Beasts on Fields. Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Nature-Culture

Beasts on Fields. Human-Wildlife Conﬂ icts in Nature-Culture Borderlands

Tino Johansson

Department of Geography Faculty of Science University of Helsinki Finland

Academic dissertation

To be presented, with the permission of the Faculty of Science of the University of Helsinki, for public criticism in the Auditorium E204 of the Physicum building (Gustaf Hällströmin katu 2) on November 28th 2008, at 12 noon.

I Publisher: Department of Geography Faculty of Science PO Box 64, FI-00014 University of Helsinki Finland

ISBN 978-952-10-5099-2 (paperback) ISBN 978-952-10-5100-5 (PDF) ISSN 0300-2934 http://ethesis.helsinki.ﬁ

Helsinki 2008 Hansaprint - Hansa Direct 2008

II Contents

Abstract V Abstract in Finnish / suomenkielinen tiivistelmä VI Acknowledgements VII List of Figures IX List of Tables X List of Acronyms X Prologue 1 1. Introduction 4 1.1. Protected areas, human beings and habitat destruction 4 1.2. Background and justiﬁ cation of the study 6 1.3. Research questions and methods 12 1.4. Geography of the Liwale district 19 1.4.1. Location and demography 20 1.4.2. Ethnic groups in the studied villages 24 1.4.3. Physical geography 28 1.4.4. Economical activities in the Liwale district 30 1.4.5. Wildlife as an important natural resource in the Liwale district 34 2. Th eoretical framework 42 2.1. Animal geographies 42 2.2. Cultural perception of space 48 2.3. Normative beliefs and acceptability of wildlife management actions 54 3. Human-wildlife conﬂ icts 59 4. Th e origins of the nature-culture and human-animal divide 66 4.1. Th e mythical past 67 4.2. Domestication and agricultural revolution 70 4.3. Th e wilderness 72 4.4. Human-animal boundary 74 4.5. Pets and humans 76 5. Landscapes of conservation 77 5.1. Religious roots of the conquest of nature 77 5.2. Social construction of landscapes 79 5.3. National park model and the wilderness ideal 83 5.4. Countryside as a stage for wildlife conservation 87 5.5. Hunting and conservation 90 6. Wildlife conservation 95 6.1. Narratives of conservation 96 6.2. National parks – landscapes of consumption and resistance 97 6.3. Evolvement of community-based wildlife conservation 101 7. Community-based wildlife conservation in Africa 106

III 7.1. Overview of the approach in Africa 107 7.2. Community as an operational unit 108 7.3. Natural resource management and participation in CBC 111 7.4. Property right regimes in CBC 115 7.5. Values of wildlife in CBC 116 8. Community-based wildlife conservation in Tanzania 121 8.1. Protected areas and threats to wildlife conservation in Tanzania 122 8.2. Local government structure in Tanzania 125 8.3. Legislative guidelines for community-based conservation in Tanzania 128 8.3.1. Forest Policy 128 8.3.2. Wildlife Policy 129 8.3.3. Wildlife Management Area 131 8.3.4. Land Act and Village Land Act 137 9. Selous Conservation Programme – a CBC in the Liwale District 138 9.1. History of Selous Game Reserve 139 9.1.1. Early years of Selous Game Reserve 139 9.1.2. Selous Game Reserve as a battleground of human-wildlife confl icts 142 9.1.3. Wildlife conservation, the settlement program and removal of people from the reserve 144 9.1.4. Selous Game Reserve after independence 147 9.2. Selous Conservation Programme in the Liwale distric 155 9.2.1. Establishment of Selous Game Reserve buff er zones 159 9.2.2. Wildlife utilization in the Selous Conservation programme 162 9.3. Human-wildlife confl icts in the Selous Game Reserve buff erzones 163 9.3.1. A brief history of the human-wildlife confl icts in the Lindi region 163 9.3.2. Crop damage and killings of domestic animals by wildlife in the Liwale district 165 9.3.3. Problem animal control in the Liwale district 170 9.3.4. Human casualties of human-wildlife confl icts 172 9.3.5. Some explanations of crop raiding behaviour – a case of the African elephant 174 10. Results of the fi eld study in the Liwale district 175 10.1. Human-wildlife confl icts in the studied villages 176 10.2. Nature-culture boundaries in the Liwale district 183 10.3. Th e perceived image of rural African landscape 186 10.4. Animals in the perceived image of African countryside 188 10.5. Results of the Q-sorts of the civil servants 190 10.6. Discussion 195 Epilogue 204 References 207

IV Abstract

Human-wildlife confl icts are today an integral part of the rural development discourse. In this research, the main focus is on the spatial explanation of these confl icts which is not a very common approach in the reviewed literature. My research hypothesis is based on the assumption that human-wildlife confl icts occur when a wild animal crosses a perceived borderline between the nature and culture and enters into the realms of the other. Th e borderline between nature and culture marks a perceived division of spatial content in our senses of place. Th e animal subject that crosses this border becomes a subject out of place meaning that the animal is then spatially located in a space where it should not be or where it does not belong according to tradition, custom, rules, law, public opinion, prevailing discourse or some other criteria set by human beings. An appearance of a wild animal in a domesticated space brings an uncontrolled subject into that space where humans have previously commanded total control of all other natural elements. A wild animal out of place may also threaten the biosecurity of the place in question. I carried out a case study in the Liwale district in south-eastern Tanzania to test my hypothesis during June and July 2002. I also collected documents and carried out interviews in Dar es Salaam in 2003. I studied the human-wildlife confl icts in six rural villages, where a total of 183 persons participated in the village meetings. My research methods included semi-structured interviews, participatory mapping, questionnaire survey and Q- methodology. Th e rural communities in the Liwale district have a long-history of co-existing with wildlife and they still have traditional knowledge of wildlife management and hunting. Wildlife conservation through the establishment of game reserves during the colonial era still aff ects the human-wildlife confl icts in the Liwale district today. Th is study shows that the villagers perceive some wild animals diff erently in their images of the African countryside than the district and regional level civil servants do. From the small scale subsistence farmers’ point of views, wild animals continue to challenge the separation of the wild (the forests) and the domestics spaces (the cultivated fi elds) by moving across the perceived borders in search of food and shelter. As a result, the farmers may loose their crops, livestock or even their own lives in the confrontations of wild animals. Human-wildlife confl icts in the Liwale district are manifold and cannot be explained simply on the basis of attitudes or perceived images of landscapes. However, the spatial explanation of these confl icts provides us some more understanding of why human-wildlife confl icts are so widely found in Tanzania and across the world.

Email: tino.johansson@helsinki.ﬁ

V Abstract in Finnish / suomenkielinen tiivistelmä

Ihmisten ja villieläinten väliset ristiriidat ovat olennainen osa maaseudun kehityksen diskurssia. Tutkimus pyrkii selittämään näitä ristiriitoja spatiaalisesti osana kulttuurin ja luonnon välistä rajankäyntiä. Ihmisten ja villieläinten välisten ristiriitojen tutkiminen spatiaalisesta näkökulmasta pyrkii lisäämään tämän vähän tutkitun lähestymistavan merkitystä ristiriitojen ratkaisemisessa. Tutkimushypoteesinani on olettamus siitä, että ihmisten ja villieläinten väliset ristiriidat saavat alkunsa, kun villieläin ylittää ihmisten mieltämän rajalinjan luonnon ja kulttuurin välillä ja siirtyy ihmisen kontrolloimalle alueelle. Ihmisten määrittämä luonnon ja kulttuurin välinen rajalinja jakaa kahden erilliseksi koetun tilan väliset spatiaaliset sisällöt ja niihin liitetyt merkitykset. Ihmiset kokevat villieläimen siirtyvän pois luonnollisesta ympäristöstään, kun se ylittää tämän rajalinjan. Villieläimen läsnäolo ihmisten hallitsemassa ja kontrolloimassa tilassa rikkoo siellä vallinneen perinteisiin, sääntöihin, lakiin, julkiseen mielipiteeseen, vallitsevaan diskurssiin tai muihin ihmisten määrittämiin kriteereihin perustuvan järjestyksen. Villieläin edustaa subjektia, johon ihmisellä ei ole täydellistä kontrollia. Ilmaantuessaan ihmisten muokkaamaan kulttuuriympäristöön, jossa pyrkimyksenä on hallita kaikkia luonnon elementtejä, villieläin voi aiheuttaa läsnäolollaan myös bioturvallisuusriskin. Toteutin tapaustutkimuksen Liwalen piirikunnassa kaakkois-Tansaniassa kesä-heinäkuussa 2002. Tämän lisäksi keräsin lähteitä ja tein haastatteluja Dar es Salaamissa vuonna 2003. Tutkin ihmisten ja villieläimien välisiä ristiriitoja kuudessa maaseutukylässä, joissa tutkimukseen osallistui yhteensä 183 henkilöä. Käyttämiäni tutkimusmetodeja olivat puolistrukturoidut haastattelut, osallistava kartoitus, lomakekysely ja Q-metodi. Liwalen piirikunnan kyläyhteisöt ovat pitkään asuneet rinnan villieläimien kanssa, jonka vuoksi heillä on runsaasti perinnetietoa villieläinhallinnasta ja metsästyksestä. Kolonialismin aikana käynnistyneet villieläinten suojeluhankkeet ja perustetut riistansuojelualueet vaikuttavat vielä nykyisinkin ihmisten ja villieläinten välisten ristiriitojen taustalla. Tutkimus osoittaa, että kyläläiset mieltävät joidenkin villieläinten läsnäolon osana afrikkalaisen maaseudun mielikuvaansa eri tavalla kuin piirikunta- ja aluehallinnon virkamiehet. Pienviljelijöiden näkökulmasta villieläimet ylittävät alituisesti villin (metsät) ja kesytetyn (viljellyt pellot) tilan välisen rajan etsiessään ruokaa ja suojaa maatilojen alueelta, jolloin viljelijät menettävät osan sadostaan ja kotieläimistään villieläimille. Ihmisten ja villieläinten välisissä ristiriidoissa kuolee toisinaan myös ihmisiä. Ihmisten ja villieläinten väliset ristiriidat Liwalen piirikunnassa ovat varsin moniulotteisia eikä niitä voida selittää ainoastaan asenteiden tai maisemiin liittyvien mielikuvien pohjalta. Spatiaalinen näkökulma lisää kuitenkin ymmärrystämme ihmisten ja villieläinten välisten ristiriitojen syistä Tansaniassa ja muualla maailmassa.

Sähköposti: tino.johansson@helsinki.ﬁ

VI ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Writing this study has been a rather long journey which started at the turn of the new millennium. It has been an expedition-like experience where I have navigated through partially unknown waters trying to explore new areas in constantly changing weather. Th e further the ship sailed into the open sea, the more I realized that the topic I was exploring involved both a strong objective dimension and also a very subjective dimension which inevitably required some introspection. I suddenly experienced a shipwreck when the hard disk of my computer overheated in the summer of 2003 loosing over 70% of the texts that I had written. It took some time to rebuild the ship and continue the expedition. Th is work would not have been possible without the fi nancial support from the Alfred Kordelin Foundation, the Academy of Finland and the Nordic Africa Institute in Uppsala, Sweden. I am grateful to the Department of Geography at the University of Helsinki, the home base of this expedition, for providing me with continuous support, facilities and guidance. Professor Paul Fogelberg and Dr. Ritva Kivikkokangas-Sandgren enhanced my interest in development geography since the beginning of my studies and also inspired me to continue with post-graduate studies. Professor John Westerholm, the supervisor of this study, has not stopped believing in this work despite several setbacks and delays. Professor Petri Pellikka has involved me in several interesting research projects across the world and has also supported me at every turn. I would also like to thank some other staff members who have contributed to the success of this study, namely Dr. Tuuli Toivonen, Mr. Arttu Paarlahti, Mr. Tom Blom, Ms. Airi Töyrymäki, Mr. Mika Siljander, Mr. Alemu Gonsamo, Dr. Janne Heiskanen, Ms. Nina Himberg, Mr. Barnaby Clark, Mr. Petri Tyynelä, and fi nally Mrs. Hilkka Ailio for putting positive pressure on me to fi nalize this manuscript. Special thanks to Dr. Gareth Rice for language revision. In addition, I would like to thank Professor Ari A. Lehtinen and Professor Sami Kurki for their comments. Th e Institute of Development Studies at the University of Helsinki has been another haven for this work. Professor Juhani Koponen and his predecessor, the late- Professor Michael Cowen, showed me the way to this journey. Th eir inspiration and guidance were essential for this study. A big thanks also to my colleagues, Dr. Jussi Ylhäisi and Dr. Sanna Ojalammi of the research group Community-Based Natural Resource Management Systems in Tanzania for their support. Discussions with Dr. Timo Kyllönen and Mr. Wolfgang Zeller have also been fruitful for the study. Th is work would not have been possible without the hospitality of the Tanzanian people in Dar es Salaam, Lindi, Mtwara, Liwale, Barikiwa/Chimbuko, Likombora, Mpigamiti, Kikulyungu, Mihumo and Liwale B. First of all I would like to thank my research assistant Mr. Francis L. Blangi and my Tanzanian brothers Mr. Geofrey Mshangila and the late- Dr. Simon Mshana. Th eir assistance and enduring friendship have kept this ship sailing. I am indebted to the help of Mr. Clement Kitandala, Mr. O. J. Luhuwa, Mr. M. Shamie, Mr. B. Munlea, Mr. M. Mtila, Mr. C. Maskamo, Mr. L. Noumbaizo, Mr. C. Kumpanga, Mrs. T. Rashidi, Mr. R.N. Maganga, Mr.

