressive deterrent methods were used by 96% of farmers to scare animals awayfrom the fields, including throwing stones, noise (drums, shouting, radio), spotlightingand using dogs and themselves to scare them away. This technique has limited results,demonstrated by the high amount of crop damage that continues to occur. One of themain reasons for this is increased habituation to these techniques, as the animalsrecognise that they will not get hurt. This is particularly the case for elephants wherehabituation to traditional deterrents such as drum beating and fire is common(O’Connell-Rodwell et al., 2000; Thouless and Sakwa, 1995). Within the EastCaprivi in Namibia they had even become resistant to shooting in the air, andelephants have become aggressive towards people in the fields, leaving farmers afraidto chase them (O’Connell-Rodwell, et al., 2000).Passive techniques are used by 32% of farmers to discourage the animals from gettingnear the crop in the first instance, including fire and smoke, scarecrows and clearingsurrounding vegetation. 27% of farmers used a form of removal of problem animals;traps snares, poisons and pesticides. This can be effective in reducing the numbers ofanimals likely to attack the crops. However, the use of traps and snares on largemammals is illegal, and those caught can face fines and prison sentences. The use ofpoisons for rodents and pitfall traps, usually containing water, can be effective,however the inappropriate use of rodenticides can result in genetic resistance,behavioural avoidance, non target poisoning and environmental damage (Singleton etal., 2005) While only 28% of farmers stated directly that they moved to the farmthroughout the growing season, in nearly all circumstances this is the case, andfarmers often took it for granted that we realised this, as they would only tell us ifthey moved to the farm if they were asked directly. In the East Caprivi, O’ Connell-Rodwell et al., (2000) found that the practice of moving to the fields had been largelyabandoned, and this therefore limited the success of some mitigation techniques.However, as this is not the case in the Kilombero a wider range of mitigationtechniques may be effective, such as the use of trip alarms not only to scare theanimals away but to alert farmers to the elephant’s presence.Required assistance43.47% of people asked for assistance that would involve eradication of the animals,e.g. poison, traps, snares and guns. This was illustrated by one person who said‘… kill all the animals so we can live in harmony’ MbasaHowever, some people realised that this may not be a good solution and that thewildlife may have other benefits:‘…but the animals should not be killed so that the tourists can come and see them’Mavimba42

70.93% thought that they should have more help in the form of game guards, and thatevery village should have one. At the moment there may be one game guard per ward,but they do not respond quickly when they are informed of the problem. In somecases there are trained game guards, but they do not have any firearms. Other peoplethought that using fences to protect the fields or to fence the animals into theprotected areas would be a good idea. Adjustments to the way KVTC operate and thesafari companies operate were also suggested. Agricultural education was mentioned,as was evicting the pastoralists to reduce cattle damage. Several people thought thatthe government should help, but they did not specify how:‘…government should provide a plan to avoid problem of animals so we can havegood harvest’ Mofu‘…government knows what should be done and they should do it’ MkangawaloWhile the use of game guards to scare away animals may help to a certain extent it isunlikely to be a long term solution, as elephants have been seen to become habituatedto shooting in the air (O’Connell-Rodwell et al., 2000), and there would probably bean increased number of casualties. The use of traps and poisons will producecollateral damage as non target species are killed, and is unsustainable. A sustainablelong term solution needs to be found, and this poses significant challenges.Elephant mitigation techniquesAs elephants create the largest scale of damage as crop raiding animals, they areperceived by villagers as being more of a problem than other animals. Therefore,successful methods to reduce the damage they cause are paramount. Successfulmitigation techniques that may require significant effort on the part of the local peoplemust produce significant results in order to avoid large scale removal of elephants(Badola, 1998). Techniques that are easy to apply, culturally acceptable, with lowcosts and low labour requirements are needed, as those that are highly technical, andnon traditional are less likely to be implemented (Warren et al., 2007). Understandingelephant behaviour (Rice, 1990) in relation to crop raiding is crucial, for example,elephants are more likely to raid crops on moonless nights, and stay away from themwhen the night is bright (Barnes et al., 2007).Mitigation techniques generally require community co-operation, as if only onefarmer is conducting efforts to remove animals from their land, it is likely to result inthe animal moving to a neighbouring farm and increasing the damage there, ratherthan causing an overall decrease in damage for everyone. However gainingcommunity co-operation is often difficult (O’Connell-Rodwell et al., 2000), and asingle farmer may not see the gains that would be expected from their efforts on apersonal level, even though damage is decreased on a community scale. This maythen reduce the level of effort in future activities (Rollins and Briggs, 1996).Due to habituation to traditional methods of deterrent, the use of electric fences andother barriers that prevent elephants moving onto arable land are becomingincreasingly important (Thouless and Sakwa, 1995), and are probably the onlysuccessful long term strategy (O’Connell-Rodwell et al., 2000) as was recognised by4% of farmers in the Kilombero Valley. As yet there is no clear relationship between43

the type of fence used and their effectiveness, however there is evidence to suggestthis in C. Bonnington’s paper (2009), and the active management of the fenceline isjust as important for determining success as the design of the fence itself (Thoulessand Sakwa, 1995). This includes responding to fence breaking attempts andmodifying the design, and as new designs are implemented new methods of fencebreaking are likely to be developed. This ‘arms race’ is likely to be costly (Rice,1990), and therefore building on the elephants’ experience of the fences will affectthis rate, including bad shocks off high voltage fences and success rates of breaks.Punishing elephants that break the fences, and the shooting of repeated offendersdeters other elephants from making similar attempts (Thouless and Sakwa, 1995; O’Connell-Rodwell et al., 2000) and enforces the idea that the area the other side is a‘no go zone’. If this is done efficiently it should not result in high mortality rates, andif it occurs during the early stages of implementation the long term death rates shouldbe lower (Rice, 1990). If this strategy is implemented fence voltage can be effectiveat 3-4 kV. The incentive for the animal to break the fence is also important, and theavailaibilty of natural food is a major determinant of the success of electric fences(Rice, 1990). Electric fences are particularly successful where there are not many bullelephants in the area, as breeding herds are less likely to run the risk of getting shot(O’ Connell-Rodwell et al., 2000). Any non-barrier method such as elephant alarmcalls on trip wires would have to be varied frequently due to habituation, and arelikely to only be successful in the short term (O’Connell-Rodwell et al., 2000).Using electric fences as a barrier is only effective if the entire field is fenced, inexperiments where an unconnected fence line was used elephants soon learnt to walkaround the end of the fence and into the field (O’Connell-Rodwell et al., 2000). Thisleads to important issues-containing either the human or the elephant populations(O’Connell-Rodwell et al., 2000) Using ‘fortress conservation’ we can create islandsof wildlife in a sea of human settlements, or fence the people in, creating islands ofhuman settlement within a sea of elephant habitat. This distinction is of particularimportance, as once the process of fencing and adjusting the equilibrium has begun itwill be difficult to reverse the process, especially if the former option is chosen, whichwould result in the loss of suitable elephant habitat, and would therefore make anyfuture attempts to expand the range of the elephants exceptionally difficult. Thesebarriers could also deprive elephants of genetic exchange and critical access toseasonal food and water (Lee and Graham, 2006). The other alternative to islands ofhuman settlement in an elephant dominated landscape would be to base the localeconomy solely on wildlife related economies (O’Connell-Rodwell et al., 2000),however, in areas such as the Kilombero where there are limited opportunities forextensive wildlife based activities this option would be unfeasible.RodentsAs rodents are becoming an increasing problem in damaging crops it is becomingmore important to identify methods to reduce their effects. One of the most effectivemethods to reduce rodent damage is to reduce their numbers. However, the use ofbaits and traps is limited, as they quickly learn not to touch them, and can developgenetic immunity to rodentcides (Singleton et al., 2005), additionally mature ricecrops are more attractive to rodents than bait, and therefore this makes them lesslikely to take it (Ahmed and Fiedler, 2002). This leads to significant problems, but if the baiting istargeted it may be possible to continue its use. Baiting methods are the most cost44

