http://www.ippmedia.com/frontend/index.php?l=77696



Arusha councillors push for more revenue from tourist hunting firms

BY LUSEKELO PHILEMON

23rd February 2015


Ward councillors in Longido District, Arusha Region have asked the authorised tourist hunting companies to start paying fees to the district council.

They made the call in Longido Township over the weekend when speaking at the district’s ward council meeting.
They said currently hunting companies have been paying fees to villagers living close to wildlife management areas (WMAs) leaving the district council with nothing.

“There are lots of hunting companies which have been working closely with the villagers close to WMAs and they have been paying them annual fees, but nothing goes to the council,” said Joseph Ole Sadira, chairman of Longido District Council.

Sadira said there was a need for those companies to be compelled to pay such fees to the district council and their contracts with the villagers to be reviewed.

“It is now time for those contracts to be reviewed so that part of the fees can be paid to the council,” said Sadira, calling on district council lawyers to work on those contracts as soon as possible so that the council can also benefits out of conservation efforts.

He said the council is overwhelmed by a number of challenges including limited financial resources to fund the district’s development projects.
He said the move is part of the widening council’s internal revenue sources.

“Our revenue sources are very few and this is the area that needs to be included for the betterment of our area,” he said.
Olmolog ward councillor, Mathias Mollel, said: “It is astonishing to see the council concentrates on collecting revenues from petty traders leaving aside investors.”

He said it is high time the council boosted the tax base in the district.
District Executive Julius Chalya who had different views on the matter said: “It is impossible to tax the investors twice who have been paying heft amounts to villagers. The investors pay to the central government and the council gets 25 percent from the investors.”
SOURCE: THE GUARDIAN

I am not sure I understand what is going on.

Hunting companies are supposed to pay fees,aren't these fees supposed to go to whatever government entity is in charge of that area?

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

I am not sure I understand what is going on.
Hunting companies are supposed to pay fees,aren't these fees supposed to go to whatever government entity is in charge of that area?

In theory that is how it should be (note should).
These Councillors ought to rethink their claims as villages that receive assistance in varying forms; from food (during drought), boreholes, medical assistance (building of small dispensaries), schools and their additional classrooms (as pupils increase), finance in the form of CASH for village projects (signed for by village Chairmen) etc. etc. are funds OVER & ABOVE the prescribed and compulsory Community Development Levy paid by the outfitter directly to the Government.

The District Councillors should go knocking on the Treasury's door and ask for their %age of the CDL.

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

I am not sure I understand what is going on.
Hunting companies are supposed to pay fees,aren't these fees supposed to go to whatever government entity is in charge of that area?

In theory that is how it should be (note should).
These Councillors ought to rethink their claims as villages that receive assistance in varying forms; from food (during drought), boreholes, medical assistance (building of small dispensaries), schools and their additional classrooms (as pupils increase), finance in the form of CASH for village projects (signed for by village Chairmen) etc. etc. are funds OVER & ABOVE the prescribed and compulsory Community Development Levy paid by the outfitter directly to the Government.

The District Councillors should go knocking on the Treasury's door and ask for their %age of the CDL.

That same old theory.

"What is mine is mine, and what is yours is ours"

And part of the problem are operators who promise the world in order to absorb large tracts of land and then don't invest much into the area, run only a handful of hunts, forget to pay for all the animals collected, and do little for the betterment of the locals.

There is always the other side of the story.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
And part of the problem are operators who promise the world in order to absorb large tracts of land and then don't invest much into the area, run only a handful of hunts, forget to pay for all the animals collected, and do little for the betterment of the locals.

There is always the other side of the story.

Should we even take a wild guess as who these rogue outfitters could be?

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
I am not sure I understand what is going on.

Hunting companies are supposed to pay fees,aren't these fees supposed to go to whatever government entity is in charge of that area?

There are different formulas depending on the status of the block.

In Game Reserves, your community contributions are often channeled through the District and usually less substantial. You pay statutory fees to Gov (shared between Treasury and Tanzania Wildlife Protection Fund or TWPF) such as Block Fee, Hunting permits fee, Conservation fee, Trophy Handling fee and Game fees as well as the minimum Community Dev fee of $5000 per block. The latter fee is now payable directly to the communities and proof of payment submitted to the Wildlife Division. Anything over and above this statutory Comm Dev fee is discretionary. Many operators get away with paying the minimum. Of the fees received by the state, a percentage is returned to the Districts for Comm Dev projects. This is where the wheels fall off

In open areas (Village Lands) in addition to the above statutory fees, the comm dev contributions to the communities is usually much higher as it is their land you are operating on and you need to keep relations good. In some instances, these can be in the form of elaborate benefit sharing agreements amounting to tens of thousands of $$!

On village land, I feel the District should get nothing. They have no role to play as the wildlife user rights are issued by the Ministry and the land user rights by the village - both of whom already receive fees from operators. They just see $$ signs everywhere and the tourism sector is already overburdened with countless taxes, levies and fees!

simple solutions
10 year lease bid, set percentage of revenue, whatever it may be agreed upon both sides.
Wildlife dept get percentage of licenses or tags and that's it.
These greedy people are just nothing but a vultures...
I'm so glad I'm never gonna hunt in Tanzania as more I see and hear, more I'm disgusted by them

Boarkiller,

I share in your disgust......but if that is your basis in selecting a hunting destination then you have to forego every African country from your list.