VII M. E. Machumu, Mr. I.G. Komba, Mr. R.O. Makota, Mr. A. M. Kamuna, the staﬀ of the Selous Game Reserve in Liwale, especially Mr. Saidi Kabanda and Mr. K.S. Kayoyo, and the esteemed ward councellors Mr. M. Bambaku, Mr. M.A. Kitura, Mr. H. H. Manjanjagara, Mr. N. C. Bwanali and Mr. A. A. Mtamajali. I would like to thank Dr. H. Gideon and the Tanzania Commision for Science and Technology for the research permit which made this study possible in the ﬁ rst place. I would also like to express my gratitude to Mr. Jukka Jänis & family, Dr. H. Sosovele, Dr. G. Jambiya, Dr. A. Lwaitama, Dr. J. Wembah-Rashid, Ms. Julie Atkins and everyone else in RIPS, Mtwara, Mr. Markku Voutilainen in Onnela, Dr. Ludvig Siege, Dr. Rolf D. Baldus and Dr. David Kaggi of the Selous Conservation Programme, late- Mr. Simon A. Kaihula and Mr. Mauta at the Wildlife Division of Tanzania, Dr. Olli Marttila, Mrs. Katariina Laurila-Shambwe, Mr. Oskari Nokso-Koivisto, Mr. Lauri Näreneva & Co., and everyone else who has assisted me during this research but whom I have forgotten to mention here. A long expedition like this required a lot of support from my wife Marika, who has tolerated my journeys to Africa and provided me with peaceful and quiet moments when writing this dissertation. I would also like to pay my respects to my parents and relatives for their daily support. Finally, I would like to thank my friends who never lost their faith in me or this work despite many months of silence and lack of contact, Mr. Vesa Raitanen & family, Mr. Mika Mäkelä & family, Mr. Nino Boström & family, Mr. Jari Jalonen, Mr. Mikko Lappalainen, Mr. Jarkko Mäenpää, the Lähteenmäki brothers, Mr. Timo ‘Bruce’ Müller, Mr. Jiri Komaro, Mr. Jussi Simola, Mr. Jan Nyman, Mr. Janne Heinonen, Mr. Toni Virtanen & family, Mr. Heikki Varimaa, Mr. Markku Mäkelä, Mr. Jim Kallio and all other friends who have stayed on board all the way. Th is work is dedicated to my late-grandparents Maila & Bertil Johansson and Margit & Mauri Karp.

Figure 1. Th e author with an Olive Grass Snake in Tanzania.

VIII List of Figures

Figure 1. Th e author with an Olive Grass Snake in Tanzania. VIII Figure 2. Participants of a village meeting in Mpigamiti in Liwale district, Tanzania. 14 Figure 3. Result of a participatory village mapping in Likombora village. 15 Figure 4. Liwale district is located in the Lindi region in Southeast Tanzania. 20 Figure 5. Vegetation of the study area and location of the studied villages. 22 Figure 6. Th e Liwale Wildlife Management Area of the Selous Buff er Zone Project. 23 Figure 7. Th e river system in the vicinity of the studied villages in the Liwale district. 25 Figure 8. A village elder explains the use of poisoned arrows in traditional hunting in Kikulyungu. 37 Figure 9. Some members of Kilulyungu village are assessing crop damages on a maize fi eld after a raid by a group of elephants. 40 Figure 10. Th e four zones of personal territory for an average American person. 50 Figure 11. Th e human shell-like spatial hierarchy. 52 Figure 12. A framework of critical nature-culture borderlines in a rural setting in Liwale, Tanzania. 53 Figure 13. Th e cognitive hierarchy model of human behaviour. 57 Figure 14. Horizontal and vertical human-wildlife confl icts. 61 Figure 15. Th ree ways of understanding the landscape in the production of cultural heritage. 85 Figure 16. Community involvement in diff erent types of community conservation approaches. 112 Figure 17. Th e total economic benefi t of wildlife which is operational at global, national and local levels. 118 Figure 18. Th e structure of local government in Tanzania. 127 Figure 19. Th e organisational structure of community-based wildlife management in the Selous Conservation Programme. 158 Figure 20. A group of hippopotami from the nearby river have caused damage to a rice fi eld in Kikulyungu village in 2002. 167 Figure 21. A dungu or a guard hut on the side of a fi eld in Mpigamiti village. 169 Figure 22. Th e Liwale District Assistant Game Offi cer, Mr. Mtila with the hunted lioness which was responsible for killing four persons in Liwale in 2003. 173 Figure 23. Th e map of Mihumo shows the location of forests and rivers where wildlife is mostly seen and from where the animals move into the village area. 184 Figure 24. A clear borderline between the cultivated area and the forest of the Selous Game Reserve in Kikulyungu. 184 Figure 25. A recently cleared shifting cultivation area in Mpigamiti. 185 Figure 26. Objects ranked by their importance in the perceived image of the rural African landscape for the members of six studied villages in the Liwale district, Tanzania. 187 Figure 27. Objects ranked by their importance in the perceived image of the rural African landscape for the district and region level civil servants in the Liwale district, Tanzania. 188

IX Figure 28. A combined diagram of the average ranks of the landscape objects. 189 Figure 29. Th e important animals of the perceived image of the African countryside for the members of six studied villages in the Liwale district, Tanzania. 190 Figure 30. Animals ranked by their importance in the perceived image of the African countryside for the civil servants at the district and regional level. 191 Figure 31. A combined diagram of the average ranks of the animals in the perceived images of African countryside among the villagers and civil servants at the district and region levels. 191

List of Tables Table 1. Ranking of studied wards of Liwale district according to 1996 population ﬁ gures and census of 2002. 21 Table 2. Th e number of admitted resident hunting licences in the Liwale District in 1993-2001. 39 Table 3. Diﬀ erent categories of protected areas and open areas, and their characteristics in Tanzania. 123 Table 4. Th e number of protected areas in Tanzania from 1964 to 1994. 149 Table 5. Income generated from wildlife management in selected villages in Liwale district in US dollars in 1996-1998. 163 Table 6. Agricultural crops lost by wildlife damage in the Liwale District between 1991 and 2002. 167 Table 7. Problem animals controlled by hunting in Liwale District in 1990–2000. 171 Table 8. Wild animal species present around the village areas in the studied six villages in Liwale district according to the information provided by the villagers during the group discussions 1–11 July 2002. 178 Table 9. A factor matrix indicating the loadings of the respondents for each four factors. 197

List of Acronyms

ADMADE Administrative Management Design CAMPFIRE Communal Areas management Programme for Indigenous Resources CBC Community-based (wildlife) conservation CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora CWMO Community Wildlife Management Oﬃ cer IUCN Th e World Conservation Union NGO Non-governmental organization RIPS Rural Integrated Project Support Programme SCP Selous Conservation Programme SGR Selous Game Reserve SLA Sustainable Livelihood Approach TAHOA Tanzania Hunters Association TANAPA Tanzania National Parks TAWICO Tanzania Wildlife Corporation VGS Village Game Scout VNRC Village Natural Resource Committee WMA Wildlife Management Area WMI Wildlife Management Institution

X Prologue scouts who were supposed to prevent poaching of protected wildlife in the Th e air was full of bats. Hundreds of area, ate the meat of a protected species hungry bats had woken up and crawled without inhibitions and did not accuse out from beneath the sheet metal roof our host of poaching or question his of our host’s farm house and greeted our actions. However, the old man told us dining party by bombing us with their that he had found the elephant dead droppings. A campfi re provided some nearby the gravel road some kilometres light so I was able to get a glimpse of away from his farm. these small and furry fl ying animals. I A pack of elephants had approached could feel the fl ow of air on my cheek the farm house while we were eating. We and arms as a group of bats dived after could easily hear the elephants move and their prey. Th e perceived cleanliness of eat nearby as they pruned the branches that space suddenly disappeared as the of miombo trees into their mouths and bats started fl ying over. While I tried to communicated with short growls. Th e protect my dinner plate from the leftovers game scouts decided to sleep around of the bats’ yesterday’s digested meal, the campfi re in order to fl ee fast if the I instinctively bent down every time I notorious elephants would visit the felt a bat fl ying by. Th is reaction was shanty at night. I retreated into my tent a somehow automated but unconscious but I did not feel safe or sleepy at all as act and it took a while before I could the game guards told me that the tent relax because I was not accustomed to would attract the elephants even more having bats inside my personal space, so than a bowl of corn. I also recalled the especially when I was dining. Th e two offi cial records stating the number of toll game scouts, who accompanied me by of the man-eating lions in this district the campfi re, looked amused as they during the last ten years. It was clear followed my swerving and paid no that the gapped pole fence which the attention to the bustling bats. old man had set up for safeguarding his Th e arrival of our host, an old man garden and property from an invasion living alone in the middle of bush of wild animals could not prevent the savannah, alarmed me as he opened the encroach of these big mammals. For him gate of the shaky pole fence surrounding and us the pole fence was a dividing line his garden. He brought us a big piece between the domesticated and the wild. of meat in a newspaper wrapping and I tried to get some sleep and ignore asked us to share that meal with him. the threat of the browsing elephants We only had some boiled rice for dinner but my thoughts wandered through and some fruits for dessert so we did not my previous experiences in life as I want to reject his marvellous off er. Th e was looking for a reason why I now game scouts sliced the meat into small was camped in a remote nature-culture pieces and fried it on the campfi re. Th e borderland in search of an explanation meat did not taste like beef or pork at all for the imminent appearance of human- but rather like liver. Afterwards I heard wildlife confl icts in wildlife conservation that we ate elephant liver that night. I projects in rural areas. It was not only felt quite confused because the game my scientifi c interest which kept me

1 going but there had to be something else of our dogs but we also tried to train behind all this; perhaps my subjective our pig, sheep and goats to respond to aff ection for nature. Animals have been similar commands. I learned very early part of my daily life since I was born. that some animal species in our farms I was raised in a family, which kept were pets while some were domestic a bloodhound kennel as a hobby. In animals kept for production and profi t. addition to the slobbering bloodhounds, I also knew that some of our animals we had many other breeds of dogs too. were not tame at all and would escape Before I left primary school, our kennel into the forests if they had a chance to had not only grown in size but it also do so. Th e pheasants hatched and grown contained many other animal species. in captivity were primarily sold to the We had a large meadow pen with a pond local hunting club and released into for a pack of geese and ducks. One of our freedom straight from the door of their sheds was full of chickens and roosters, enclosure once the deal was done. On a which often chased me and defended few occasions, my little sister had opened their nests when I collected their eggs the door for the pheasants and released a from the traditional henhouses. We also whole pack of them for free. Life on the had hundreds of pheasants, who lived in farm meant participation in the whole their large enclosures all year round. It life circle of animals. Although, none of was my daily task to feed all our birds my family members practiced hunting, after school and collect their eggs into killing of animals was a normal part of the incubation machine. One of the most activities on the farm. Th e pig was fed enduring memories and experiences and kept for Christmas, one member I have from our farm is placing a of the geese pack was killed and eaten collection of recently hatched chicks and on the 10th of November during the waterfowls from the incubation machine Martin Luther Day and chicken and under the heater. Th ese small creatures pheasants were often killed for special immediately adopted me as their mother occasion dinners. Of course, it was a sad goose and followed my hand anywhere I moment for us children, when some of moved it. I then felt like I had crossed the animals which had names and were the borderline between humans and almost treated like pets were killed or animals and was temporarily accepted sold by our father. We reluctantly had as a member of both distinctive entities. to learn that eating and selling certain Our farm also had a few sheep, goats animals species was the original reason and a pig, and one chinchilla. Apart why we had those animals on the farm from the chicken, ducks and pheasants, in the fi rst place. every animal on the farm had a name. I grew up in a culture where the One summer, my three-year old sister categorisation of animal species into even shared her small children’s pool pets, domestic animals and wild animals with one of the geese she had adopted was essential and very normal. Each from the incubation machine. We spent category of animals had their designated hundreds of days with the domestic spaces. Some animals were kept inside animals when we were children. We our house and some animals were not did not only share the playful company welcomed there at all. Th e only animal

2 species allowed to stay in the farm house the farm animals. We could no longer were the dogs, my two budgerigars even take the animals found dead to the and Canary birds, tropical fi shes in the taxidermist for trophies. American mink aquarium and the two fancy white mice, and Red fox caused much more damage which I bought from the pet shop. My to the farm animals than the birds of mother hated those mice and did not prey. A mink once killed almost all of want them inside the house and so I our chickens and as a result it was later fi nally had to get rid of them after my killed by a local hunter. unsuccessful breeding experiment with My parents sold the farm when I was a few domestic mice I had caught from a teenager and we moved back to town. the shed. Th e fancy mice and their wild My father opened a pet shop there and relatives did not get along at all and once I helped him at the shop during the in the middle of a fi ght the cage fell down weekends. Th ere I got used to handling to the fl oor and all the mice escaped. My and taking care of many exotic animal mother was unaware of this experiment species, such as snakes, scorpions and and later found one white mouse when spiders. Some people bought pythons she worked in the kitchen and saw and tarantellas for pets, while other it scamper past the cupboard. I then customers disliked and avoided these learned a quick lesson on the confi ned creepy animals when they came to buy defi nition of nature-culture borderland food for their cats, hamsters and guinea in our household. Despite this setback, pigs. My scientifi c interest in human- my parents supported my lepidopterist animal relationships really started to hobby, which required staying awake evolve during those days. I realised that for many nights in search of moths even I had always lived and balanced on during the school days in late spring the nature-culture borderland and had and early autumn. Certain species in followed the subjective attitudes of other the category of wild animals, such as people towards the species within these American mink, Red fox, Raccoon dynamic borders. dog, Goshawk and Eurasian Eagle Owl, My senses were on full alert and sometimes killed a few of our geese, I opened my eyes to every small crack ducks, chicken and pheasants. Th ese wild and noise around my tent. I could not animals were regarded as pests, almost hear the elephants in the bush anymore similar to the rats, which sometimes but now some hyenas started to howl broke into the grain storage and ate some nearby. Th e arrival of these large and of the feed for the farm animals. Th ese powerfully jawed predators did not species were usually wanted dead or alive make me feel any safer in the tent. Th e when found inside the farm area. In the old man had some hours earlier placed year I turned thirteen, the Goshawk and his three chickens inside a small wooden Eurasian Eagle Owl became protected container for the night and something species by law, so we had to call for made those chickens nervous. I was the authorities to document our losses wondering if the hyenas had entered and release these predatory birds from the garden where we all slept or if it was the enclosures if they were accidentally just some rats stealing grain from the caught there during their preying on chickens. I also thought of the daily life