effective (Ahmed and Fiedler, 2002), whether they are continuous or pulsed (laid atintervals), and where lethal electric shocks are used, crop damage is greatly reduced(Ahmed and Fiedler, 2002).ConclusionCrop raiding within the Kilombero Valley poses a significant problem for the futureof wildlife animal populations and the livelihood of the local subsistence farmers.Crop raiding takes place predominantly during the wet season, but can also occur atother times of the year, affecting the crops at different stages of growth. This isdependent on the species responsible for crop damage, for example elephants are mostlikely to damage the crops during the wet season, whereas baboons and rodents affectthe crops all year round. Crop losses caused by crop raiding average 64%, causingsignificant problems for farmers who rely on these crops to sustain the familythroughout the year, to provide a cash income for the purchase of other goods and topay for health service costs and school fees. 84% of those questioned believe thatthey suffer food shortages as a direct result of crop raiding. It also acts as a driver ofpoverty, as they then have to use any cash resources that they have to purchase food,leading to a lack of cash for development opportunities such as building materials.Lack of money for health services can result in the worst cases in death, as people areunable to afford the transport to the hospital, or the costs once they are there.Education also suffers, with children being unable to attend school as they are in thefields, struggling to get to school or being unable to afford school fees, equipment oruniform.The problems caused by crop raiding animals leads to retaliation and lethal preventionmethods by farmers towards wild animals. 43.46% of farmers thought that theyshould be provided with equipment to eradicate the animals that are causing themproblems, posing considerable problems for wildlife populations, especially as mostof these methods are likely to harm non-target species. This will significantly reduceanimal populations within the area. Therefore it is necessary to devise mitigationtechniques that can reduce the level of crop damage but not result in high numbers ofanimal casualties.There are several techniques employed to reduce crop raiding. Most traditionalmethods reduce in effectiveness over time through habituation. Many othertechniques that could be developed will also suffer from this problem. A form ofprevention that could be implemented is the use of electric fences. Electric fenceshave been employed in several areas to reduce crop raiding, and are alreadyimplemented in the Kilombero Valley by KVTC to reduce damage to teak plantations.However, there are several issues that surround the use of electric fence, one of whichis deciding what is going to be fenced in and what is going to be fenced out. Also, asillustrated by some comments from farmers in areas around the KVTC fences it isthought that the fences deflect the animals onto the farmland. Therefore fences wouldhave to be used across the entire region to reduce this effect. This may not be realisticdue to financial and practical reasons.Should electric fences be implemented the fence design would require carefulconsideration, and would need to target specific species which may alter dependingon the spatial context of the problem. One design would be unlikely to be satisfactoryfor the entire region. Getting the correct voltage running through the fence is very45

important- it must be high enough to scare elephants, but not so high as to kill otheranimals. For example, a recent case reported in the Times Of India (20 th October2007) showed that five Asiatic lions (three lionesses and two cubs) had beenelectrocuted on an electrified barbed wire fence that a villager had set up to protect hisfarm from stray animals. This illustrates that it is unlikely that a ‘catch-all’ solutioncan be found in the erection of electric fencing, but that other techniques would haveto be used in conjunction with the fences.Crop raiding is a serious issue within the Kilombero Valley, and the implementationof efficient mitigation techniques is necessary to assist in the alleviation of povertywithin the area, and to allow important migration corridors of large mammals withinthe valley to remain viable into the future.46

5. Trophy Hunting and Local Communities5.1 SummaryTrophy hunting is becoming increasingly accepted as a conservation tool due to thevast amount of land that can be conserved by the industry, large revenues generatedand potential benefits to local communities. Within the Kilombero Valley of centralsouthernTanzania in the Districts of Kilombero and Ulanga, the Kilombero GameControlled Area hosts four concessions operated by two hunting outfitters. A thirdoutfitter is based to the south of the Ulanga District. Between August and December2007 structured interviews were conducted within 24 villages in the region, gatheringinformation from 360 village residents aimed to determine the impact that the huntingcompanies has on their livelihoods. Local communities are thought to be able tobenefit financially from trophy hunting, and to be given opportunities of employment,in addition to gains from infrastructure development and the provision of meat.Evidence of these types of benefits was limited within the Kilombero, with only 15%of respondents feeling that they received benefits. Only eight people had beenemployed by a hunting company. Problems associated with the presence of theoutfitters were extensive, ranging from physical abuse to increases in crop damageand controversy over boundaries. While it is evident that there are benefits to begained from trophy hunting, it would appear that much of these benefits are notreaching the residents sufficiently. Greater communication is required between thehunting companies and the villagers. It is also necessary to clarify the benefits thatare given, and to provide education to illustrate the activities of the hunting companies.It would be helpful to attempt to provide benefits on an individual basis, in terms ofemployment and the provision of bushmeat. A useful step would be for the companiesto act directly with the villagers, rather than contributing purely to central government,who then provide money to District Councils for allocation.Trophy hunting can benefit local communities; however effort is required to improvethis service and to encourage satisfactory relationships between hunting companiesand local communities.5.2 The impact of trophy hunting on local communities5.2.1 IntroductionThe 21 st century has brought new challenges to conservation programmes, as thepressures upon wildlife areas no longer support previous preservationist methods ofconservation. The new conservation paradigm involves local communities directly inconservation efforts, so that they benefit directly from wildlife, providing an incentiveto maintain wildlife areas and populations in the face of competition from populationgrowth, industrialisation, agricultural expansion (Baker, 1997b). One of the majortransformations of conservation is the move to the utilisation of wildlife, advocated byArticle 1 of the 1993 United Nations Convention on Biodiversity (UNCBD, 1993).47

Wildlife utilisation can be described as either non-consumptive or consumptive, andthe two different types of utilisation have very important different consequences.Non-consumptive utilisation includes bird watching and photographic tourism, (Baker,1997b), and involves large numbers of tourists visiting areas to watch wildlife. Whilethis creates economic benefits and contributes to species and habitat conservation,problems can result from land degradation and infrastructure demands. Consumptiveutilisation can include hunting, fishing, bird shooting, the sale of live animals andgame cropping (Baker, 1997a; Ashley and Jones, 2001; Mayaka et al., 2005).Although there are substantial benefits from consumptive use, predominantly largeeconomic gains and habitat protection in inaccessible areas, the stakes are high, as therisks of over-exploitation and resource depletion caused by badly managed andunsustainable consumptive use (Hutton and Leader-Williams, 2003) can becatastrophic and irreversible.One of the major forms of consumptive wildlife use is trophy hunting 1 , the selectivehunting of wildlife displaying desired characteristic traits, usually carried out byforeign hunters who are willing to pay a fee for the experience and/or the trophyattained (Hofer, 2002). Trophy hunting can provide large sums of money that can beused to conserve habitat and species (Leader-Williams et al., 2005), but perhaps mostimportantly, it conserves habitat that is unsuitable for non-consumptive uses. In sub-Saharan Africa trophy hunting areas cover over 1.4 million km 2 , an area 22% greaterthan that covered by national parks in countries where trophy hunting is permitted(Lindsey, 2006). This is because areas can be utilised that are unsuitable for otherforms of tourism due to the need for established infrastructure and amenities (Baker,1997a; Barnes, 2001), as can land in areas that are politically unstable (Du Toit, 2004).There are however, several biological issues of concern, and there has been littleresearch on the effects of trophy hunting on animal populations, (Festa-Blanchet et al.,2004; Wilkie and Carpenter, 1999a). Harris et al., (2002) listed four potential effectsthat trophy hunting may have; 1) alteration of genetic flow rates between populations,2) alteration of the rate of genetic drift through the effect on the genetically effectivepopulation size, 3) the removal of animals with desirable traits may decrease fitness;and 4) the removal of individuals with undesirable traits may also lead to a decreasein fitness. There are also issues regarding the haphazard nature of quota setting(Taylor, 2001; Baker, 1997a).A frequently voiced argument supporting trophy hunting is the benefits it can bring tolocal people (Baker, 1997a), and that this can alter the perception that localcommunities have towards the wildlife, leading to their involvement with wildlifeconservation and to a greater chance of successful conservation schemes. This ispossible due to the highly profitable nature of the industry (Crowe et al., 1997; Vande Merwe and Saayman, 2003), with hunting clientele paying as much as three timesthe amount that a photographic tourist will pay (Baker, 1997a). In 2000 the estimatedturnover of the trophy hunting industry in Botswana was US$12.65 million (BWMA,2001), and in Namibia it was US$11.5 million (Humavindu and Barnes, 2003). It hasbeen shown that 86% of American clients would be more willing to purchase a hunt iflocal communities would benefit (Lindsey et al., 2007).1 Trophy hunting is also known as tourist hunting (Caro et al., 1998, a, b), safari or game hunting(Kreuter and Workman, 1997), and sport hunting (Baker, 1997b).48

