Tanzania: Hunting from Community Perspectives



Arusha Times (Arusha)

22 March 2008
Posted to the web 24 March 2008

Ramadhani Kupaza
Arusha

Tanzanians are fortunate to have abundant natural resources to alleviate if not to eradicate poverty in the country. But the level of poverty in Tanzania contradicts the notion of being fortunate.

There are more causes of the contradiction than what meets the eye. Analysis of the life cycle of wildlife utilization practices in Tanzania shed light on some causes of the problem. Hunting is one of the major forms of wildlife utilization.


According to the Wildlife Policy of Tanzania, approximately 31% of Tanzania or 275,000 km2 of the country's surface area is set aside for hunting purposes. Therefore, hunting stands out as a major land use in Tanzania if based on the allocation of such substantial land area for the purpose. It follows that hunting must contribute significantly to poverty alleviation in the country in order to justify the huge allocation of land for the activity.

There are several categories of hunting in Tanzania. They are Citizen hunting, Resident hunting, hunting of Problem animals and Tourist hunting. There is also indigenous hunting, which is legally called poaching. These categories involve different fee payment arrangements thus they generate different levels of revenues. By far, tourist hunting rather than the other categories generate the most revenues.

For example, tourist-hunting operations generated approximately T. Shs 9 Billion in 2003. Arguably, such level of income does not quite justify the allocation of 31% of the country's land area for tourist hunting. Revenues from citizen, resident and problem animal hunting are much less. The existing argument that there is potential for increased revenues in hunting is considered to be mere talk because it should have happened already since hunting in the country has been operational for decades.

In addition, it is argued that even if tourist hunting generates more revenues there are no clear procedures, which ensure that revenue generation from tourist hunting will be used to enhance community development programmes directly. For example, the Tourist Hunting Regulations indicate that all fees are to be paid to the central government. Then in the last part, the Regulations encourage hunting companies to contribute to communities as one of the criteria for winning a hunting permit for the following hunting season. This is not a systematic development concern by government for communities.

On a related matter, hunting areas other than those in protected areas such as Game Reserves are mismanaged. The reason is that government does not re-invest adequately to manage the areas. Apparently, the same government has set up a system for hunting areas to retain some revenues for management purposes. But like many good schemes in Tanzania the retention schemes are not honoured adequately. The reason is that the revenue retention schemes require the money to be deposited at the treasury first before it is disbursed to the respective areas for management purposes. It is one of those government procedures that encourage corruption.

Yet, well-executed retention schemes encourage sustainable and profitable business. Take the practice in Selous Game Reserve for example. Literature informs that the Reserve generates about T. Shs 3 Billion a year and it retains 50% of the revenues directly. As a result, Selous Game Reserve generates such revenue or more annually on a sustainable basis. More importantly, the reserve is well managed.

Analysis of those involved in the tourist hunting industry reveals the sections of communities that generate or use revenues associated with the activity. For instance, in 2003 a total of 42 companies were allowed to conduct tourist-hunting activities in the country. All companies are registered in Tanzania and approximately 50% of them are based in Arusha. It suggests that members of communities benefit much from tourist hunting activities if based on the fact that hunting companies are legally under the custody of Tanzanian government. But this information conceals the issue of benefit distribution. Therefore, further analysis of the players in the industry may reveal the main recipients of revenues generated from tourist hunting activities.

A total of 143 professional hunters (guides) were involved while 1018 tourist hunters (clients) and 359 observers participated in tourist hunting operations in 2003. Like for companies, approximately 50% of the professional hunters are based in Arusha.

Clearly, the small number of foreign visitors associated with hunting does not make significant financial contribution to local communities through spending on non-hunting activities. On the other hand, it is estimated that a professional hunter (guide) can earn T. Shs 15 Million annually on average. Therefore, it can be deduced that tourist hunting generated approximately T. Shs 2 Billion in the form of salaries in 2003. This is a substantial financial contribution to the employment sector by the tourist hunting industry. But some observers claim that such revenues are not distributed equitably. It calls for analysis of composition of professional hunters (guides) in order to address the claim.


Only about 15% of the 112 professional hunters (guides) based in Arusha are local people and the rest are foreigners. The ratio is nearly the same at the national level. It means that T.Shs 400 Million of the T. Shs 2 Billion in salaries goes to the local professional hunters while foreign hunters earn the rest.

From global perspectives, there is room for both local and foreigners in the tourist hunting industry. To honour such perspective, it is necessary for government, accomplished hunting companies and individuals to provide equitable opportunities for both local and foreign professional hunters. Such opportunities may include provision of training to enhance competence in professional hunting. Incidentally, both some local and foreign professional hunters are said to require training to attain acceptable levels of competence in the field. Otherwise, members of community may not support tourist hunting in the future.

If communities do not support hunting operations and government does not spend adequately to manage hunting areas, many of the tourist hunting areas and of course hunting opportunities will simply disappear in Tanzania.