3 of this old man who gets a living out of eating lions every now and then. Th ere this barren land, where cattle could not I could visit rice fi elds destroyed by the be kept because of the presence of tsetse hippos and maize fi elds trampled by fl ies. His farm would soon be located the elephants and on my way to these inside a Wildlife Management Area, a sites I saw a group of women washing buff er zone extension of the Selous Game the laundry in a pool which they shared Reserve. It will be a demarcated land with a pack of hippos. In Liwale, I also area in the vicinity of Kikulyungu village heard stories about the metamorphosis where local villagers could have a legally of animals into humans and vice versa. recognized role in wildlife management Just like the stories on metamorphosis, and conservation. Would the new law some of the local survival strategies used improve the old man’s capabilities to during numerous wildlife encounters earn a living close to the border of the seemed to be quite unbelievable and largest game reserve in Africa? Or could diffi cult to explain scientifi cally. Th e the result be the opposite, making his complexity of the human-nature small battle against encroaching wildlife relationship was easily sensed in Liwale. pointless? In the morning, I found some footprints Th is sleepless night was the last night of African wild cat around my tent and for me in the remote areas of Liwale close to the wooden container protecting district. Almost three months ago, I the chickens. All three chickens pawed waited for my work permission in Dar es at the dusty soil in search of seeds like Salaam and spent many hours answering nothing threatening had happened last the questions of my urban Tanzanian night. But many dangerous encounters friends about the reason for travelling surely did happen in the nature-culture to Liwale. “Th ere is nothing to see out borderlands from my point of view. Life there”, was a common notice from them. is really wild in the Garden of Eden. “It is just bush and tsetse fl ies in Liwale. You should rather travel to Serengeti or 1. Introduction Ngorongoro to see some wildlife”, said my urban guides. I travelled to the 1.1. Protected areas, human beings Liwale district because it is one of the and habitat destruction last areas in East-Africa where elephants, lions, buff alos, hippopotami and other Protected areas have played a key role large wild animals still exist outside the in the conservation of biodiversity and protected areas of agricultural land, endangered wildlife species globally. nearby the farms and villages. In Liwale, Protected areas can be found in most wildlife causes several human casualties, countries of the world. Designating kills farm animals, and destroys crops areas, such as national parks, nature and other property annually. Th ere I reserves and game reserves, for nature was able to interview a farmer who had preservation and conservation is one of a bite mark of a female lion around the characteristics of the modern nation his collarbone, and listen to the stories state (Jepson and Whittaker 2002: 130). of local teachers about the closing of Protected areas covered nearly 11.7% of schools because of the presence of man- the land surface of the Earth in 2004,

4 when there were about 65,000 protected in protected areas can satisfy both areas around the world. Th e total area human needs and maintain ecological of these protected areas was over 16.5 function. Th e human needs approach million km². Th e number of protected has become even more important as areas and their cumulative area coverage the amount of people living around have more than tripled since the 1973. the borders of protected area increases. Th ere were, however, 38,427 protected About 70% of the protected areas in areas with a total area of about 4 million the tropics have people living within km², which were not included in these their boundaries (DeFries et al. 2007: numbers in 2004 because their dates of 1031–1034), making it essential to establishment were unknown (Philips seek ways to form a balance between 2004: 5). Th e relative area coverage human needs and nature protection and of protected areas varies a lot from safeguard global biological diversity in one country to another. In Tanzania, the long run. Steven Sanderson (2005: protected areas covered 39.6% and in 323–325) mentions that the Millenium Sri Lanka about 26.5% of the total land Goals of the United Nations have not area in 2003. In the U.S.A., protected paid enough attention to the costs of areas covered 15.8%, in the United rural development on wild nature. Kingdom 10.5% and in Finland 8.9% Its perspectives and policies have not of the total land area in 2003 (World acknowledged the failures of previous Resources Institute 2006). In the light of development projects or the availability the above fi gures, it can be summarized of new frameworks based on integrated that a larger percentual share of the conservation and development total land area is handed over to nature approaches. Sanderson writes that protection in the poorer countries than rural development and the expansion in the richer industrialized countries. of the agricultural frontier have placed Most biodiversity hot spots are located humans in direct confl ict with wild in the tropics which could explain this animals and uncultivated landscapes. spatial distribution. But one cannot He adds that the new millennial poverty ignore the fact that in poorer countries alleviation strategy has not given a where the majority of people still central role to biodiversity. Wildlife earn their livelihood from subsistence conservation is mainly carried out in agriculture and where the population heavily human-aff ected ecosystems, growth rates are above the global average; which simultaneously are the locations these protected areas are placed under a of most rural poverty and biodiversity. growing human pressure. Rondinini et al. (2006) carried out Th e World Conservation Union an inventory of the irreplaceable sites (IUCN) defi nes protected areas as “an for the protection of amphibians and area of land and/or sea especially dedicated mammals in Africa. Th ey noticed that to the protection and maintenance existing protected areas currently cover of biological diversity, and of natural approximately 3.44 million km² which and associated cultural resources, and represents about 10% of the total area managed through legal or other eff ective of Africa. Th ey conclude that another means”. Ideally, land use management 3.36 million km², an additional 9% of

5 the African surface, would be needed to is explained by the large variety of achieve the conservation goals of these diff erent wildlife habitats across the animal species. Human population country. Some of these habitats are density is high in 55% and low in only disappearing at an alarming rate. Severre 17% of these identifi ed irreplaceable (2000) estimated that only about 55% conservation sites in Africa. Th is means of the natural vegetation of miombo that human-wildlife confl icts will even woodland was left in the country. increase in the near future. Many of the Th e original total area of the miombo endangered large mammal species live in woodland had been 420,700 km² in savannah and dry forests habitats which Tanzania. Miombo woodland in South are also inhabited by over 20% of the and West Tanzania contains some of the world’s human population. Th ere the world’s largest remaining populations livelihood of many communities relies of the African elephant and the black on local natural resources. Human rhinoceros. Th e World Resources impact on biodiversity and wildlife Institute (1995) estimates that 49% of habitats is huge in savannas, which is all savannah/grassland ecosystems and one of the most burned landscapes in 40% of all forests have been lost in the world (Mistry and Berardi 2006: 2). Tanzania. Human activities which are Globally relatively few animal the main cause of wildlife habitat loss species have become extinct due to include overgrazing, uncontrolled fi res, direct human persecution. Th e majority deforestation, cultivation and creation of animal extinctions resulted from of settlements. Urbanization and the huge decrease of the animals’ infrastructure development also cause habitats and the growth of geographic habitat loss in Tanzania (Kideghesho ranges by human activities, including 1999; Kideghesho 2001). agricultural expansion. For example, land conversion to wheat farms by local 1.2. Background and justifi cation of Maasai pastoralist was a major reason the study for an 81% decline of the wildebeest population in southern Kenya. Th e My fi rst contact with the African African wild dog has disappeared realities of wildlife conservation and from 25 of the 39 countries where the management dates back to my Master’s species formerly existed. Both lions and thesis on Community-based ecotourism cheetahs had largely disappeared from in northern Namibia in 1995. During Asia by the early twentieth century my fi eld research, I observed the (Woodroff e et al. 2005: 4, 11). If one early stages of implementation of a uses biodiversity as a ranking indicator community-based wildlife conservation Tanzania, the Democratic Republic of (hereafter community-based conservation) Congo, Indonesia and Brazil are the project in the buff er zone of Etosha megadiversity nations of the world. In National Park. Th e confl icts between Tanzania, there are 310 known mammal large mammals and rural farmers were species, 1,016 bird species, 245 reptiles then evident there and the compatibility and 121 amphibian species. Th is huge of wildlife conservation with small-scale number of diff erent wild animal species farming was partly questioned by my

6 research. In the 1980’s and 1990’s, many based on subjective and collective new community-based natural resource senses of place. My research hypothesis programmes, especially ones that focus on is that the confl icts in which locals wildlife management, were established in are mostly involved with in wildlife Africa. Although integrated conservation conservation programmes are human- and development approaches have in wildlife confl icts, which will take place principle formed the backbone of the when wildlife crosses a nature-culture community-based conservation projects, borderline and enters human-controlled many scientifi c articles and evaluation space on the farms and pastures. By reports emphasize the appearance of entering the domesticated space, some confl icts between local communities, wild animals usually create a perceived wildlife authorities and wildlife within risk of personal security or a risk of most of such projects across the livelihoods security. Th ere is no confl ict globe. For example, the large-scale as long as wildlife does not cross this and globally well-known community- socio-culturally perceived border and based conservation programmes, stay in the so called wilderness. In the such as ADMADE (Administrative hypothesis, confl icts partially originate Management Design) in Zambia from struggles over diff erent ways of and CAMPFIRE (Communal Areas seeing wildlife in human and animal Management Programme for Indigenous spheres. In this study, I try to fi nd an Resources) in Zimbabwe, have not answer to the question: can the causes achieved their goals of sustainable of the wildlife conservation confl icts in development and the conservation of rural areas be explained geographically endangered species outside the protected and spatially? I do not ignore the eff ect areas. Since my study in Namibia, I have of political, socio-economical, ecological become more interested in the question, or historical structures on these why confl icts always seem to be present confl icts but I attempt to bring some in wildlife conservation programmes new dimensions into the discussion. which take place in rural areas. Th ese According to Ari Aukusti Lehtinen confl icts take place on all continents, in (2006: 5), the postcolonial scientifi c both poor and rich countries. Previous discourses and maps of meaning have not research points out evidence on the case corresponded to the everyday life worlds specifi c characteristics of these confl icts. of the Northern peoples. Interestingly, Creating a universally applicable model the situation is relatively similar in the to explain these confl icts is thus an case of the ethnic groups of southern impossible task. Th e literature and Tanzania. Scientifi c discourses usually analysis shows that politics, economics, lack a holistic understanding of the ecology, socio-culture and history are diversity of elements shaping the daily often used to explain confl icts of wildlife co-existence of humans and wildlife in conservation in rural areas. However, Tanzania. I hope that this dissertation my previous experience of living with will contribute to a better understanding diff erent animals in the countryside of the spatial nature of human-wildlife made me curious to fi nd an explanation confl icts and the relationship between to these confl icts which would be people and wildlife.

7 I visited the savannas and miombo the conservation of wildlife is based on woodland of south-eastern Tanzania to tourism income. Foreign tourists usually learn about and share the challenges of visit the wildlife-rich ecosystems for daily life with rural people in a completely a day or a week in search for fantastic diff erent nature-culture continuum than photo shots for their family albums and I have become accustomed to in Finland. then return to the fi ve-star safari lodges During the two fi eld trips in Tanzania, with all modern amenities. Local farmers I met many small-scale farmers whose do not get much profi t from wildlife- livelihood depended on the meagre tourism because most of the income products of the land and on a good left in the destination country is usually knowledge of the local environment. divided between the central government Th eir relationship to wildlife is much and the regional and district level more complex than mine, not only administrations. Rural people who risk based on economic and ethical reasons their lives and livelihoods by allowing but also based on beliefs, taboos and dangerous wildlife, admired by the supernatural aspects combined with an visitors, to coexist in their villages get extensive biological knowledge formed substantially little compensation for their through observation and experience sacrifi ces. Th e more I learned about the as well as on oral tradition. Th e new multi-level interactions of humans and laws, regulations and policies of the animals, the more I become interested in community-based conservation aff ect the presence of diff erent visible and non- the farmers’ lives and their abilities to visible borderlines which we humans use local natural resources. Th e locals determine within the spaces we share with who live among wildlife and whose animals. I believe that these borderlines livelihoods are directly aff ected by the are integral elements in human-wildlife legislative changes have seldom drafted confl icts and understanding the the objectives of these internationally existence of such borderlines could help popular approaches to nature us to make wildlife conservation plans conservation. Th eir preferences, hopes and community-based conservation and dreams do not seem to feature much initiatives more sustainable, especially in the implementation plans of these from the viewpoints of those people natural resources management projects who share the space with the conserved mostly funded by the European or species. North American donour organizations. Th ere are three books which have Our perspectives to wildlife conservation greatly inspired me to carry out this in the rich and urban western world are study. Roderick P. Neumann has so much diff erent from the perspectives published several critical articles in the of rural African people who were born 1990’s on the social constructions of and live all their life among the wildlife nature and the creation of protected areas we want to conserve. Are we conserving in colonial Africa. Neumann’s (1998) African wildlife for the Africans or out of book Imposing Wilderness. Struggles over general concern for global biodiversity? Livelihood and Nature Preservation in Th ere are several community-based Africa provides a general outlook on the conservation projects in Africa where social history of landscape and its role in