One of the main ways that trophy hunting has been able to contribute economically tolocal communities is through Community Based Conservation projects. This has beendemonstrated through several projects throughout Southern and Eastern Africa, forexample the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources(CAMPFIRE) in Zimbabwe successfully used trophy hunting to generate over 90% ofthe revenue the project received between 1989 and 1996 (Bond, 2001). The CBNRM(Community-Based Natural Resource Management) programme in Botswana usestrophy hunting as a main income generator (Mbaiwa, 2005), as does the ADMADE(Administrate Design for Game Management Areas) programme in Zambia (Baker,1997b), and the CBNRM programme in Namibia (Ashley and Jones, 2001). Thisrevenue can then be used to compensate villagers for the losses incurred throughlivestock predation, crop damage, and human casualties (Butler, 2000). It can also beused to develop infrastructure and improve education and health facilities.The main advantage to encouraging local communities to see the survival of wildlifeas an economic advantage is to reduce illegal offtake. However, this only works ifthere is significant incentive not to poach, as the illegal markets can be lucrative.Trophies can fetch a high price on illegal international markets (Haule et al., 2002),and the demand for bushmeat products is ever increasing (Wilkie and Carpenter,1999b).5.2.2 Trophy hunting in TanzaniaIn Tanzania trophy hunting was formally recognised in 1946, where it was used togenerate income in otherwise isolated game areas (Leader-Williams, 2000). In the1960s the first block and quota system in Africa was developed, but by the 1970spoaching was rampant and the hunters associations set up to regulate hunting haddissolved (Baker, 1997b). This led to a national ban on trophy hunting from 1973-1978 (Baker, 1997b; Leader-Williams, 2000). Following the resumption of theindustry under the management of the parastatal Tanzanian Wildlife Corporation(Baker, 1997b) the industry has grown substantially, and many hunting areas are nowmanaged by private companies. There are about 150 hunting blocks within gamereserves, Game Controlled Areas and open areas covering over 180,000km 2 (Baker,1997a). Government fees collected by the outfitters in foreign currency from theclients are deposited with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (wildlifeDivision). The per animal fee is divided between the Tanzania Wildlife ProtectionFund, the Central Treasury, game reserves, and the District Councils. The 15% of thefee that the District Council receives is supposed to compensate local people fordamage and loss caused by wildlife (Baker, 1997a). However, a significant portion ofthis is ‘lost’ in administration costs (Mr. Madaraka, Kilombero District WildlifeOfficer, pers. comm). There are further significant problems with corruption anddiscrepancies within the industry in Tanzania, (Baker, 1997a), affecting quota setting,revenue distribution and block allocation. These issues seriously undermine the longterm sustainability of the industry.49

5.2.3 Aims and ObjectivesAims:• To establish the extent to which villages surrounding hunting concessionsbenefit from the practice• To determine any negative issues that are experienced by the villagers fromthe near proximity of the hunting companies• To identify the knowledge and perceptions held by the local villagersObjectives:• To compare the practical implementation of trophy hunting with regard to itsimpact on local communities with the theoretical benefits that are thought tooccur and that assist in the legitimising of this form of wildlife utilisation• To identify ways in which the relationship between local communities andhunting communities can be improved in order for the full benefits toconservation and community development to be achieved5.2.4 QuestionsSix questions were asked to ascertain the impacts of trophy hunting on localcommunities:1. Does the tourist hunting operation assist in the control of problem animals?2. Do you benefit from the trophy hunting organisation, either personally or throughthe village?3. Have you ever been employed by the hunting organisation?4. What problems do you have with the hunting organisation?5. Does the presence of the hunting organisation affect the way you gather food?6. What do you think about the hunting organisation?5.2.5 Results(One village, Ihenge, was not questioned regarding trophy hunting, therefore n= 360.Number of respondents given in parentheses)Question 1. Does the tourist hunting operation assist in the control of problemanimals? (n=360)50

Table 5.1. Assistance with the control of problem animalsNumber of respondentsDon’t know about theVillage Yes No Don't knowcompanyChamoto 10 3 2Idete 9 6Idunda 11 4Igumbiro 15Ikwambi 15Iragua 14 1Itete Minizini 15Itete Njiwa 2 13Kichangani 13 2Kidugalo 10 5Kisegese 4 11Lulvili 10 1 4Madabadaba 14 1Mavimba 4 11Mbasa 1 11 3Mbingu 1 3 1 10Milola 15Mkangawalo 1 7 6 1Mlimba ‘A’ 5 9 1Mngeta 1 10 4Mofu 4 10 1Nakafulu 7 8Namwawala 15Utengule 6 9TOTAL 24 251 52 22 11Several people commented on their answers, as demonstrated below:Answer: No• When a crocodile had killed someone and the people killed the crocodile thecompany staff were against the actions of the people (1) Mlimba ‘A’• The company is only there to protect the animals, if an animal was found deadin your field you were taken to court (1) Ikwambi• The company doesn’t take any notice of these issues [crop raiding] (1) IteteNjiwa• They tell the company about the problem animals and the staff say they wouldhelp, but that they don’t have any bullets so they can’t (2) Utengule• The company used to help with stopping the pastoralists, but they don’t anymore (1) Mofu• The company is not told about the problem animals, so if they were told theymay act (2) Idete, Kidugalo• The company does not help because they are not in the area (14) Idete,Kisegese, KichanganiN/A51

• The company causes more problems (19) Mavimba, Milola, Igumbiro, Idunda,Kichangani, Mkangawalo• The company conserves the problem animals (6) Mbasa, Idete, Mlimba ‘A’,Mkangawalo• The company only acts to benefit themselves, (2) Milola• They force the animals out of the Reserve onto the farmland (4) Mlimba ‘A',Idunda, Mavimba, Milola• Know that there is a company in the KGCA killing animals, but they don’tsolve the problems that the village experiences (1) Mkangawalo• If the company did operate in the area the problem would decrease (2) Idunda• Crop raiding occurs most in the hunters’ off season, so they are not around tohelp (2) Itete Njiwa, Itete Minazini• The hunters are the cause of the animals’ decline, as they kill the animals andsend them off to Europe (2) MbasaAnswer: Yes• No longer see large animals in the fields any more, in particular elephantand buffalo, because the hunting people keep them in the reserves (7)Mlimba ‘A’, Utengule• The company is good because it is trying to get rid of the pastoralists (2)Itete Njiwa• They do help, but it is limited as most problems occur during the offseason when there are no hunters there (2) Utengule• The company does help if they are given the information (1) Mkangawalo• The villagers provided information on a problem elephant and thecompany came and shot it (1) Mlimba ‘A’• The company contacted the District Wildlife Office who got a game guardfor them (1) Mofu• The company helps a little (3) Mavimba, Mofu• The company’s game guards use guns to scare the animals out of the fields(3) Mbasa, Mofu• They make the animals move further away (1) Mavimba• The damage decreases during the hunting season (1) MavimbaAnswer: Don’t know/don’t know about the company/not applicable• Know of the company’s existence, but do not know enough about theiractivities to be able to comment (7) Kisegese, Idete, Mngeta, Nakafulu• Think that the company conserved the problematic animals, rather thandealing with them. (1) Idete52

