New report shows corruption and abuse rife within Tanzania wildlife sector

An new report on the wildlife industry in north Tanzania has revealed an industry that is rife with corruption and abuse. The report documents tourist and hunt operators failing to pay fees to authorities, authorities failing to pass on fees to local villages, illegal land grabs and bribery of wildlife and government officials.

The report was put together by Tanzanian NGO ANGONET in collaboration with Finnish NGO KEPA.

The report entitled State of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in the Wildlife Sector highlighted the current situation and sustainability of the wildlife sector in northern Tanzania.

The report studied villages that should be benefiting from wildlife and especially tourism but the report found that 75% of people questioned said they thought that wildlife was a useful resource but at the same time the expressed dissatisfaction with the current economic benefits with many believing that the benefits do not outweigh the costs in lost crops and damage.

With wildlife tourism being such a major contributor to the Tanzanian economy the study helps explain why so little of the income generating is benefiting local people and explains why the income of people in and around national parks and nature reserves is some of the lowest of Africa.

One of the biggest issues is that Corporate Social Responsibility is viewed by the private sector in Tanzania as being a voluntary requirements despite the government advising strongly for companies to consider the rights and needs of local people. Without clear legislation companies operating within the wildlife sector of Tanzania are choosing to ‘opt out’.

One instance the report highlights is Burunge WMA (Wildlife Management Area) commonly known as JUHIBU where only 1 in 5 tourist operations are meeting legal obligations. Lack of transparency in the financial reporting makes it difficult to know where, or if, money is going astray. In the Juhibu case one of the operators, Maramboi Tented Lodge. in 2011/12 claimed to have paid the Wildife Division of Burunge WMA over 568 million schillings but the wildlife division only recorded having received under 474 million schillings. The remaining 4 operations were recorded as paying no fees at all.

Companies and government officials also often backtracked on commitments to communities when tourist developments where planned and developed.

Communities have been let down so badly by the current system that 25% of people questioned now feel the corruption and bribery is endemic within the wildlife service at all levels of officialdom.

Questions have to be raised over the impact of the Wildlife Conservation (Non-Consumptive Utilization) Regulations of 2008 on local sustainable development. Before the regulations were bought in to force Wildlife Management Areas were established on village lands and local village associations were able to enter into contracts with commercial bodies and take a fee for operations on their land. Following the introduction of the new regulations fees were taken out of the hands of communities and placed under the remit of the Wildlife Division.

The new regulations means that village associations who used to get 100% of income from commercial operations such as permits for no-hunt safaris now only get 65% of the fee.

It could be argued that by removing the commercial benefits if Wildlife Management Areas the villages lost ownership and desire to actively manage the land for wildlife.

The report also highlights the low levels of spending on the national parks in Tanzania despite their importance to the economy. The report shows that the Serengeti National Park received investment of USD 270 per sq. km per year while the Kruger National Park received USD 1,800 and Yellowstone received USD 3,000. The report also acknowledges that Tanzania receives less income per tourist than other African states and questions whether sufficient value is being given to Tanzania’s wildlife.

Not only is Tanzania failing to make the most of it’s wildlife resource and invest in it the money it does receive is failing to get to the local communities. In regard to hunting the wildlife services are required to pay 25% of the hunt fee to local community development but the regulations are unclear and questions are often raised about whether the 25% should be taken from the gross fee or after other expenses have been taken out.

Commercial companies are also ignoring legal requirements for community investment.  The Wildlife Conservation (Tourist Hunting) Regulations of 2010 requires hunting companies to pay USD 5,000 a year to community development. No company has so far paid the fee.

Local people also failed to get compensation for crops and livestock lost through wildlife conflicts. One issue raised by the report is the plight of villagers along the path of the great wildebeest migration in in the Serengeti. Villagers are not compensated for their loss of crops during this period and are often left to undertake poaching in order to feed families. Another concern this how villagers are prevented from grazing their livestock on village and ancestral land if it overlaps with a designated wildlife protection area.

While the wildlife services commits large amounts of resources into targeting villagers and pastoralists the report questions why no resources have been committed to stopping illegal mining in wildlife areas. In the Marang’ Forest at an important crossing for elephants and buffalo illegal mining is taking place virtually unopposed by wildlife authorities. The Marang Forest was under the control of the village council and villagers used to collect firewood from the forest under strict village control. One the forest was taken over by the wildlife services the forest quickly degraded and illegal mining began. Despite villagers reporting wildlife offences and degradation the wildlife service have failed to control the activities in the region. On occasions those informants providing information on mining activities in the reserve are often falsely accused of poaching and fined by local wildlife authorities.

The wildlife authorities have also failed to meet the requirements of the law when dealing with information provided to them. The law requires that informants of wildlife crime should be rewarded with an amount equivalent to 10% of the value of any trophies in successful prosecution of cases. Informants have complained that often the amount is less than 10% and in many cases no reward is paid. The failure of wildlife services to meet their obligations means that information is harder to come by when wildlife crimes need to be investigated. And in some cases informants moved from supporting government organisations to supporting poaching operations.

The report goes on to describe how tourism operations fail to complete paperwork and records leading to lack of payments of required permits.

Complex legislation giving different rights to different government departments means that lands legally owned by villagers are not under the control of the villagers anymore. tourist operators are reported to regularly attack and harass villagers who use land and often destroy crops or kill livestock.

Even when courts have sided with villagers the commercial operations still feel that they are able to do what they want on village lands.

Ultimately the report revealed that local communities received just 5% of the incomes that various wildlife agencies in Tanzania raises in fees from wildlife industry operators and tourists.

It would appear that there is still some way to go to meet the demands of the Tanzanian constitution. Article 9 (i) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania of 1977 (URT, 1998) states; “that the use of national resources places emphasis on the development of the people and in particular is geared towards the eradication of poverty, ignorance and diseases“.