8 the establishment of national parks and presence of wild animals in human space game reserves in Tanzania. Th e book is considered unnatural and therefore focuses on the symbolic importance of the removal of wild animals from landscapes and political struggles over there becomes necessary. By excluding landscape meanings among diff erent wildlife from the human space, the social groups. Neumann describes how pestilence discourse actually resembles the national park ideal, developed in conservationist discourses in a reverse the nineteenth-century United States at way. Conservationist discourses in turn Yellowstone, provided a model for the aim to exclude human beings from colonial authorities to establish national the natural or wilderness spaces and to parks in Africa. In this model, nature maintain both the species boundary and is preserved from human activities by the nature-culture boundary. Th e book creating bounded spaces where nature is off ers insights into the dichotomy of controlled by central governments. Th e nature-society and nature-culture which national park ideal conceptualizes nature have been critically studied within in largely visual terms and treats nature anthropology. Th ese discourses provide as scenery. Th e origins of this culturally many new ideas for my study on human- and socially produced idea of nature can animal boundaries and culture-nature be traced back to the Anglo-American borderlands. Th e third book Animal nature aesthetic. Neumann points out Geographies. Place, Politics, and Identity that the Europeans and North Americans in the Nature-Culture Borderlands edited recognized certain landscapes as natural by Jennifer Wolch and Jody Emel in due to the infl uences of particular visions 1998 provides me some grounding of nature in art, literature and landscape for my emerging ideas within the design. In his case study on Mount Meru, fi eld of geography and inspires me to Neumann describes how the loss of local study nature-culture borderlands in land and resource access has caused the wildlife conservation discourse. rural confl icts and resistance against Many articles from that book critically protected area policies. Another book consider the human-animal divide in which is one of the sources of inspiration the Western world and challenge the is Natural Enemies. People-Wildlife ontological separation of animals from Confl icts in Anthropological Perspective humans. Th e authors suggest that, edited by John Knight in 2000. Th is in modern societies the ideas about book introduces several case studies on animals and their meaning are mostly human-wildlife confl icts from diff erent socially constructed and in some sense continents and describes these confl icts social fabrications rather than direct from social and cultural anthropology experiences gained from nature. Th e perspectives. Th e most important issue social constructions of animals are from Knight’s book is the spatial context formed at various levels, from personal of people-wildlife interfaces which to societal and institutional levels. Th e threaten the dualisms between man and nature of environmental values and ideas nature. Pestilence discourses obviously about the appropriate human-animal emphasize the dichotomous view of relations in human-animal boundaries people-wildlife relations in which the are aff ected not only by personal and

9 contextual characteristics of individuals of the game reserve. She studied the but also negotiated in public discourses conservation attitudes and perceptions about animals and humans. of the rural people in the SGR. In her Human-wildlife confl icts in Africa study, 46.5% of the total number of 200 have not been widely studied from a respondents mentions that they have people-centred approach. However, experienced confl icts with wildlife in there are some studies, such as Akama the study area. Although, most of the et al. (1995) and Gillingham (1998), respondents agree on the importance of which have focused on locals’ attitudes wildlife protection, they have negative and values on wildlife as a factor in attitudes towards wildlife due to the explaining the human-wildlife confl icts. problem of crop damage. Over 59% of Zoologists have studied diff erent the respondents (N=193) agree with the wildlife species in Africa for centuries statement that wild animals who cause but their emphasis was not primarily on crop damage are pests and should all be the interaction of humans and animals. shot (Siege and Baldus 1998a: 9–10). However, there has been an increasing Human-wildlife confl icts are today interest among the social scientists in an integral part of the rural development the human perspectives on wildlife discourse. Th e restoration of viable confl icts over the last twenty years. Such wildlife populations in agricultural areas research has been particularly popular in has often surfaced as clashes of interests the United States; see for example, Zinn between diff erent stakeholders and et al. (1998) and Vaske and Donnelly fi nally resulted in direct human-animal (1999). Community-based natural confl icts in the farms. Th us there has resource management programmes, recently been a growing emphasis on such as CAMPFIRE in Zimbabwe, have the biosecurity question in agricultural raised the interest of scientists in the research. Biosecurity in modern problems of the integration of wildlife discourse does not only mean the conservation and rural development in policies and measures to protect from Africa. Th e interaction of humans and diseases, pests and biological warfare. wildlife was the focus of geographer Henry Buller (2008) takes an interesting Brian Child’s (1988) PhD thesis in approach to the concept biosecurity and which he studied the role of wildlife the reintroduction of the Grey Wolf to utilisation in the sustainable economic the southern French Alps. Buller defi nes development in Zimbabwe. Six years biosecurity as a more traditional notion by later James Murombedzi (1994) wrote stating that it simply means policies and his PhD thesis which analyzed the measures to protect people from “being dynamics of confl icts in environmental eaten by big and ferocious wild animals”. management policy in the CAMPFIRE He describes how the reintroduction of programme. Sarah Gillingham (1998) the Grey wolf has launched confl icting studied community-based wildlife and competing philosophies of nature management around the Selous Game through the rhetorics of biosecurity and Reserve (SGR) in Tanzania. Her thesis biodiversity. Wiped out in the 1930s, is based on case studies carried out in the wolf has never been part of “the the Morogoro district located north anthropomorphic model of harmony” in

10 the Alps. Th e reappearance of the wolves At the early stage of this study, I has destabilised the established human- decided to carry out fi eld research in animal constructions of the Alps by Guruve village in Mashonaland Central reordering and reclassifying its spaces Province of Zimbabwe because there of nature. Th e temporal and spatial were many human-wildlife confl icts frontiers in nature are loosing their occurring in the area and Guruve clarity as the wolves move or trespass village was part of the world-famous across the border between the wild and CAMPFIRE programme. However, the domestic spaces. Buller writes also how domestic policy of Zimbabwe, especially the renewed spatial proximity of wolves the land reform programme of the ruling and humans has provoked fear among party ZANU (PF), shifted towards more the pastoral farmers. Th ey are afraid radical policies in 1998. Th e Land Reform that the wolves will kill their sheep and and Resettlement Programme Phase II also become more dangerous to humans envisaged a compulsory purchase of through gradual habituation. His study commercially and privately-owned land demonstrates the inherent confl icts by the state and in 2000, the supporters which appear when the interests of of President Mugabe marched on white- nature conservation collide with social owned farmlands and seized almost all and economic interests and practices. land owned by these farmers. Many of For the conservationists, the return of these farm occupations were violent the wolf contributes to biodiversity while confrontations between farm owners for local residents the wolf exacerbates and invaders resulting in human the loss of biosecurity. Th e local political casualties. Th e instability of the situation leaders regard the wolf as an instrument in Zimbabwe made me reconsider my to increase tourism to bring economic fi eld research plans. I had already done benefi t to the area. Buller’s article has a lot of preparatory work for the Guruve many useful analogous elements with village and CAMPFIRE case study my study and I will use his defi nition of and now this setback had to be passed biosecurity later in the text. somehow. After discussing the situation Th e human-animals interaction with Professor Juhani Koponen, who is no longer regarded as a topic which became my supervisor and mentor can only be studied by biologists and after the late Professor Michael Cowen, ecologists. Animals cannot be by-passed I was encouraged to carry out my in social scientifi c studies anymore as fi eld research for this dissertation in has traditionally been the case. Animals Tanzania. Professor Koponen has a long have slowly infi ltrated into the research expertise on Tanzania and he has carried on development studies. A recent out several research projects there. Master of Arts thesis by Evelyn W. Voets He suggested that I could visit Liwale (2005) on human-elephant confl icts in district to collect data on human-wildlife southern Kenya is a good example of confl icts there. Liwale turned out to be studies where models and frameworks of a perfect research area for my purposes social sciences are combined with those as local subsistence farmers there had to of wildlife ecology. cope with a large amount of diff erent wildlife species.

11 1.3. Research questions and areas south of the Selous Game Reserve methods to explain the political, ecological and socio-economic structures, processes Th e confl icts of wildlife conservation can and outcomes leading to the present be studied at diff erent scales from global situation where local communities have to local. Th e focus of the fi eld research an essential role in wildlife conservation. of this study is on local level confl icts In spite of the increased participation which occur between people and of locals in the implementation and wildlife and partially between diff erent management of these programmes, most stakeholders at the village and district of the community-based conservation level in Liwale. However, the regional, programmes have not reached their goals. national and global levels are not totally For some reason, these programmes are ignored in this work because they are all prone to human-wildlife confl icts and important in understanding the reasons have a tendency to fail. I wanted to fi nd behind the local level confl icts. Lehtinen an explanation or explanations to why (2006: 12) writes that current forms such confl icts are so often present and of cultural confrontations can largely where they originate from. Th ere are be understood through tensions in so many over-lapping causes behind environmental appreciation. My study these confl icts (political, economical, provides a historical overview of diff erent cultural, organisational and structural, environmental appreciations concerning to mention a few) that a thourough wildlife in south-eastern Tanzania and analysis of them all is not possible in one explains present human-wildlife confl icts study. Although, I have tried to create in the light of confronting perspectives a holistic view and understanding of on the distribution of wildlife in the most of the underlying causes of these human and animal spheres in rural confl icts, my main focus is on the spatial areas. Th rough the establishment of explanation of human-wildlife confl icts game reserves and national parks, which is not a very common approach colonial wildlife conservation initiatives in the reviewed literature. Th e research have meant reclassifying spaces of hypothesis is based on the assumption nature at the local level. As a result the that human-wildlife confl icts occur when spatial frontiers between the wild and an animal or a human crosses a perceived domesticated loose clarity and cause borderline between nature and culture confl icts. Current human-wildlife and enters into the realm of the other. confl icts in Liwale cannot be understood Th e subject (human or animal) that without knowing the colonial past of crosses this border becomes a subject out the area. I have carried out a literature of place, which means that the subject is analysis using quotes and fi ndings then spatially located in a space where from previous studies to introduce it should not be or where it does not the theoretical background of the belong according to tradition, custom, confl icts to the reader. I will also briefl y rules, law, public opinion, prevailing describe the development of wildlife discourse or some other criteria set conservation in colonial Tanganyika and by human beings. Wild animals also in modern Tanzania, especially in the have borders between the intra- and

12 inter-species territories where confl icts do not like dogs at all, may accept them occur when an individual animal enters in public space but cannot stand the the territory of another animal. For presence of dogs in their social space, example, a male lion crossing the border such as at home or in the garden. We try of its own territory into the territory of a to control the content of our perceived competing male lion may lead to a deadly spaces in many diff erent ways. We build confrontation between the animals. Even fences, use insect repellent and guard though such wildlife-wildlife confl icts dogs to protect the prevailing status, are sometimes a partial cause to human- order and content of our spaces, just wildlife confl icts in a spatial sense, these like in the case of dirt described by wildlife-wildlife confl icts are not studied Mary Douglas. An appearance of a wild here. Th e borderline between nature and animal in a domesticated space brings culture marks a perceived division of an uncontrolled element into that spatial content in our senses of place. An space where humans have previously elephant in the forest does not cause any commanded total control of all other confl ict but an elephant in the fi eld may natural elements. Eventually, a human- launch a confl ict. In other words, a beast wildlife confl ict appears. on fi eld is a beast out of place in the eyes My main research questions are: of many human beings. Mary Douglas 1. What kind of human-wildlife (1966) studied the concern for purity as confl icts are there in the Liwale a key theme in every society. She used district of Tanzania? the concept of dirt to comprehend the 2. Which wild animal species are established assumptions and need for most frequently involved in these order in human societies. She writes confl icts? that dirt is essentially disorder, an 3. How do the local communities off ence against order. Eliminating dirt is perceive the nature-culture regarded as a positive eff ort to organize borderland in the area? the environment. Douglas writes that if 4. Which animals do people include uncleanliness is matter out of place, we and exclude as their image of the must approach it through order. Th is African countryside? insight is present in human societies 5. What kind of diff erences are there in and it does not involve any clear-cut the perceived countryside images distinctions between sacred and secular among the villagers and district or between primitive and modern and regional level administrative societies. I believe that all human beings personnel? have a subjective view on the place of 6. How do these diff erences contribute diff erent animals in their lifeworld. Our to human-wildlife confl icts in the individually perceived and publicly area? negotiated nature-culture borderlines are 7. Can human-wildlife confl icts in dynamic and extend from our intimate the Liwale district be explained space to public space. We accept some from a spatial point of view? animals into our intimate space but I collected empirical data to fi nd dislike others and want to keep a longer answers to these questions in six villages distance from those animals. People who in the Liwale district and in Mtwara

13 Figure 2. Participants of a village meeting in Mpigamiti in Liwale district, Tanzania.

and Lindi towns in southern Tanzania Research questions 1-3 were during June and July 2002. I also approached with open discussions, group collected documents and carried out interviews and participatory mapping interviews in Dar es Salaam in 2003. (Fig. 3.) in the villages. I approached Th e research methods included semi- the ward councellors before entering structured interviews, participatory the villages and requested them to invite mapping, questionnaire survey and Q- those members of their villages to the methodology. I will explain the idea of meeting who they considered suitable Q-methodology on page 21. In the six and able to give information on wildlife studied villages, a total of 183 persons related issues. In all villages, except in participated in the village meetings Liwale B, the ward councellors were (Fig. 2.) and discussion sessions in the able to invite people to the meetings. following composition: Wildlife management and hunting are

• Barikiwa / Chimbuko 26 (8 females and 18 males) • Kikulyungu 29 (2 females and 27 males) • Likombora 15 (2 females and 13 males) • Liwale B 3 (all male) • Mihumo 42 (7 females and 35 males) • Mpigamiti 68 (18 females and 50 males)