Question 2: Do you benefit from the trophy hunting organisation, eitherpersonally or through the village? (n=360)Table 5.2 Benefits of the presence of the hunting organisationNumber of respondentsVillage Yes No maybe yes and no Don't know N/AChamoto 1 9 5Idete 1 8 2 4Idunda 1 13 1Igumbiro 15Ikwambi 3 12Iragua 3 10 1 1Itete Minizini 10 5Itete Njiwa 9 6Kichangani 15Kidugalo 1 9 2 3Kisegese 1 14Lulvili 10 5Madabadaba 1 9 4 1Mavimba 1 14Mbasa 13 2Mbingu 6 9Milola 14 1Mkangawalo 4 5 1 5Mlimba ‘A’ 2 4 8 1Mngeta 3 12Mofu 3 9 2 1Nakafulu 1 7 7Namwawala 14 1Utengule 12 2 1TOTAL 54 210 2 1 21 72Several people commented on their answers, as demonstrated below:Answer: Maybe/don’t know• Maybe the government benefits (1) Iragua• The village may benefit, but personally has received no information about this(2) Mofu, Mlimba ‘A’• Do not benefit personally. A village nearby may benefit, but not sure (1) MofuAnswer: NoChamoto• Mofu may benefit. Chamoto doesn’t- the company tried to evict them fromthe area last year (2006) (2)53

Idete• The company is based far away (2)Idunda• The company representatives go to village meetings and promise lots, but donot deliver (2)Igumbiro• Don’t know of any benefits, maybe the [village] council does (1)• Promised to build houses for the primary school teachers and a new classroomand offices, but they do not deliver (2)Ikwambi• They don’t benefit, but maybe the government does (1)Itete Minazini• Maybe the village officers know of benefits, but personally know nothing (2)Itete Njiwa• Knows that the village offices receives money, but they don’t see the benefitsfrom it (1)• Don’t receive meat (2)Kichangani• Believes that the village is entitled to a 25% fee towards a new village (1)• Were promised assistance in 2003, not delivered (1)Kidugalo• Maybe the government benefits (1)Lulvili• Only Itete benefits, where they helped build a secondary school building (3)Mavimba• A long time ago they were given money to build the secondary school, but thedamages caused by the company out-balance the profits (1)Mbasa• The company was supposed to support Lukalonga [nearby village] but actuallysupport Mofu and Mkangawalo (2)• Provide no benefits to the village, which they need as they do not have abridge or pharmacy, and have to go to Mchombe for help (1)• Failed to provide the village with a medical centre (1)Mlimba ‘A’• Do not benefit either personally or through the village (1)• The road construction was only for the benefit of the company, not the localpeople (1)54

Mngeta• The village does not benefit, and as there is good communication between thecouncil and the people they would know (1)Mofu• Do not benefit personally. Don’t know if the village benefits (2)• They promised to help build a village office but it hasn’t happened (1)Answer: YesIdunda• Two classrooms built for Idunda primary school (1)• Money received from the District Council in the past (1 as above)Ikwambi• Have received TSH 1 million from the District Council twice (2)• People near the boundary don’t get anything though (1)• The village office was built with money from the hunting company (2)• Village received a fund of TSH 2 million (1)Iragua• Village received TSH 1.5 million in 2004, but should be more cooperationwith villagers (1)• Village has received TSH 5 million. But more goes to Itete, where it went tothe school (1)• They contribute to the local government to build schools, like the teakcompany does (1)• No personal benefits, the company profits and the government benefits. (Askedthe village chairman if the village benefits, and was told that Iragua hadreceived TSH 1.4 million from the hunting company) (1)Itete Minazini• One classroom built for the secondary school (8)• Contributed to the school project (1)• Some employment (1)Itete Njiwa• Bushmeat is distributed (2)• Can ask for meat for weddings or other ceremonies (1)• Sell bushmeat for TSH 1000 per kilo, then the village can keep the money (2)• Construction (1• Employment (4)• Contribute to students that have gone from primary to secondary school, TSH50,000 per student (1)• School fees for children selected for secondary school (3)• Contributed to the medical centre maintenance (2)• Village receives money, but [I] don’t benefit (1)• Secondary school classroom (6)• Promised they would provide a butchery for bushmeat, but they haven’t (1)• Provide funds to the village for specific needs (1)55

Kidugalo• Receive a fund of 25% from the District Council every year (1)Lulvili• They provide benefits, but not enough in comparison to what they earn (1)Madabadaba• Provide meat (1)Mavimba• This was the first year that they received the 25% from the District Counciland used it for the school, but this village doesn’t receive it every year and [we]think [we] should as [we] live close to the forest and receive most of theproblems from the hunting (1)Mkangawalo• Road construction (2)• Village has received funds (3)Mlimba ‘A’• Road construction- bridge (2)• Constructed road from Msagate to the camp (1)• Control illegal lumbering (1)Mofu• Built two classrooms (2)• Built two classroom for primary and secondary schools (1)• Contributed to building the secondary school (1)• Built the village office (2)• Iron sheets donated (1)• Contribute to building materials (1)• When they are here game guards come to shoot to scare the animals (1)Utengule• Diesel (7)• 200 litres of diesel to move bricks (3)• 400 litres of diesel (3)• Secondary school construction-iron sheets (4)• Secondary school construction- wood (timber) and cement (3)• Construction of school (3)• Cement (3)• Iron sheets (7)• Two lots of iron sheets (1)• Stationery (8)• Books (3)• Sports equipment (balls and clothes) (6), two sets of jerseys (1)• Assistant Medical Officer’s house construction (8)• Dispensary (3)• Employment (1)56

• TSH 500,000 for village account (2)• They are investors (1)Question 3: Have you ever been employed by the hunting company?(n= 360)Table 3.3. EmploymentNumber of respondentsVillage Yes No N/AChamoto 10 5Idete 8 7Idunda 14 1Igumbiro 15Ikwambi 15Iragua 14 1Itete Minizini 15Itete Njiwa 2 13Kichangani 15Kidugalo 12 3Kisegese 15Lulvili 10 5Madabadaba 1 13 1Mavimba 15Mbasa 14 1Mbingu 5 10Milola 15Mkangawalo 9 6Mlimba ‘A’ 15Mngeta 2 13Mofu 1 14Nakafulu 7 8Namwawala 15Utengule 4 11TOTAL 8 276 76276 people (76.67%) said that they had not been employed.76 people (21.11%) thought that this question was not applicable to them8 people (2.22%) had been employed.57

Employment details:Kilombero District• Utengule: Four people had been employed as casual labourers, two peoplestating that this was in 2006.• Mofu: One person had unspecified employment with the hunting company.Ulanga District• Itete Njiwa: One person had been employed as a mason for building, and oneperson had been employed to clear the airstrip.• Madabadaba: One person had been employed as a skinner from 2003-2006Other comments:12 people who stated that they were not employed gave comments:Kilombero District• Utengule: Two people said that villagers had been employed as casuallabourers occasionally. One woman said that only men could be employed atthe hunting organisation.• Mofu: One person said that his relatives are employed, and one person saidthat he didn’t want to see people involved with the hunting company, andtherefore would not wish to be employed by them.• Namwawala: One person said that the company does not need to employ localpeople as they have already employed people from Dar es Salaam.• Ikwambi: One person said that the company does not need to employ localpeople as they have already employed people from elsewhere.Ulanga District• Itete Minazini: Three people said that only one family from the villageobtained employment.• Mavimba: One person said that the company employs even camp buildersfrom elsewhere.• Kidugalo One person thought that the company was based near to Itete sopeople may be employed from there.58

Question 4: What problems do you have with the hunting company?ProblemsTable 5.4. Respondents who have no problemsNumber of res pondentsVillage No ProblemsDon’tknowYesChamoto 3 5Idete 4 5Idunda 14Igumbiro 6Iragua 4 1IteteMinazini7Itete Njiwa 3Kichangani 10 1Kidugalo 6 4Kisegese 15Luvili 3 1 5Madabadaba 3 1Mavimba 7Mbasa 1 1Mbingu 3 10Milola 4Mkangawalo 1 6Mlimba 'A' 5 5 1Mngeta 13Mofu 6Nakafulu 8Namwawala 10Utengule 5Total 103 7 74Chamoto• Eviction problems (2)• Demolished huts in 2007 (3)• Forced to flee the area with their cattle without compensation (1)• Some people get beaten (1)• Take the fish off the fishermen (1)• Scare animals away into the reserve (1)• Area belongs to the Ilovo Sugar Company (1)Idete• If you are caught with bushmeat there is torture, humiliation and beating (1)• If you are caught in the reserve with bushmeat you are in trouble (1)• Even if problem animals come onto your land you cannot kill them (1)• safari employees will do a range of punishments including taking the skin offthe sole of the feet if caught with bushmeat, or timber and then leave theperson in the bush (2)• Take property, e.g. bikes, if you are caught with bushmeat (1)• No access to the reserve (1)59

• Conserve the problem animals rather than dealing with them (1)• Don’t allow charcoal burning (1)Idunda• When they are hunting the animals move out of the forest into the farmland (1)Igumbiro• Boundary maps are different to the ones the villagers use (2)• Don’t let them take poles from the forest (1)• Sometimes punish people (2)• They don’t seem to do what they are supposed to do (1)• Fishermen have to have a license (1)• Hassle the villagers and take their belongings (2)• Hassle them when they go into the forest for wood- restricts their freedom (3)• He was caught fishing and had small fish. They punished him and took all hisbelongings. This was because the hunting company does not allow you to takesmall fish (1)• They don’t know what the company is supposed to do to help them (2)• The company searches you and if you are found to have small fish they aretaken from you and you are sometimes punished (1)Ikwambi• Suspect that the company are the ones who kill all the animals (1)• Disturb you in your houses if they suspect you of having bushmeat in yourhouse (1)• Staff beat people (3)• Fishermen are beaten by staff (3)• If you are found in the reserve you are beaten (2)• Has personally been beaten by the hunting staff. He was fishing without alicence (1)• The bushmeat is sold to Ifakara, not to the surrounding villages (1)• If you are suspected of killing an animal you are beaten (1)• If you are suspected of having bushmeat or are transporting fish you aresearched, and if you are caught you are taken to court. Therefore they do notget bushmeat or fish (2)• No access to bushmeat any more (2)• The company staff gives bushmeat out in secret to those they know. Thisstarted in 1996-1997 (1)• When they first started hunting they opened up the roads and gave peoplebushmeat, but now they don’t (1)• Even if fishermen have licences if they are caught fishing they are treated aspoachers (3)Iragua• Problems with the boundaries (5)• If you are found in the reserve they chase you then take you to court (2)• If you are found in the reserve you are beaten (2)• Forced to move off your farmland because the company claim it is their land(1)60

• Not allowed to fish (3)• Not allowed to harvest grasses (3)• Not allowed to hunt (1)• The company takes a lot of land, so it reduces the area for cultivation• The hunters are very dangerous for the villagers (1)• If you kill a puku that comes onto your farm and you are caught with the meatyou are lucky to escape with your life (1)Itete Minazini• The boundaries are agreed between the company and the village officials, sothe people don’t know where they are (1)• The numbers of animals have decreased (1)• People are harassed by the staff (1)• Farmers are evicted from the land during the hunting season and let back induring the off season, but they are not allowed there until January, so theymiss farming in the December (2)• Local people were evicted from the area when the hunting was firstestablished (2)• No communication between the village and the company (2)• Problems with boundaries (4)Itete Njiwa• Problems with boundaries- don’t know where they are so where they canconduct farming activities (3)• No meat as you have to have a license to hunt (3)• If you are found to have killed an animal without a license you are taken tocourt (2)• No boundaries (3)• No bushmeat (1)Kichangani• They don’t help the village (2)• Lack of communication (3)• Need village meetings (1)• They lie (2)Kidugalo• Don’t help with the animals that damage crops (1)• The company doesn’t provide any funds to the village (10• You get beaten if you are found in the reserve- they just guess that you are apoacher (2)• Fishing nets have a minimum hole size of three inches. If you are caught withnets with smaller holes you are sent to the police (1)• If you are caught with bushmeat or setting snares you are beaten (1)• No employment provided (1)• No bushmeat (1)• The staff ask for licenses that the villagers don’t have, e.g. for fishing (1)• They don’t help with problematic animals (1)61

Luvili• There are boundary disputes, if they go into the reserve to farm they arechased away (2)• If you are caught chasing or beating baboons and monkeys away from yourfarms they beat you and/or tell the police (3)• You are not allowed to chase animals off the land (3)Madabadaba• Two people were shot by the hunting staff, on the 8/11/07. They are now inIfakara hospital (3)• There are no problems for farmers, but there are for pastoralists (3)• The company shoots at them and their cattle- they have the cartridges asevidence (1)• Give low wages if they employ you (1)• The company captures any cattle that enter the reserve (2)• Need clear demarcation of boundaries, as the company has taken their farms(1)• There is not a good relationship with the company (1)• Staff chase them out of the reserve and sometimes beat them (1)Mavimba• They need border clarification (1)• The villagers aren’t allowed into the forest for materials, e.g. materials forpestle and mortar, poles, medicines. They are stopped and intimidated (4)• The hunters don’t report to the village when they arrive (1)• The villagers are stopped from producing charcoal (1)• It is because of the hunters that the crops get damaged (1)• They hunt outside the borders so the villagers may get shot when they go intothe forest (1)• When the animals damaged the crops and the villagers killed them they werepunished by the company (1)Mbasa• People are beaten (1)• People are tortured (1)• If someone is caught with bushmeat or fish they are beaten and tortured by thestaff (6)• Beat and torture people (1)• If you are caught fishing or with bushmeat you are beaten. Her brother in lawwas beaten (1)• You are beaten if you are caught with bushmeat. He was beaten/muggedwhen he was caught buying fish from an illegal fisherman (1)• Also take you money if you are caught poaching (2)• Friends have been beaten and tortured (1)• Has personally been beaten, when buy fish off people who are fishing (1)• No access to bushmeat or fish because of the beating (1)• If they send you to the police bail is TSH 300,000 (1)• The staff shoot people when they are caught in the reserve (1)62

• If you are caught fishing or poaching in the reserve you are tortured. Theytake the skin off the soles of people’s feet. They also shoot people. Hashappened to people [I] know (1)Mbingu• The staff torture people if they are caught in the reserve (1)• Torturing, beating (1)Milola• The animals are forced onto the farms (6)• They punish people when they are using the land that they are allowed to use(1)• The hunters only benefit themselves (1)• They threaten people with violence- threaten to cut them (2)• The company doesn’t respect the different types of land that the village has,and they don’t allow the villagers to use some of this land (1)• If they find people in the forest they are violent and hurt or threaten people (1)Mkangawalo• [I] was caught with bushmeat and sent to court (1)• The hunting people and the farmers have their own jobs to do (1)• Has heard that fishermen have been beaten by hunting staff (2)• People are beaten by the staff (1)• Heard that if you are caught in the reserve you are beaten (1)• Heard that if you have bushmeat or fish you are beaten (1)• If you are trying to protect your crop (e.g. setting snares) you are beaten andtaken to court (2)• If you ask them why they are not allowed to protect the crops when theanimals are damaging them they say that it is because the government says so(1)Mlimba ‘A’• They are beaten if they scare the animals when they are in their farmland (3)• No problem- happy that they conserve the wild animals and natural resources(2)• No benefit from the company (1)• There is no bushmeat and if you are caught with some you are beaten (1)• No problem- they appear to be controlling the wild animals (1)• There is no bushmeat- before the company began lots of bushmeat was sold (1)Mngeta• It affects people who are hunting illegally (1)• Fishermen are beaten by staff- when they hear that there is a poacher they goto the camps and beat them (1)Mofu• Do not help when animals damage the crops (1)• If you are caught trapping animals around the farms you are hassled and takento the police by the staff (1)63