14 Figure 3. Result of a participatory village mapping in Likombora village. very delicate research topics in Tanzania. issues, which may also explain the small I therefore decided to follow offi cial number of women participating in procedures and local administrative the organized meetings. Each meeting hierarchy in organizing my fi eld research started with an introduction of the guests in the Liwale district. It became practically and then continued with a participatory a necessity to have an authorisation letter village mapping exercise where the from the superior offi cer, such as the participants drew a map of their village Regional Game Offi cer, before I could area and showed and explained to us approach their subordinates, such as the where wildlife is mostly seen, how the District Game Offi cer in Liwale. Similar animals move in the area and where the authorisation procedures were required damages primarily take place in the village at all levels. Th is obviously aff ected the area. We encouraged all participants to results and selection of interviewed contribute to the drawing of the village people. Although the ward councellors maps and as a result, there were lively primarily invited the members of the discussions and sometimes arguments Village Natural Resource Committee about the location and accuracy of the to participate in the meetings, there drawn map objects. I asked permission were also some other members of the from the participants to record the village present, especially in Barikiwa/ discussions during these exercises with Chimbuko, Kikulyungu, Mihumo and a mini disk player in each meeting. My Mpigamiti. Generally, there are fewer research assistant, Mr. Francis L. Blangi, women than men represented in the explained to the participants that all Village Natural Resource Committees. documents, questionnaires and recorded Wildlife management and hunting are discussions will be used anonymously in also traditionally considered as male the research so that no names, addresses

15 or other personal information could be landscape image of the locals and which identifi ed from the data. Th e names are less important. I wanted to fi nd out of the participants were not asked in if there was a clear distinction between the questionnaire or when speaking up typical farm objects and forest objects in during the meetings. the rural landscape images. Th e second My research assistant translated my part of the questionnaire focused on preformulated questions in English into animals. Th e respondents were now Kiswahili for the participants during the asked to select and rank those animals group interviews. To avoid any confusion which belonged in their personal image and misunderstandings, we prepared of African countryside. Here I wanted to and fi nished the translations a few days establish if there was a clear distinction earlier before travelling to the villages between typical domestic farm animals and carrying out these meetings. In and wild animals. I was interested in Barikiwa/Chimbuko village, we needed fi nding out which animals the rural help from our car driver to interpret villagers included in their rural space and for us one part of a discussion which which ones were excluded from it. Th e took place in some local language not animal which was ranked number one understood by my Tanzanian research suited best into the personal image of assistant. Th e driver translated this the African countryside and the animal discussion to us later after the meeting which was ranked number 15 was least from a mini disk audio recording. All suited to this image. Th e results of the recorded discussions from the mini questionnaire survey are not analyzed disk player were fi rst translated by the here on the basis of individual answers research assistant from Kiswahili into but compiled for each studied village. English and then cross-checked together Th en the average ranks of studied with the researcher. Th is was carried out objects and animals from each village are to avoid mistakes and misunderstandings compared. I intentionally tried to avoid in translations. Th e biggest problems using diffi cult concepts, such as sense of we faced in translations concerned the place, in the questionnaire and therefore synonyms of wild animal names. Th ese decided to use common concepts like names were later checked with the help your own image of landscape and your of the District Game Offi cer in Liwale image of countryside. Th e respondents town. also had a chance to add their own Research questions 4 and 5 were objects and animals to the lists if they studied with a questionnaire (Appendix wished to do so. Th e questionnaire 1.) in which the participants were asked complemented the information received to select and rank objects from a list from the participatory village mapping, according to their personal images of the open discussion and group interviews in rural African landscape. Th is task was not the six villages. an easy one for the participating villagers Th is study is also based on the results and Mr. Blangi had to explain the task of literature analysis, which included a couple of times in some villages. Th e mainly books, articles and reports written idea of this questionnaire was to study in English and Finnish. Th e questions which objects are important in the rural for the semi-structured interviews were

16 written on the basis of the literature geographers. Eden at al. (2005) studied analysis. Th ese interviews were recorded the usability of the Q-methodology in with a mini disk player for further human geography and concluded that analysis. With these interviews, I studied it is a useful supplement to the existing the viewpoints of the key informants’ methods through bridging the gap about the topical issues on community- between the qualitative/quantitative based conservation programmes in discourses. Th ey point out that it is an Tanzania. Th ey also provided me effi cient and cost-eff ective method where information on the Selous Conservation small numbers of respondents produce Programme, the established Wildlife valid results. Management Areas and human-wildlife Th e aim of the methodology is to elicit confl icts in Liwale district. a profi le of deep attitudes (Stephenson Th e 20 selected key informants 1953) and in this study these profi les who fi lled out the same questionnaire were examined on wildlife related issues as the villagers were also asked to carry of the subjects representing two target out a Q-methodology sample after groups, the district level civil servants the semi-structured interview. Th e and regional level civil servants. Th e Q-methodology was invented by the selected key informants involved in the British physicist-psychologist William Q-sorts were people who participate in Stephenson in 1935. He developed decision-making of wildlife conservation the Q-methodology to examine the and management at the district level subjectivity of respondents in any lived and the regional level. Th e objective of situation. It is a quantitative technique using the Q-methodology was to reveal which inverts the traditional factor possible diff erences in the subjectivity of analysis by holistically examining the the representatives of these two groups traits of a single person rather than towards wildlife conservation and atomistically matching traits across management. Diff erence could be used individuals (Robbins and Krueger to explain some human-wildlife confl icts 2000: 637). In this methodology, the in the study area. variables are the respondents who Th e steps of data collection and perform the Q-sorts, not Q-sample analysis in Q-methodology have been statements (McKeown and Th omas described in detail in several articles, 1988: 17). Th us the Q-methodology such as Robbins and Krueger (2000) identifi es patterns between subjective and Eden et al. (2005), so I will not variables across individual people. Th e repeat it here but only briefl y describe subjectivity in Q-methodology is seen as the activities carried out in this a respondent’s own point of view about research. Th e fi rst step was to develop a a real or perceived specifi c situation concourse which is a set of statements (Robbins and Krueger 2000: 636–637). representing the sum of discourse on Q-methodology has been widely used wildlife conservation, management, in diff erent fi elds of social science, rural development and human-wildlife such as health studies and political and confl icts. Th e Q-statements were sociological research but it has only collected from the available literature recently raised the interest of human and from the results of open discussions

17 which were carried out in Dar es Salaam the statemet cards. In each card there with a few wildlife authorities and was only one statement and at the back conservation offi cers before I travelled to of the card there was a coded number the Lindi region. I strongly believe that linking the card to the discourse. Th e these sources provide authentic and up- number was printed so lightly that the to-date discourse where the statements respondents did not pay any attention to representing a range of views on the these at all. Th e respondents ranked the research topic could be selected. We statements according to their subjectivity prepared the raw set of statements with ranging from fully agree to fully disagree my research assistant, who temporarily and placed each statement into the grid acted as a local informant in the process. accordingly. Th e fi ve columns pointing Finally, I decided to use 25 statements down from the highest point of the in total, which were randomly selected pyramid-shape grid represented the from a set of 120 statements by my neutral ranking for value zero. On the research assistant. Th e reason why I futhermost and opposite ends of the used only 25 statements and not 36 base of the pyramid, there was only or more is that the respondents were one column for the statements. Th e rather busy and were not prepared to number of available columns increased work more than an hour with me. I towards the center of the grid. Q-sort also found out that some people had result is a matrix, in which the subject problems of understanding some of models his own subjectivity. In the Q- the statements because of the foreign methodology, subjectivity is regarded language when I tested the sample with as a person’s point of view on a matter a few teachers. Th erefore the sampling of personal and social importance. Th e process took quite a lot of time and I did operational and statistical specifi cities not want to frustrate the key informants of the Q-methodology aim at ensuring with too many cards displaying written that self-reference is preserved and not statements. Th e selection of statements compromised by the external infl uence from the discourse could have been of the researcher who studies a subjective carried out in a more participatory phenomenon (McKeown and Th omas way, so that the key informants would 1988: 7). Th e matrix was analyzed have been involved into the selection, with freeware computer software called however, due to their remote locations, PQMethod 2.11. It is specially designed I could not arrange a time or location for Q-methodology. Th e created matrices where they could collectively carry out were intercorrelated, factor analyzed and this selection before I entered their rotated to a simple factorial structure offi ces with the methodology. to model the scale of operant attitudes Th e next step in the Q-methodology in the universe of the discourse. I then is that the respondents reorder a tested if there were clear correlations in randomized set of 25 statements into the matrices among and between the a Q-sort grid which has a shape of a persons who participate in decision- normal distribution. I used a piece of making of wildlife conservation and a cardboard where I draw a pyramid- management at the district level and shape table with empty columns for at the regional level. Th en I created a

18 typology of attitudes which was used to image and function of the countryside test the hypothesis. is changing together with the social Th e Q-method is a useful tool for norms, associated meanings, values, understanding the structure of discourse traditions and experiences related to in other life worlds and drawing the lived space and as a result, diff erent comparisons across diverse cultures. views clash and confl icts appear. I Th is method utilizes a relatively small have adopted a holistic approach to my number of respondents (20) because the research topic because neither wildlife hypothesis is tested in the factor analysis nor rural areas (people, villages, and of the Q-sorts. Statistically reliable factor environment) are static entities, which scores can be obtained from as few as can be comprehensively studied within fi ve persons (Peritore 1999:12–16). Q- a single discipline. Th e studied systems methodology will reveal the subjectivity interact with each other, are dynamic involved in any situation, including and change through time. Th is study is political attitudes or perspectives on interdisciplinary and it mainly uses the life. Q-methodology provides a bridge methodologies of human geography. between quantitative and qualitative research traditions (Brown 1996). Q- 1.4. Geography of the Liwale sorts were not used during the village meetings because some of the statements district were probably too complex and diffi cult for ordinary villagers to understand. Th e next fi ve sub-chapters will introduce Th e main theoretical challenge the reader to the study area by presenting of this research is to analyze the its physical geography, demographics, integration of wildlife conservation economic activities, and importance of with rural development as a part of the wildlife to the people there. Th ese are all modernization process, the transition elements which aff ect the interaction of from materialist to post-materialist humans and nature in the Liwale district values (Inglehart 1990) in the societies. and thus form an essential part of the Lehtinen (2006: 17) mentions that framework in studying human-wildlife modernization in Northern Europe confl icts there. strengthened the distinction between Liwale district is located in the heart human communities and their of the Lindi region which in the past natural counterparts. Modernization formed a part of the Southern Province also encouraged humans to expand of Tanganyika. Th is former Southern control over the natural other. Parallel Province of Tanganyika has witnessed development can be seen in Africa. Th e a heavier activity in elephant damage spread of environmentalism is a part of and problem-animal control than any the modernization process and it creates other region of Tanzania, or of East and pressure on the countryside, where Central Africa (Rodgers and Lobo 1978: aesthetic and conservation values of 26, 39). nature are challenging the conventional values of agricultural production and forestry. Th us, the whole cultural

19 .

O E UGANDA

G Scale 1 : 2,000,000

M 0 100 200 km F

O C

RWANDA MARA KENYA 2°

KAGERA

BURUNDI MWANZA

SHINYANGA KILIMANJARO ARUSHA 4°

KIGOMA

TABORA TANGA PEMBA

DODOMA ZANZIBAR 6° SINGIDA DODOMA

Dar es Morogoro Salaam RUKWA DAR ES SALAAM MOROGORO COAST

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF 8° THE CONGO MBEYA IRINGA

Kilwa Masoko Liwale Kilwa ZAMBIA LINDI

Liwale Lindi 10° International boundary Lindi Mtwara Regional boundary District boundary Nachingwea National capital RUVUMA MTWARA Regional capital District capital Lake MALAWI MOZAMBIQUE

12° 30° 32° 34° 36° 38° 40° Figure 4. Liwale district is located in the Lindi region in Southeast Tanzania. Adabted from (Shand 1997).

1.4.1. Location and demography (Th e United Republic of Tanzania 2003: 7). Th e Lindi region is divided Tanzania is divided into 25 administrative into six districts: Kilwa, Lindi rural, regions, 20 of which are located on Lindi urban, Liwale, Nachingwea and mainland and ﬁ ve on the islands of Ruangwa. Th e regional headquaters of Zanzibar and Pemba. Th e Lindi region the region are located in Lindi town. Th e is one of the southernmost regions of Lindi region is also divided into smaller Tanzania (Fig. 4.). It is bordered by the administrative units, 28 divisions, 116 Mtwara region in the south, the Ruvuma wards and 361 villages (Msalya 1997: region in the southwest, the Morogoro 5). According to the 2002 Census, the region in the northwest, the Coast region total population in the Lindi region is in the north, and the Indian Ocean in 791,306. About 51.8% of the population the east. Th e total land area of the Lindi is female. Th e average household size is region is 66,046 km², which makes it 4.1 and the annual average population the fourth largest region in Tanzania growth 1988–2000 is 1.4% (Th e United

20 Republic of Tanzania 2003: 79). Likombora and Mihumo (Fig. 5.) were Th e Liwale district is the westernmost selected for the case studies because district in the Lindi region. Th e Liwale they are located in the vicinity of the district is located between the latitude Selous Game Reserve and the Angai 8° and 10° 50’ South and longitude Forest Reserve and aff ected by the 36° 50’ and 38° 48’ East. Th e total natural resource conservation policies area of the district is about 36,000 km² implemented inside and outside those and it consists of 3 divisions, 16 wards reserves. Kikulyungu was selected and 41 villages. Only one-third of the because it is located far away from the district’s total land area is inhabited as main agricultural areas of the district and the remaining two-thirds are covered surrounded by open woodland, bushed by the Selous Game Reserve (Maganga and wooded grassland and bushland et al. 2003: 8). Th e eastern parts of the which make it vulnerable to encroaching district are relatively more populated wild animals. Mpigamiti is located than the western parts bordering to the between closed woodland and a mixed Selous Game Reserve (Baldus 1990: 23). cropping area so it was also expected to Liwale district is one of the most sparsely be a village where the confrontations of populated areas of Tanzania. According humans and wild animals are frequent. to the Census of 2002, there are 75,546 Th ese two villages stand out from the inhabitants and 14,561 households in other four studied villages in the types of Liwale. Th e average size of a household surrounding vegetation. Th e majority of is 5.2 persons (Th e United Republic of the villages studied are situated in areas Tanzania 2003: 84). Th e population between open woodland and scattered growth rate was 3.2% in Liwale in 1998 cropland. Th e population numbers in all (Maganga et al. 2003: 8). Th e population studied villages was between 1,500 and density in Liwale was 2.09 persons per 4,400. Th ere were no offi cial records square km in 2002, which is among the available on the size of the population lowest in Tanzania. in each village so I had to use the fi gures Th e studied villages of Kikulyungu, showing the size of the population at the Barikiwa, Mpigamiti, Liwale B, ward level (Table 1.).