• If you trap and kill problem animals you get reported (1)• If you are caught fishing you are hassled (4)• If you are trying to protect your farm you are hassled (1)• Wrongly accuse people (1)• The company causes trouble with the wild animals (1)• The company does not do what they say they will (1)• They hassle villagers, and don’t catch the poachers (1)• They tell the villagers not to kill the animals (1)Nakafulu• Not allowed to farm on the reserve (1)• Not allowed to farm in the area during the hunting season- they are evictedand then let back after the season has ended (3)• There is confusion because you are allowed to fish, hunt and farm and lumberin a Game Controlled Area, but the company does not allow them to (3)Namwawala• They beat people if they are found with fish (2)• Steal things from villagers (1)• Beat the villagers (3)• Shoot cows (2)• Punish people for fishing (1)• They do not help- just cause trouble (1)• Hunt outside the limitations and affect the villages (2)• They don’t use regulations- just take action against the villagers (1)• They think that the villagers are causing problems and punish them (1)Utengule• At first there were problems e.g. beating and torturing, but now there are none(5)• Because the company conserves animals their populations are increasing andtherefore crop raiding is increasing (1)• Not allowed to go to the river to get grasses for weaving local grasses (3)• Casual work is low paid (1)• Need permanent employment (1)• They do not get the 25% from the District Council (2)• Not sure how much they get in monetary terms in comparison with what thecompany earns (1)• If you are caught hunting or fishing in the reserve then you will be in troubleand sent to the police for further prosecution (3)64

Question 5: Does the hunting company affect the way you gather food?Table 5.5 effects on food collectionVillage Yes No don't know n/aChamoto 6 4 5Idete 8 1 6Idunda 15Igumbiro 9 6Ikwambi 15Iragua 14 1Itete Minizini 8 7Itete Njiwa 9 6Kichangani 2 13Kidugalo 5 7 3Kisegese 15Lulvili 7 3 5Madabadaba 6 8 1Mavimba 8 7Mbasa 11 3 1Mbingu 4 1 10Milola 10 5Mkangawalo 6 3 6Mlimba ‘A’ 11 1 3Mngeta 2 13Mofu 6 8 1Nakafulu 4 3 8Namwawala 1 14Utengule 12 3TOTAL 164 118 4 7465

Question 6: What is your opinion of the hunting company?Table 5.6. Opinions of the hunting companyVillage Good baddon'tknowChamoto 2 7 1 5n/aNumber of RespondentscommentNo opiniononlyIdete 4 6 3 2Idunda 1 4 8 2Igumbiro 14 1Ikwambi 15Don’t knowabout themgood andbadIragua 11 2 1 1Itete Minizini 2 13Itete Njiwa 5 8 1 1Kichangani 1 3 10 1Kidugalo 3 9 3Kisegese 15Lulvili 8 1 5 1Madabadaba 2 11 1 1Mavimba 14 1Mbasa 3 10 1 1Mbingu 5 1 9Milola 1 1 13Mkangawalo 5 2 6 2Mlimba ‘A’ 3 7 4 1Mngeta 1 13 1Mofu 3 3 2 3 1 2 1Nakafulu 3 4 8Namwawala 1 14Utengule 9 1 5TOTAL 44 116 17 70 89 7 1 15 1noanswer5.2.6 DiscussionIt is clear from the responses of villagers within the Kilombero Valley that abeneficial relationship between local communities and the hunting companies istenuous at best.While substantial benefits are received by some villages there is little personal gain,and in general the community benefits received do not compensate for personal losses.One of the greatest potential benefits of trophy hunting is the control of problem wildanimals. This was advocated by CAMPFIRE, where villagers would benefit moregreatly from informing hunters of the problem. The hunters would then shoot it, andthe villagers would benefit financially from the kill, in addition to having the animalremoved. This would reduce illegal offtake of problem animals. Within theKilombero Valley there appears to be very little assistance with the control of66

problem animals, as only 6.67% of people thought that the hunting organisations didassist them. Several people believed that the company ‘conserves problem animals’and they are also resentful of the company’s attitudes when the villagers were foundto have dealt with problem animals themselves. There is also a belief that huntingactivities exacerbates the problem of crop damage, as the animals are ‘forced out ofthe reserves’ into the farmland. Of those that felt that the company did assist incontrol there was one example of a problem elephant being shot in Mlimba ‘A’, andseveral instances where the company had scared the animals away. An interestingpoint was that in Utengule villagers were told that the staff had no bullets and weretherefore unable to assist with the problem, a circumstance that seems unlikely giventhe nature of the industry.The most significant comment made is that there is a lack of communication betweenthe village and the company, so that although many people believe that they are nothelped by the companies, this is probably because they are not aware of the problemanimals.Benefits15% of those questioned felt that they did benefit in some way from the presence ofthe hunting company, either directly or through the village. However, in no villageswas there general consensus across all interviewees that there were benefits. Thegreatest numbers were seen in Utengule, Itete Minazini and Itete Njiwa (12, 10 and 9respondents respectively). This lack of knowledge is demonstrated in severalvillages. In Idunda only one person was aware that money received from the DistrictCouncil from the hunting operation was used to build two classrooms for the primaryschool. In Ikwambi three people thought that they did benefit, receiving TSH 2million from the District Council, and the building of the village office; while 12people though that they did not receive any benefits, with one person saying that thevillage doesn’t benefit but that maybe the central government does. Thisdemonstrates that even in villages where there are community benefits from thehunting companies awareness throughout the village is poor, a situation that is likelyto enhance any negative opinions of the company that may be held. In villages wherethe interviewees were aware of benefits that the village received there was confusionregarding the details of these benefits. For example, in Iragua three different figures(TSH 1.4 million, TSH 1.5 million and TSH 5 million) were given as the funds thatthe village has received. In Utengule there was confusion over the details of thebenefits, for example confusion over the quantity of diesel, (200 or 400 litres) andmost people were only aware that diesel had been provided. Only three people wereaware that the dispensary had been built with the hunting company’s assistance, andonly one person was aware of a monetary donation to the village account.EmploymentAnother benefit of trophy hunting is said to stem from the employment of local peopleas guides, cooks, labourers, skinners etc (Hurt & Ravn, 2000). Within the KilomberoValley this is not practiced, with only 8 people (2.22% of those questioned everundertaking employment within the industry. Several people commented that all thestaff are bought in from other areas, such as Dar es Salaam. This means that there arefew personal benefits received by villagers, as one of the greatest benefits would bedirect monetary gain. A greater use of local labour during the hunting season wouldgenerate a greater awareness of the industry, and significantly improve villagerelations.67