Table 1. Ranking of studied wards of Liwale district according to 1996 population ﬁ gures and census of 2002 (Msalya 1997: 11; Th e United Republic of Tanzania 2003: 84).

Ward name Population 1996 Population 2002 Case study villages included

Liwale Town 19 380 18 695 none

Barikiwa 3 929 4 339 Barikiwa

Mihumo 3 224 3 797 Mihumo and Likombora

Mpigamiti 2 866 1 804 Mpigamiti

Liwale B 2 088 6 333 Liwale B

Mkutano 1 803 1 557 Kikulyungu

21 SELOUS GAME RESERVE

Kikulyungu

Barikiwa

Nyera- Kiperere Forest Reserve LIWALE Liwale B

Likombora Mpigamiti Mihumo

Angai Forest

Reserve District capital Village Unpaved main road N Minor road / track Game / Forest reserve boundary Open woodland Bushed and wooded grassland Closed woodland Bushland and thicket with emergent trees Scattered cropland and cultivation Mixed cropping and cultivation with tree 0 10 20 30 40 50 km crops Urban area Figure 5. Vegetation of the study area and location of the studied villages.

In these studied wards the average size town, along the Liwale–Nachingwea of household was highest in Mpigamiti road. Likombora is situated about 12 (6.4), followed by Mkutano (5.7) and km south of Liwale town, along the Barikiwa (5.3). Th e lowest household Liwale–Lilombe road. Mihumo is the size was in Liwale Mjini (4.6). Th e next village along the same road about district total average size was highest 20 km to the south of Liwale town. Both in Liwale district (5.2) when compared Likombora and Mihumo are traditional to other districts, such as Kilwa (4.7), villages which were aﬀ ected by the Nachingwea (3.9) and Ruangwa (3.8), in villagization operations in 1974 unlike the Lindi region (Th e United Republic Liwale B, which was only registered as of Tanzania 2003: 81–85). a village in the same year (Kinyero et al. Liwale B, Likombora and Mihumo 1995: 16, 18, 42). Th ese three villages are located within a 20-kilometre radius are all less than 10 km away from the from the district capital town Liwale, northwestern border of the proposed which is the largest urban center in the Angai Village Land Forest Reserve. Th is area. Liwale town had 19,380 inhabitants forest area of 1,400 km² with valuable in 1996 (Msalya 1997: 11). Liwale B timber is under the gazettement process is situated about 8 km east of Liwale to be declared a village land forest

22 SELOUS GAME RESERVE

Kikulyungu Barikiwa Nyera- N Kiperere

Mpigamiti Forest Reserve

Village District capital Wildlife mgmt. area Game reserve Forest reserve 25 km Road

Figure 6. Th e Liwale Wildlife Management Area of the Selous Buff er Zone Project. reserve (Mustalahti 2006: 160). Th e vary from 5 acres in smaller families to other three villages selected for this 10 acres in the larger families. It must study are located in the pilot Wildlife be emphasized here that in general, the Management Area (WMA) of the well-off rural families in Tanzania have Liwale district. Liwale WMA is one part land holdings of four hectares or more, of the Selous Game Reserve Buff er Zone at least fi ve or more cattle and fi ve to ten Project (Fig. 6.), where a Community- goats. Th e well-off families also enjoy Based Conservation approach is used in year-round food security. Mpigamiti this new demarcated protected area to does not suff er from food defi ciencies and ensure increased access to employment, does not need food relief from outside. income, food and promote a fair share Th e farmers in Mpigamiti have adopted of the wildlife income to the local intercropping and the use of fertilizers. communities (Maganga et al. 2003: 4, Another reason for the good agricultural 9). Mpigamiti village is situated about performance is the improved farm 38 km southwest from Liwale town organisation. Farms in Mpigamiti are along the Mihumo–Mpigamiti road. organised in blocks of 40 to 50 families. Th e villagers of Mpigamiti have a much Th is makes the farm access more easy, more heterogeneous ethnic origin than enhances collaboration and assistance the villagers in the other studied villages. during tilling and harvesting and creates Th e population in Mpigamiti represents prerequisites for the use of tractors. more than four ethnic groups. Th e village From the villagers’ point of view, the government supervises closely all farming most important outcome of organising activities within the village and any their farms in blocks is the improved family performing badly in agricultural protection of crops against crop-raiding activities has to present an explanation wildlife (Baldus 1990: 69–70; Ellis and to this. Th e farm sizes in Mpigamiti Mdoe 2003: 1372).

23 Th e area where Barikiwa village is yields. Th e distance from the homesteads currently located was formerly a resting to farmlands ranges from one and a place for the slave trade caravans. Th e half to three kilometres in Kikulyungu. village is situated about 40 km north of Th e villagers have taken up some off - Liwale town. Barikiwa was registered as farm activities, such as beekeeping and a village in 1975 when all the scattered fi shing to sustain their livelihoods. Th ey homesteads were grouped into eight have established beehives within the clusters. Today Barikiwa is divided Selous Game Reserve area and have a into two villages, namely Barikiwa and fi shing ground near the Kiurumila dam Chimbuko, which are separated by a in Matandu river (Fig 7.), about 16 narrow road. Both villages have their km from the village centre. However, own village government. Barikiwa in 1984 the authorities of the game is diffi cult to access during the rainy reserve banned all fi shing activities along season because the road is often cut off the river and prohibited the access of by many small fl ooding streams. Most beekeepers to the game reserve in 1986 of the cultivated fi elds of the villagers (Baldus 1990: 65–69). in Barikiwa are located in fertile river valleys. Almost 50% of the villagers live 1.4.2. Ethnic groups in the studied on scattered farms in the river valleys, villages which are up to 12 km away from the village centre. Th e reason for this is that Th ere are about 120 diff erent ethnic the farmers prefer the location which groups in Tanzania. Th e use of natural has less dense vegetation. Th e villagers resources has varied a lot among usually have two farms in diff erent parts these ethnic groups and it has certain of the village. Th e rice farms are usually geographical characteristics. Th e earlier established in moist river valleys and pastoral societies, which lived in the north the upland farms have been cleared in and northeast of Tanzania, subsisted on some drier locations. On their way back cattle and goats. For them, it was a taboo from the scattered fi elds to the Barikiwa to eat hunted wildlife meat. Th e ethnic village the farmers have to cross the groups in the south and southeast of Tandamanga forest, which is considered Tanzania were hunters, who ate game dangerous because of abundant wildlife meat, gathered honey and other natural (Baldus 1990: 61–62). products. Th us hunting has always Kikulyungu village is located about been part of the traditions and cultures 60 km northeast of Liwale town. of the people in south- and southeast Kikulyungu is a poorer village in Tanzania (Severre 2000: 4, 6). Some of comparison to Barikiwa. Th e yields are the smallest ethnic groups in Tanzania very low and over 75% of the families are live in Liwale district. Th e main ethnic not able to meet their annual subsistence groups in Liwale district are Wangindo requirements. Th ere is a high rate of and Wandonde. Th ese ethnic groups are seasonal out-migration during severe among the few matrilinear societies in food shortages in Kikulyungu village. Tanzania. Wangindo is the largest group On average, the villagers cultivate which has traditionally been hunters relatively small areas of land with poor (Baldus 1990: 24, 27; Kinyero et al.

24 Selous Game Reserve

r ve ri du tan Ma

Kikulyungu

Barikiwa

Nyera- Kiperere Forest

Liwale B Reserve LIWALE

Likombora Mpigamiti Mihumo

Angai Forest

District capital Reserve Village River Game / Forest reserve boundary Open woodland Bushed and wooded grassland Closed woodland N Bushland and thicket with emergent trees Scattered cropland and cultivation Mixed cropping and cultivation with tree crops 0 10 20 30 40 50 km Urban area Figure 7. Th e river system in the vicinity of the studied villages in the Liwale district.

1995: 8). Th e importance of hunting aboriginal hunters, mainly trappers until and gathering has been considerably the middle of the 19th century (Koponen underestimated in the studies of the pre- 1988: 252–254). Th ey lived as hunter- colonial economy. Hunting has been a gatherers in scattered settlements until central part of the local economy and the 1940’s within the area which today provided a supplementary source of is the Selous Game Reserve. Th ey did animal protein for several ethnic groups not live in permanent settlements but in the south of Tanganyika, where cattle were constantly moving in the vast forest have been absent. However, hunting was area looking for food and game. Th e also an important part of the economy British colonial administration forced of many cultivators and stock-keepers. about 40,000 Wangindo to move out Some of the ethnic groups may have of the established wildlife conservation fairly recently shifted their way of life area in the mid-1940’s. Th e resettlement from hunting and gathering towards of the scattered Wangindo groups from agriculture supplemented with wildlife their traditional hunting grounds into products. Th e Wangindo people were the settled villages on cleared land with

25 good soils and permanent water went Th e other four ethnic groups in Liwale hand-in-hand with the groundnut district are Wamakua, Wamakonde, scheme of the British administration. Wayao and Wamwera. Th e studied Th us the Wangindo people were village of Barikiwa has members from transformed to permanent settlers all these six ethnic groups, whereas the about six decades ago. Th eir current villages of Mpigamiti and Kikulyungu poor performance in crop production mainly consisted of Wangindo people and livestock-raising may be explained (Maganga et al. 2003: 98). Th e study by the lack of indigenous knowledge conducted by Mwamfupe et al. (1990: and experience with domesticated 17–19), however, pointed out that animals and cash crops (Baldus 1990: Mpigamiti village is considered to be 46). Th e villagers in Liwale district live the most heterogeneous settlement in in the neighbourhood of the second the district, receiving migrants from largest and richest game reserve in the other parts of the Liwale district and world and try to sustain their livelihood also from the neighbouring region there by practicing agriculture, such as of Ruvuma, where a few members of shifting cultivation, small business and the Ngoni ethnic group have migrated wage employment. Th e Wangindo and from to the village. Th e Wamakua, Wandonde people primarily cultivate Wayao and Wamwera people have, just millet, maize, cassava, sorghum, peas like the Wangindo, practised hunting and paddy rice in their scattered and as a source of livelihood during the isolated farms. Th e Wangindo people pre-colonial era. Th e Wamakua were regard wildlife and land as a cultural famous for their elephant hunting skills. heritage from their ancestors. Hunting Th e generic term for the professional has been a means to kill crop-raiding elephant hunters Makua is a reﬂ ection animals, but it has also been a source of of these skills. Th e Wamwera organised meat and cash (Mwamfupe 1990: 20– large communal hunts in which several 21). Th e Wangindo people do not utilize villages participated (Koponen 1988: some wildlife species because they have 254). Th e Wayao were the principal certain beliefs or taboos, which restrict long-distance traders of ivory to the them from eating certain animals. Th ey Mozambique Island during the 17th and do not eat the meat of striped animals, 18th centuries. Th ey also traded slaves such as zebra, eland, kudu or bush buck in the early 19th century (Sheriﬀ 1987: because they believe that they may be 79–81). infected with leprosy. Th e Wangindo Th e ethnic groups which were people also do not eat certain vermin predominantly hunters during the pre- animals, such as monkeys or baboons colonial era in Tanzania maintained (Siege and Baldus 1998b: 51). Th ese cultures, traditions and taboos, which beliefs limit the variety of wild animals ensured a close relationship between available for a source of animal protein people and wildlife. Th ey also had for the Wangindo and have to be taken mechanisms to punish those members into account when preparing the hunting who violated the rules concerning this quotas for the villages. relationship. Conservation of wildlife resources was then ensured through

26 cultural and social bonds. Conservation were also used for rituals and dances, principles were included in the culture and awarded to traditional rulers to through sacred beliefs and fi ctions symbolize prestige. Some wildlife associated with certain wildlife species. products, such as warthog teeth and Conservation ethics and knowledge pangolin scales were used for medical on wildlife was transmitted from one purposes and rituals, while wildlife tail generation to another through these brushes were exchanged and traded for sacred beliefs. Subsistence hunting was other commodities, such as goats or a highly valued skill and profession in tobacco. Killing a certain dangerous these societies. It was a community-based predator, such as a lion or a leopard, activity managed and controlled by the also brought a reputation of respect lineage elders. However, the pre-colonial to young men in their communities. hunting contained structures which gave Fearless hunters could be rewarded with great power to the chief and local clan a bride or a higher social status. Hunting leaders, who controlled the enforcement was carried out by diff erent groups in machinery within the communities. the communities. Th e hunting experts Hunting seasons were common in most called fundis hunted mainly large wild societies and some animal species were animals with muzzle loaders, spears, not hunted because they were regarded bows and arrows. Youngsters hunted as sacred or of totemic signifi cance. Th e small animals with clubs, canes and contribution of the pre-colonial hunting sticks. Shifting cultivators placed snares community in shaping Tanzania’s around their farms to get bush meat and hunting industry has not been widely simultaneously protect their crops. Th e acknowledged in historical accounts. fundis used traditional selective hunting Th e knowledge of these skilled hunters methods and hunted only to meet the has served many hunting expeditions needs of the community. Th ey trained carried out by foreigners, whose stories young men to use traditional weapons, and trophies reached recorded historical provided meat to disabled villagers and collections around the world (Majamba developed skills in poison preparation 2001: 3–5). for hunting and defence. Th e fundis Traditional hunting was mainly also enforced taboos on traditionally practiced for the provision of bush meat. protected animals, such as the rhinoceros, In southern Tanzania, elephant meat has the elephant and the python (Mbano been highly favoured by those people and Nyanchuwa 1996: 41–42). whose religious restrictions or clan Th e diverse ethnic background of the taboos prevented the use of meat from people in some of the studied villages many other wildlife species. Bush meat was not the only source of heterogeneity availability was very important during in the rural communities in Liwale funerals and wedding ceremonies in district. Th ere are also diff erences the hunting societies. Other important in the economic, social and cultural wildlife products, which were acquired characteristics within the communities. through hunting included skins and Th e communities are often defi ned in hides used for beds, clothing and hand spatial terms as groups of people who bags. Skins from highly-valued animals live in the same place and use the same