There is a wide range of perceived problems related to the hunting organisations.These are sufficient in most cases to overshadow the benefits that are received by thevillagers. This could be because the problems are experienced on a personal level,whereas the benefits are experienced on a community level and therefore are notovershadowed by the problems. 48% of those questioned have problems with theindustry. The majority of these seem to involve law enforcement against poachersand those illegally entering the reserve. Several villagers stressed that there werereports of physical violence conducted by staff members of the company, in Chamoto,Idete, Igumbiro, Ikwambi, Iragua, Kidugalo, Luvili, Madabadaba, Mbasa, Mbingu,Milola, Mkangawalo, Mlimba ‘A’, Mngeta, and Namwawala. For these reports to beso widespread throughout the valley it is highly likely that beatings do take placewhen people are found acting illegally, by all three hunting companies. InMadabadaba two people were shot when they were in the reserve, and there were alsoreports of cows being shot.This does demonstrate that effort does go into anti-poaching control, although thepunishment inflicted is unacceptable. In several villages; Utengule, Mkangawalo,Luvili, Kidugalo, Itete Njiwa, Iragua, Ikwambi, Igumbiro and Mbasa it was said thatpeople were taken to the courts if they were found with bushmeat or to be fishingillegally. However in several of these villages physical abuse also took place.Other significant issues include confusion over boundaries, the lack of bushmeat, theinability to take action against crop raiding animals, issues surrounding pastoralists,not being able to utilise forest resources and issues of wild animals being forced intothe farmland because of the hunting. However these issues cannot purely be attributedto the hunting company, these problems are present regardless of the huntingconcession because of the status of the area. A beneficial relationship could beachieved if the hunting company helped the villagers overcome these problems.These answers demonstrate that anti-poaching regulations are enforced. This isparticularly the case with the illegal poaching of meat, and fishing without licenses orwith nets that catch immature fish. In some cases a reduction in illegal logging wasalso mentioned. Several people thought that they conserve the animals. This showsthat there are some fairly significant benefits of trophy hunting in terms of biologicalconservation.When asked whether the presence of the hunting organisation affects the wayvillagers gather food 45.6% of people think that it does. This was mainly due to thelack of bushmeat that people can have, and a corresponding lack of protein in the diet.The increased crop raiding as a result of animals being forced onto the farmland wasalso mentioned. These impacts on the local people result in significantly more peoplethinking that the hunting company is ‘bad’ despite the benefits they receive. Forexample, everyone questioned in Ikwambi believe that the company is bad, despitethe village receiving TSH 2 million in funds and the building of the village office.Similar negative opinions are held in Iragua and Itete Njiwa, where significantbenefits are received. Utengule was the only village to have the majority of theinterviewees believing that the hunting organisation was ‘good’. This is in part due toseveral workshops run in the village by the company to address the negative opinionspreviously held by the villagers.68

5.2.7 ConclusionThe information gathered in the Kilombero adds weight to the claim that the amountof money actually reaching local wildlife protection officers and communities is verylow in comparison to the amount that is being generated (Harris and Pletscher, 2002;Baker, 1997b; Bauldus and Cauldwell, 2004). Although within the area severalvillages do receive benefits in terms of monetary donations and assistance withbuildings and school equipment, these benefits tend to be targeted at very few villagesand only a small percentage of the residents benefit directly, however every feworganisations or projects aim to benefit individuals directly, as there is much scope forcorruption. Communities will usually benefit more that individuals as a result of this.One of the biggest drivers of this is that the District Council allocates 25% of thefunds received from the hunting company to one village every year, and as there aremany villages in the area there are long periods of time before the next fund isreceived. Within both the Kilombero Districts the hunting companies are supportingthe villages closest to them directly. This is very good for those villages, but it evokesinter-village jealously, particularly evident in the west Ulanga District. A fairerdistribution of money is required, with significantly more community liaison in orderto realise the full potential of the large amounts of money generated.Other serious issues uncovered through this survey surround the treatment of villagersat the hands of the hunting staff during anti-poaching patrols. While a reduction inthe amount of illegally obtained meat products is vital, there are more suitablemethods of creating this reduction. Currently it would appear that poachers arediscouraged through a policy of intimidation and fear, but the incentives to poachremain, and would remain whether or not a hunting company is there. The majority ofpeople seemed to be aware that hunting and fishing without the appropriate licences isillegal, but suffer from the lack of meat in the diet. Therefore the incentive to obtainmeat illegally remains and there is also evidence that people prefer bushmeat.Distribution of meat by the hunting companies throughout the season wouldsignificantly reduce this, and create better relations with the village. A similar policyto the one conducted in Itete Njiwa, where bushmeat is sold at TSH 1000/kilo and theproceeds are kept by the village, could be implemented on a wider scale, even if suchsales only occurred on a monthly basis.Unfortunately, as is the case with compensation for crop raiding (Section 2), most ofthe benefits are received on a community level whereas the problems experienced areon a personal level. Therefore it is very difficult for people to see the wider benefitsthat are available. Although it would be exceptionally difficult to implement anyscheme that would benefit people personally an increase in employment andassistance with problem animals would be beneficial.The greatest barrier between local communities and trophy hunting communities isthe lack of communication, both between the two parties, and also between the villagecommittees and the villagers. In several cases it is evident that the village isbenefiting from the hunting company, but the villagers are unaware of this, and thisperpetuates negative opinions of the company. A lack of understanding of the rolethat the hunting company is conducting is also a hindrance, as is the lack ofknowledge surrounding rules and regulations within the Game Controlled Areas, andmisunderstanding over boundaries.69

The failure of governments and hunting operators to devolve sufficient benefits tolocal communities is the greatest threat to the sustainability of trophy hunting oncommunal land (Lindsey et al., 2007). However, with significant improvement incommunications and a structured method of distributing benefits to the villages it ispossible that trophy hunting can contribute significantly to conservation anddevelopment efforts.70

6. ReferencesAbdallah. J. M and Monela.G. G. (2007) Overview of Miombo Woodlands inTanzania; Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 50: 9–23.Ahmed MS & Fiedler LA (2002) A comparison of four rodent control methods inPhilippine experimental rice fields. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation49 (2-3): 125-132Ashley C & Jones B (2001) Joint ventures between communities and tourisminvestors: experience in Southern Africa. International Journal of Tourism Research 3(5): 407-423..Ashley C & Jones B (2001) Joint ventures between communities and tourisminvestors: experience in Southern Africa. International Journal of Tourism Research 3(5): 407-423.Badola R (1998) Attitudes of local people towards conservation and alternatives toforest resources: A case study from the lower Himalayas. Biodiversity andConservation 7 (10): 1245-1259.Baker JE (1997a) Development of a model system for touristic hunting revenuecollection and allocation. Tourism Management 18 (5): 273-286.Baker JE (1997b) Trophy hunting as a sustainable use of wildlife resources insouthern and eastern Africa. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5 (4): 306-321.Banda et al., (2006), Woody vegetation structure and composition along a protectiongradient in a miombo ecosystem of western Tanzania; Forest Ecology andManagement 230 (1-3),Barbier EB, Swanson TM, Barbier EB (1992) Community-based development inAfrica. Economics for the wilds: wildlife, wildlands, diversity and development, pp.15-33.Barnes RFW, Dubiure UF, Danquah E, et al. (2007) Crop-raiding elephants and themoon. African Journal of Biology 45 (1): 112-115Begon M, Harper JL & Townsend CR (1986) Ecology: individuals, populations, andcommunities. Blackwell Scientific, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.Bulte and Rondeau, (2007); Wildlife Damage and Agriculture: A Dynamic Analysisof Compensation Schemes; American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89(2),Pages 490 – 507Butler, (2000); The economic costs of wildlife predation on livestock in Gokwecommunal land, Zimbabwe; African Journal of Ecology, 38 (1), Pages 23 – 30Crowe TM, Smith BS, Little RM, et al. (1997) Sustainable utilization of game atRooipoort Estate, northern Cape Province, South Africa. Harvesting wild species:71

implications for biodiversity conservation, pp. 359-392.Dallu, (2002) Dallu, A.I.M., 2002. Tropical secondary forest management in Africa,reality and perspectives: Tanzania country paper. In: The FAO/EC LNV/GTZWorkshop on Tropical Secondary Forest Management in Africa, Nairobi, Kenya, 9–13De Boer WF, Baquete DS (1998) Natural resource use, crop damage and attitudes ofrural people in the vicinity of the Maputo Elephant Reserve, Mozambique.ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 25 (3): 208-218.Fernando et al., (2005); Perceptions and Patterns of Human–elephant Conflict in Oldand New Settlements in Sri Lanka: Insights for Mitigation and; Biodiversity andConservation; 14(10)Festa-Bianchet M, Coltman DW, Turelli L, et al. (2004) Relative allocation to hornand body growth in bighorn rams varies with resource availability. BEHAVIORALECOLOGY 15 (2): 305-312.Wilkie DS & Carpenter JF (1999) The potential role of safari hunting as a source ofrevenue for protected areas in the Congo Basin. ORYX 33 (4): 339-345.Foley G & Buren A van (1980) Substitutes for wood: turning to coal and otherapproaches to easing the pressure on fuelwood resources. Unasylva 32 (130): 11-24.Gillingham S, Lee PC (1999) The impact of wildlife-related benefits on theconservation attitudes of local people around the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania.ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 26 (3): 218-228.Harris RB & Pletscher DH (2002) Incentives toward conservation of argaii Ovisammon: a case study of trophy hunting in western China. ORYX 36 (4): 373-381.Haule KS, Johnsen FH & Maganga SLS (2002) Striving for sustainable wildlifemanagement: the case of Kilombero Game Controlled Area, Tanzania. JOURNAL OFENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 66 (1): 31-41.Haule, (1997), Wildlife prospects in Kilombero Game Controlled Area, Tanzania.Traditional vs state management, NORAGRIC. Pp0162Hill, (2000); Conflict of Interest Between People and Baboons: Crop Raiding inUganda. International Journal of Primatology; 21(2).Hoare and du Toit, (1999); Coexistence between People and Elephants in AfricanSavannas; Conservation Biology; 13 (3), Pages 633 – 639Hoare, (1999); Determinants of human–elephant conflict in a land-use mosaic.Journal of Applied Ecology; 36 (5), Pages 689 – 700.Hofer, D., (2002). The lions share of the hunt. Trophy Hunting and Conservation: AReview of the Legal Eurasian Tourist Hunting Marketand Trophy Trade UnderCITES. TRAFFIC Europe Report, 72pp.72

Humavindu and Barnes, 2003 M.N. Humavindu and J.I. Barnes, Trophy hunting inthe Namibian economy: an assessment. South African Journal of Wildlife Research;33(2) p.65-70Humavindu MN & Barnes JI (2003) Trophy hunting in the Namibian economy: anassessment. SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE RESEARCH 33 (2): 65-70.Hurt R & Ravn P (2000) Hunting and its benefits: an overview of hunting in Africawith special reference to Tanzania. In: Prins H, Grootenhuis J and Dolan. TheWildlife Conservation by Sustainable Use. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston /Dordrecht / London: pp. 295-313Hutton JM & Leader-Williams N (2003) Sustainable use and incentive-drivenconservation: realigning human and conservation interests. ORYX 37 (2): 215-226Jenkins RKB, Corti GR, Fanning E, et al. (2002) Management implications ofantelope habitat use in the Kilombero Valley, Tanzania. ORYX 36 (2): 161-169.Jones T., Rovero F. & Msirikale J. (2007) Vanishing Corridors: A Last Chance toPreserve Ecologica Connectivity between the Udzungwa and Selous-MikumiEcosystems of Southern Tanzania. Final Report to Conservation International.Kangalawe and Liwenga, (2005) R.Y.M. Kangalawe and E.T. Liwenga, Livelihoodsin the wetlands of Kilombero Valley in Tanzania: opportunities and challenges tointegrated water resource management, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 30, pp.968–975.Leader-Williams N & Hutton JM (2005) Does extractive use provide opportunities tooffset conflicts between people and wildlife? PEOPLE AND WILDLIFE:CONFLICT OF CO-EXISTENCE? 9: 140-161.Lee and Graham, (2006); African elephants Loxodonta africana and human-elephantinteractions: implications for conservation; International Zoo Yearbook; 40(1), Pages 9 - 19Lindsey PA, Alexander R, Frank LG, et al. (2006) Potential of trophy hunting tocreate incentives for wildlife conservation in Africa where alternative wildlife-basedland uses may not be viable. ANIMAL CONSERVATION 9 (3): 283-291Luoga et al, (2002).Regeneration by coppicing (resprouting) of miombo (Africansavanna) trees in relation to land use, Forest Ecology and Management ; 189(1-3),Madden F (2004) Preventing and mitigating human-wildlife conflicts: World ParksCongress recommendation. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9 (4): 259-260.Mayaka TB, Hendricks T, Wesseler J, et al. (2005) Improving the benefits of wildlifeharvesting in Northern Cameroon: a co-management perspective. ECOLOGICALECONOMICS 54 (1): 67-80.73

Mbaiwa JE (2005) Wildlife resource utilisation at Moremi Game Reserve and Khwaicommunity area in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. JOURNAL OFENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 77 (2): 144-156.Merwe P van der & Saayman M (2003) Determining the economic value of gamefarm tourism. Koedoe 46 (2): 103-112.METCALFE S (1994) THE ZIMBABWE COMMUNAL AREAS MANAGEMENTPROGRAMME FOR INDIGENOUS RESOURCES (CAMPFIRE). CommunitybasedConservation. Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-basedConservation, pp.161-192Mogensen CB, Soerensen J, Bjorkman, A, et al. (2006) Algorithm for the diagnosis ofanaemia without laboratory facilities among small children in a malaria endemic areaof rural Tanzania. ACTA TROPICA 99 (2-3): 119-125Mwaseba DL, Kaarhus R, Johnsen FH, et al. (2007) Rice for food and income-Assessing the impact of rice research on food security in the Kyela and Kilomberodistricts of Tanzania. OUTLOOK ON AGRICULTURE 36 (4): 231-236Naughton-Treves, (1997); Farming the Forest Edge: Vulnerable Places and PeopleAround Kibale National Park, Uganda;87 (1), pp. 27-46.Osborn and Parker, (2003). Towards an integrated approach for reducing the conflictbetween elephants and people: a review of current research; Oryx [Oryx]. 37(1), pp.80-84Osborn, (1998); Towards an integrated approach for reducing the conflict betweenelephants and people: a review of current research. Fauna & Flora International;37(1):80-84 Cambridge University PressRice C (1990) Don't forget to pack the trunk. Wildlife. Conservation. 93: 58–67.Rollins-Smith LA, Woodhams DC, Reinert LK, et al. (2006) Antimicrobial peptidedefenses of the mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa). DEVELOPMENTALAND COMPARATIVE IMMUNOLOGY 30 (9): 831-842Thouless CR & Sakwa J (1995) Shocking elephants - fences and crop raiders inLaikipia district, Kenya. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 72 (1): 99-107.Setel, P (2000) Validity of data-derived algorithms for ascertaining causes of adultdeath in two African sites using verbal autopsy , 5(1), Pages 33-39Severre, E. (2003). Community Tourism gateway to Poverty Reduction. Paperpresented at the IIPT 2nd. African Conference on Peace through Tourism. Ministry ofNatural Resources and Tourism, Government of Tanzania.Siege L & Baldus RD (2000) From Decline to Recovery: the Elephants of the Selous.Tanzania Wildlife Discussion Paper No. 27Sillero-Zubiri C, Switzer D (2004) Management of wild canids in human-dominatedlandscapes. In: Sillero-Zubiri C, Hoffmann M, Macdonald DW (eds) Canids: foxes,74

wolves, jackals and dogs: status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN, Gland,pp 257–266Singleton GR, Sudarmaji, Jacob J, et al. (2005) Integrated management to reducerodent damage to lowland rice crops in Indonesia. Agriculture Ecosystems &Environment 107 (1): 75-82Sitati et al., (2005); Assessing farm-based measures for mitigating human-elephantconflict in Transmara District, Kenya; Fauna & Flora International ;40(3)279-286Cambridge University PressSTEVENSON, T. and J. FANSHAWE. (2002). Field Guide to the Birds of EastAfrica: Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi T. & A.D. Poyser. London.Thouless and Sakwa, (1995); Shocking elephants: Fences and crop raiders in LaikipiaDistrict, Kenya. Biological Conservation, 72(1), 1995, Pages 99-107Warren Y, Buba B & Ross C (2007) Patterns of crop-raiding by wild and domesticanimals near Gashaka Gumti National Park, Nigeria. International Journal of Pestmanagement 53 (3): 207-216.http://www.tanzania.go.tz/ (2003)http://www.wetlands.org/ (2007)http://www.who.int/en/ (World Heath Organization, WHO)75