27 resource base. Each household has its demand of natural resources, especially own subsistence strategy based on its on public lands (Kinyero et al. 1995: economical situation, family size, social 6–7; Sandi 1996: 45–46). Th e soils were networks, religion, and political power poor in the resettlement areas in Liwale and so on. As this study does not focus district, so the villagers have tended to on the diff erences between individual move back to their abandoned farms households, I did not carry out a survey along the river valleys. Land is abundant of the socio-economic situation in the in all villages but poor soils make most villages in Liwale district. However, of it unsuitable for agriculture (Baldus the heterogeneity of the communities 1990: 76). must be emphasised here as I often use the concepts of village and community 1.4.3. Physical geography in the text. By using such generalized concepts, my aim is not to claim that Liwale district is located South-East of the target villages or communities the Selous Game Reserve. It is a part are homogeneous units regarding of the Selous ecosystem that covers their economical or socio-cultural about 75,000 km² of land in southern characteristics. Tanzania. Th e Selous ecosystem consists Many of the current village of the geographical areas of Selous Game settlements in Liwale were once forested Reserve, Selous Buff er zone, Mikumi areas. Traditionally, the majority of National Park and Mikumi Buff er the rural people have lived in scattered zone (Baldus 1992: 4). Th e total area homesteads, although the settlement of the Selous Game Reserve (SGR) is pattern has varied over time in Tanzania. about 48,000 km² that equals to 5% of Nucleated settlements were formed in Tanzania’s land surface. Th e topography certain favourable locations, which were of the Liwale district changes from the good fi shing sites or had a permanent gently undulating eastern and northern supply of water. In some areas of parts to the hillier western parts. Th e Tanzania, nucleated settlements were relief in the southern and eastern parts temporarily established in defence of the district rises from 50 to 200 m towards a common enemy. Once the and in the western parts from 500 to threat of an attack was removed, people 1000 m (Mwamfupe et al. 1990: 8; returned to live in scattered homesteads. Baldus and Siege 2002: 2). Th e dissected In traditional villages, people lived plain which covers the eastern parts of in clans spread out to diff erent parts the district, gradually changes into the of the village but during the Ujamaa undulating plain on the eastern border villagization operations in 1968 and of the Angai Forest Reserve. Mihumo, 1974 the scattered settlements were Likombora and Liwale B are located on removed and moved into the current the undulating plain, which then changes villages. Over 5,500 Ujamaa villages had into an upland towards the west. Liwale been created by year 1973. Th e pressure town is located in an upland landscape, on agricultural land and demand on which consists of sloping, slumped and forest products was increasing due to dissected plateaux and ridges. (Dondeyne population growth. Th ere was a growing et al. 2004: 199–200).

28 Th e Liwale district is located at the by open grasslands, Acacia and miombo heart of the East-African savanna and woodlands, riverine forests and swamps dry forest area where the vegetation (International Resources Group Ltd. is mostly characterised by miombo 2000: 13). woodland. Th is is dominated by a closed Th e miombo woodland in Liwale is canopy of broad-leafed deciduous, infested by the tsetse fl y. Th e tsetse fl y leguminous trees, such as trees from the carries trypanosomiasis, sleeping sickness, genera Brachystegia and Julbernardia. Th e which is a deadly disease for domestic mature trees typically reach a height of livestock, people and an obstacle for 10–20 m. Th e discontinuous understory animal husbandry. Man-made or of broadleaved shrubs is accompanied naturally occurring bush fi res have shaped by continuous layers of forbs, sedges and the miombo woodland for hundreds of grasses (Campbell, Frost and Byron 1996 years and fi res are an integral part of the cit. Dondeyne et al. 2004: 200). Eastern ecosystem. Small bush fi res are common and north-eastern parts of Liwale are during the dry season. Local farmers and relative closed forest areas. Th e closed forestry offi cials set up fi res for several forest belt has patches of open forests, reasons. Fire is important in clearing wooded grassland and thickets. Areas new fi elds for shifting cultivation. Fire west of Liwale town are mainly open is also used to control the tsetse fl y and forest, which gradually changes into tick populations, to fertilise the soil with more closed forests in a north-western burned grass debris and to drive away direction (Baldus 1990: 17). Th ere are dangerous predators from neighbouring also mosaics of closed forests in the areas or to clear out the high grass eastern and northeastern parts of the blocking the sight of the hunters. district. Patches of open forests, wooded Soils in Liwale are mainly sands and grasslands and scrub commonly disrupt loams. Soil factors, such as low nutrient the closed forest areas. Liwale district status and low available water content produces timber for regional markets (inferred) in Barikiwa and Mihumo and the rate of forest exploitation is constitute development constraints. In alarming. Th e widely practised shifting the surroundings of Liwale town the cultivation is land extensive and results in soils have impeded drainage and low large farm sizes and increases the pressure nutrient status. Soils to the northeast of on forest resources as population in the Liwale town towards Kikulyungu have farming area increases (Mwamfupe et limited depth and impeded drainage or al. 1990: 11–12). Cashew nut trees and surface or subsurface stone (Th e United palm trees are a common view in the Republic of Tanzania 1979). Soils in the villages where these species are planted western part of the district are fair and as cash crops. Scrub and scattered trees in the eastern part poor, consisting of is the main vegetation type around the reddish or reddish brown loamy sands, villages. Th e Selous Game Reserve is the which are usually imperfectly drained. world’s second largest and the richest Soil fertility is very low in the eastern game reserve covering two-thirds of the parts and moderately fertile in the best total land area of Liwale district. Th e western parts of the district (Mwamfupe vegetation of the SGR is characterized et al. 1990: 9–10). According to a study

29 carried out by Dondeyne et al. (2004: 1.4.4. Economical activities in the 201), the soils of the undulating plains Liwale district in the Angai Forest Reserve are sandy and have a low nutritional status. Th ese Tanzania is one of the poorest countries soils were classifi ed as Hypoluvic Arenosols in the world. Th e estimated Gross as well as Profondic and Arenic Luvisols. National Product per capita was 280 Dondenye et al. found out that the soils United States Dollars (USD) in year on the dissected plain in the eastern part 2000. Th e share of agriculture in the of the Forest Reserve are shallow, clayey Gross Domestic Product has declined and more fertile, and typically represent from 52% in the mid-1980’s to 46% to Leptic Cambisols. Th e suitability of soils the mid-1990’s. Th e share was around for agriculture may explain why most 44% in 2003. Poverty is much worse of the villages neighbouring the Angai in rural than in urban areas in Tanzania forest are located on the dissected plain (Ellis and Mdoe 2003: 1369). Village or along the boundary of the undulating development in Liwale, especially in plain and the upland area (Dondeyne et villages bordering to the Selous Game al. 2004: 205). Reserve, is constrained by poor soils, In the Liwale district, like elsewhere traditional farming systems, lack of in southeastern Tanzania, the climate services and remoteness. Th e failure to is infl uenced by the trade winds. produce enough food and cash crops at Temperatures vary little from the mean the household level undermines the social temperature of 24.3° C in July to 27.5° and economic development prospects of C in December (Bennett et al. 1979 cit. the villages (Baldus 1990: 6, 73). Most Dondeyne et al. 2004: 200). Th e annual people living in the Selous ecosystem precipitation in Liwale averages about are small-scale farmers. Agriculture is 900 mm (1931–1976) and there are low-intensive and based on shifting normally two rainy seasons, the short cultivation, which uses traditional rains from December to January and methods and technology. Th e remote the heavy rains from March to May location of villages creates enormous (Mwamfupe et al. 1990: 8; Baldus and transportation and marketing problems Siege 2002: 2). One year in ten the for the sale of the agricultural products. average annual rainfall can decrease Also, alternative livelihood strategies to even to 500 mm or rise to 1220 mm farming are few. Only an insignifi cant (Dondeyne et al. 2004: 200). During number of people are involved in off - the heavy rains fl ooding water in the farm activities, such as teachers, health perennial and intermittent rivers and workers and staff of the local government streams (Fig. 7.) cuts some roads and (International Resources Group Ltd. certain areas become inaccessible in the 2000: 24). Agriculture, small business Liwale district. and manufacturing handicraft for sale were the main sources of livelihood in the Liwale Wildlife Management Area in 2003. During the rainy seasons, agriculture, handicrafts and small scale business remain the main sources of

30 livelihood but at that time of the year the land of their father-in-laws, allowed the importance of handicrafts exceed the husbands to gain more power in that of small scale business (Maganga the households. Th is partially changed et al. 2003: 107). Shifting cultivation the traditional decision-making power practiced in remote and isolated farms structures within the families. However, is supported by the traditional belief the male-headed households still carry among the rural people. Th ey believe out consultation with the wives in that establishing a farm close to other farm-related issues. Th e women are people’s farms may lead to crop failure or responsible for most of the domestic theft of their harvest by a neighbouring activities and also for tilling the land, farmer. In Barikiwa, the agricultural and weeding and harvesting the crops. activities are pushed closer to the Selous Th e men are usually responsible for Game Reserve due to the practise of hunting, beekeeping and farm clearing shifting cultivation (Baldus 1990: 27, and tilling activities. Th ey may also assist 63). In Likombora village the economical the women in the harvesting of certain activities also include beekeeping and crops, such as maize and rice, when there animal rearing. In Barikiwa village, is a shortage of labour in the family. people also practice pot making, sewing Th e men control most of the income and fi sh farming. Cassava, maize, millet, generating activities in the family, such beans and rice are the most common as selling game meat and honey. Th e food crops, and cashew nuts and women are also sometimes engaged sesame the most common cash crops in in income generating activities, such Liwale (Luhuva et al. 1997; Maganga as basketry, mat-making and brewing et al 2003: 109). Mpigamiti is perhaps local beer. Th e money generated by the the only village in the district where women is usually spent on the family chemical fertilizers and crop rotation are expenses, while the money earned by applied on the farms (Baldus 1990: 27). the men is often used for their personal Coconut, oil seeds and legumes are also expenses (Baldus 1990: 28–29). grown as cash crops in Liwale (Kinyero Th e livestock populations of cattle, et al. 1995: 3). Maize, millet and rice sheep and goats are lower in the Lindi can be categorized as annually cultivated and Mtwara regions, compared to other plant species. Cassava is a semi-perennial regions in Tanzania. Th e conditions cultivated plant and cashew nut and for keeping domestic animals in the coconut are perennial plant species Liwale district are unfavourable because cultivated in the area (Siege and Baldus of the exposure to tsetse fl ies and 1998b: 11–12). According to my own trypanosomiasis (Kinyero et al. 1995: observations, people also cultivate fruits, 8). Th e socio-cultural background of such as papaya, mango, orange, banana the main ethnic group, the Wangindo, and pineapple on their farms in Liwale. has also hindered the development of Th e traditional matrilinear norms livestock-raising in Liwale. Th e Wangindo have changed and faded away during people have traditionally been hunters, diff erent societal processes, such as the who do not have experience in farming Ujamaa programme. Th e weakening or keeping livestock (Baldus 1990: 41– of the clan ties and moving away from 42). According to the National Sample

31 Census of Agriculture 1993–1994 of district and Ndapata and Kibutuka Tanzania Mainland, there were 1,245 in the Liwale district. About 20,000 cattle, 40,429 goats and 16,825 sheep heads of cattle would pass though this in Lindi region. Th e number of cattle route annually. Th e route would run in Lindi was the lowest in Tanzania. through the Selous Game Reserve and Concerning the number of goats and have detrimental eff ects on wildlife sheep, the Lindi region ranked second conservation in the area. Th is route last leaving behind it only the Pwani/ would provide the livestock farmers of Dar es Salaam region. Th e distribution Ilonga an access to the undersupplied of stock within the Lindi and Mtwara livestock markets in Liwale. Th e project regions is very uneven. Th e average would also provide an increased and animal protein consumption is also very welcomed access to livestock products for low compared to the national average the people in Liwale. Th e establishment (Chiwalo et al. 1997: 4, 17). Th e Rural of such a cattle route to Liwale would Integrated Project Support Programme have required excessive land clearing, (RIPS) has carried out a small stock no less than 6,100 hectares for grazing project in the Mtwara and Lindi regions ground and the eradication of tsetse fl ies from 1992 onwards. By 1996, the in the area. Freely grazing cattle would project included 1,362 villages in both also be vulnerable to wildlife attacks, regions and had provided goat loans to which would force the herders to chase farmers, women groups and schools. In the wild animals away into the remote the Lindi region, Liwale B, Mihumo and parts of the game reserve (Baldus 1990: Likombora are also among the villages 41, 44, 48). Forest products such as where goat loans have been granted. fi rewood, building poles, fruits and RIPS carried out an evaluation survey vegetables, honey, beeswax, roots and of the client groups’ expectations in the tubers, and medical plants are very Masasi and Lindi regions in 1994. Th e important to the local communities in four studied villages in Masasi and Lindi Liwale. Building poles and thatching did not include any of the villages I have grass are very common materials used studied but some generalizations can still for house construction in Liwale. Most be made for the whole Lindi region on houses have walls made of mud and the basis of the fi ndings. In those four poles and thatched roofs (Luhuva et villages visited by the evaluators of RIPS, al. 1997; Maganga et al 2003: 112). In 36% of the respondents mentioned the addition to these products, the forests death of goats as a problem, which led also provide fertile land for shifting to unfulfi lled expectations. Th e goats cultivation as well as bush meat from died of diseases or died after eating wild animals, which is an important and poisoned cassava and weeds or were secret source of protein for the villagers killed by leopards (Smets 1997: 2–3, in Liwale. Game meat was the second 41). In the early 1990’s there were plans most often mentioned natural resource to implement a project which would used by the locals in Liwale Wildlife revive livestock activities in Liwale. Management Area in 2003. However, Th is project would establish a cattle there are very few economic activities route between Ilonga in the Mahenge related to natural resources in Liwale and

32 regulated trade in game meat is carried headquarters (Baldus 1990: 34). Th e out by the natural resource committee growing demand for fuel wood and in the villages (Maganga et al 2003: timber may lead to the overextraction 112). Illegal hunting of wild animals of forest resources and negatively aff ect is still practiced there. Th e Wangindo the availablility of wildlife habitats in people consider wildlife and land as a the Liwale district. Th e loss of habitats cultural heritage from their ancestors. will eventually force more wild animals Th ey have hunted on the areas bordering to seek food in the fi elds and gardens. the Selous Game Reserve in order to get Kinyero et al. (1995) visited 12 meat and cash from sold wild animal diff erent villages in Liwale during their products. Th e villagers have not had study in May 1995. Th eir fi ndings any additional economic incentives to were valuable for me when in selecting maintain the remaining forest cover the study sites for my own research. and wildlife stocks, and the clearing Mihumo, Likombora and Liwale B of forests into new farmland has been were on the list of villages they visited the only way to secure their income. for their report. Interesting in their Liwale district is one of the few places in report is that 11 out of 12 villages Tanzania where land is still available for visited, mention vermin as one of the shifting cultivators (Baldus 1990: 27; main problems for development of Kinyero et al. 1995: 3). agriculture in the villages. Th e vermin, South-eastern Tanzania is one of which are most often mentioned, are the major sources of hardwood timber elephants, monkeys, wild pigs, warthogs from the natural forests and supplies the and hippopotami. Fierce wild animals, markets of Dar es Salaam. Th e stocks of such as the lion and the leopard, are the valuable hardwood timber species also mentioned as a problem in four are declining rapidly in Tanzania, so the villages. Th e negative eff ects of wild economic value of these trees is likely animals on cattle raising are described in to increase. Two valuable hardwood both Mihumo and Likombora. In 1975, timber species, Pterocarpus angolensis Likombora village bought 10 cows for a and Periocopsis angolensis, are common cattle keeping project but all cows were on the undulating plain of the Angai killed by the lions. Between 1993 and Forest. Th e sustainable exploitation of 1994 the elephants also caused damage these valuable timber species is urgently to many farms in the village. During the required and setting the area aside as a same period, there was an occurrence forest reserve is a step in the right direction of lions specializing in killing chickens (Dondeyne et al. 2004: 205–206). Fuel in Likombora. In 1976, the Prime wood is the main source of energy in Minister’s Offi ce donated 10 heads of Liwale. It is used by the households cattle to Mihumo village but all of them for cooking and lighting. Fuel wood is died during that same year. Some were available in the villages from the nearby killed by lions and some died of diseases. forests and can even be obtained in the Th e study of Kinyero et al. (1995: 43) vicinity of Liwale town. A big generator also points out the threat of some wild in Liwale town occasionally supplies animal species to humans as one villager electricity for the district administrative was killed by a lion in Liwale B in 1993.

33 Th e studies described above clearly show wildlife products. Bugles which were that the sword cuts both ways in the co- used to inform people about a gathering existence with wildlife as wild animals or meeting were made of sable antelope can be regarded as both an obstacle and horns. Drumheads for the wooden drums an opportunity for rural livelihoods in were made of lion skins and were used to Liwale. call distant communities to gatherings or inform them about emergencies. Th e 1.4.5. Wildlife as an important importance of wildlife in the lives of the natural resource in the Liwale district southern communities in Tanzania is clearly shown in the surnames of people In Kiswahili, wildlife is called and in clan names of these communities. wanyamapori or Wanyama wa pori. Th e Many traditional hunters took their word is made up of two parts, mnyama names from certain wildlife species to which means an animal and pori which indicate bravery or hunting skills. Th e means a savannah, a forest and an names like lion or snake were selected uninhabitated/uncultivated area. Th us to show strength in wars and elephant the term wanyamapori can be also mean names were chosen to refl ect the large size animals of the savannah or animals of of the clan. People’s surnames included a the forests. It is important to notice wide variety of wildlife species, from lion that the concept wildlife itself contains a to elephant and from hare to warthog. spatial distinction in Kiswahili as well as Hunting communities respected and in English language. worshipped the wildlife species of their Wildlife and wildlife products clan name and did not eat that species acquired through hunting have shaped due to taboos (Mbano and Nyanchuwa the customs and habits of the traditional 1996: 41–43). Th e hunter-gatherers did hunting communities in southern not regard themselves as superior to the Tanzania. Bush meat was important for wild animals they hunted. Rather, some survival and highly valued at diff erent animals were considered as mental and family events, such as weddings and spiritual equals or even superiors. Th e funerals. Skins and hides provided raw worship of certain wild animals is linked materials for clothing and bedding. Wild to totemism where kinship with animals animal products were also commonly is formalized in a system of religious used for medical purposes, in rituals, belief. In some cases, the clans or ethnic traditional dances and as commodities groups traced their origin back to some of exchange. Wildlife products were mythical animal ancestor (Serpell 1986: also important instruments to honour 142). traditional rulers during ceremonies. For Wildlife is and has been an important example, a lion skin indicated heroism natural resource in Tanzania. As a cradle and ability of a ruler and wildebeest tail of mankind and culture development, the brushes refl ected a powerful position. country has provided natural resources Th ese tail brushes were also used to for human consumption and trade since denote local doctors in the communities. time immemorial. Hunting of wild Many traditional signalling devices and animals formed the basis of subsistence musical instruments were built from of early human communities there. One

34 of the most important wildlife products 1988: 101–102). Th ose pre-colonial has been ivory. Th e trade of wildlife subsistence hunting communities, which products, such as ivory and rhinoceros had been contacted by Arab traders in horn started along the East Coast as early the interior of the country, started to as 100 A.D. (Majamba 2001: 2). Th e trade ivory and other wildlife products ivory trade has in addition to the slave with them. Th e expansion of trade trade, shaped the history of the Lindi gradually altered the relations between region since the 16th century when the nature and wildlife in pre-colonial caravans passed through the area on their communities. Th e traditional rituals way to Zanzibar. According to Spinage which prohibited hunting of certain (1973), the ivory trade reached its peak species were ignored and local hunters in East Africa between 1879 and 1883 started to hunt animals for economic when about 196,000 kg of ivory per reasons to supply the growing market. year was exported from Zanzibar. Th is Th us the pre-colonial hunting industry amount of ivory equals to an estimated changed from the cultural and social twelve thousand killed elephants each fabric of the local hunting communities’ year (Spinage 1973 cit. Rodgers and to an industry which had features of a Lobo 1978: 25). Lindi had prospered on capitalist market-oriented economy the slave trade to the south before the (Majamba 2001: 5). Take-off levels of 1822 but then the Moresby Treaty shifted bush meat were sustainable in the past the trade towards the north where the due to the low number of people and demand for ivory, copal and slaves was ineffi cient hunting techniques but the growing. Four to fi ve large caravans of appearance of fi rearms changed this 400 to 500 men each arrived annually at balance (Baldus 2001: 2). Th e ivory the port of Lindi from the inland in the boom ended in 1900 when the elephants 1840’s. Lindi exported 1,000 to 1,200 had became relatively scarce and colonial slaves, and Lindi and Tungi exported governments started to restrict hunting 1,400 to 2,100 fraselas of ivory annually. by setting quotas and establishing game One frasela equals to approximately 16 reserves in East Africa. Th e ending of slave kilograms. In the early 1880’s, trade trade and large scale ivory exploitation routes from the southern Tanzanian ports allowed elephant populations to of Kilwa, Lindi and Mikindani extended increase after 1901. It was estimated through the territories of Wangindo, that there were 1,000 elephants in the Wamatumbi and Wayao (Sheriff 1987: province in 1927. Th e next estimation 160–164). Th e ecological eff ects of the increased the number of elephants in ivory trade are not yet fully understood, the Southern Province of Tanganyika but the main short-term consequences to 8,000 in 1931. Th e acting game of ivory trade were more economic warden stated in 1933 that according to and social than ecological. Th e slave a census of elephants there were 5,424 and ivory trade boosted the expansion elephants in the Southern Province and of trade in every form. New demands out of those 2,500 in Liwale. So there increased local and regional trade which were several contradictory estimates interacted with the long-distance trade of on elephant numbers made before the these two main commodities (Koponen 1940’s (Rodgers and Lobo 1978: 26,

35 36). Today, Tanzania also has the largest survey of 1994, there were over 52,000 lion populations on the continent. elephants in the Selous ecosystem. It Although lion populations are stable in was estimated that there were more than almost all protected areas, the species is 31,700 elephants inside the SGR and over mainly threatened by habitat loss and 17,800 elephants outside the protected human-wildlife confl icts. Lions are not area, which covers the areas bordering threatened by international trade on the game reserve in the south, east and skins and trophies like the elephants are. west (Barnes et al. 1999: 102). Th e most In Tanzania, about 250 lions are killed recent aerial census of 2006 reveals a by tourist hunters annually, which are huge increase in elephant numbers in within the limits of a sustainable yield the Selous ecosystem. It is estimated (Baldus 2004: 4–5). that there are over 70,000 elephants in A study carried out in the Kilombero the area. In the Selous–Masasi Corridor, and Ulanga districts of Morogoro which covers large parts of the Liwale Region, which borders the Selous Game and Tunduru districts, there were over Reserve in the north, stated that almost 1,000 elephants according to a survey half of the 1,214 studied households in 2000 (Blanc et al. 2007: 102). Th e used wildlife products for food in 2001. signifi cance of the elephant population About 20% of the households said that outside the borders of the SGR was they used buff alo meat and approximately already indicated by the Wildlife Census 5% of the households used hippopotami of 1989. Th ere were 10 elephants per meat for food (Mvungi et al. 2002: 46– km² in certain areas of Liwale in 1989. 47). Rudolf Hahn studied the hunting Th e census also indicated that in the quota of the buff er zones of the Selous northern parts of Liwale, the density of Game Reserve from 1999 to 2000 and eland, zebra and sable antelope was over noticed that the most popular species for 20 animals per km². At the same time, meat was wildebeest (59%), followed by the densities of greater kudu, hartebeest buff alo (26%) and impala (4%) (Hahn and warthog were higher than 10 and Kaggi 2001: 46). Th e importance of animals per km² (TWCM 1989). Th e wildlife to the studied villages in Liwale dry season aerial census carried out in is enormous not only in its material Selous Game Reserve, Mikumi National value, but also for its cultural and Park and surrounding areas in October symbolic value. Th e amount of diff erent 1998, shows that Liwale has a greater wild animal species in the vicinity of diversity of surveyed species than any the households and farms is high and other survey zones outside the SGR. this has inevitably caused interaction Th e census estimates that there are over and confrontation between people and 4,300 hartebeests, 3,200 wildebeests, wildlife. almost 3,000 elephants, over 2,600 In addition to the largest elephant impalas and more than 1,300 warthogs concentration on earth, the Selous in the northern parts of the district, Game Reserve is the home of 35 other which form the Outside Southeast large mammal species and 350 species census zone. Th e total area of the of birds and about 2,000 plant species Outside Southeast zone is 14,711 km². (Baldus et al. 1988:1). According to the In addition, it is estimated that there are

36 over 1,000 zebras, 900 waterbucks, 840 clubs and machetes, spears, nets, ﬁ re, hippos, 750 elands and 312 buﬀ alos in poisoned arrows (Fig. 8.) and muzzle the same census zone in 1998 (TWCM loading guns. Illegal hunting with 1999). If these estimates are correct, the traditional spears and arrows and some average elephant population density other techniques in the forests within or in the Liwale census zone was over 20 beyond village boundaries is still taking animals per km² in 1998. A comparison place. Th ese secret hunting activities of the elephant densities in the censuses provide meat for family subsistence of 1989 and 1998 indicates that the and meat is also occasionally delivered number of elephants outside the Selous to close relatives (Ndolanga 1996: 14; Game Reserve, especially in the Liwale Mbano and Nyanchuwa 1996: 42; census zone, has greatly increased in less Baldus 1990: 49). Bush meat poaching than ten years. is a widespread and uncontrolled Chardonnet (2002) shows that the activity nowadays. It is as destructive to estimated number of lions in Mikumi wildlife as commercial trophy poaching. National Park, Selous Game Reserve It is a romantic myth that bush meat and Kilombeoro Game Controlled Area hunting is small-scale and practiced together is approximately 4,400. For at sustainable levels. Th e common the non-protected areas of Southern distinction between commercial trophy Tanzania, Chardonnet estimates that poaching and subsistence poaching the number of lions is 540. Similar of bush meat might also be rejected numbers of lions have been recorded in many areas bordering the SGR so lions are common also outside the reserve. Th e statistics on the lion populations in the unprotected areas may, however, be underestimates (Chardonnet 2002 cit. Baldus 2004: 10–11). Th e residents of the areas surrounding the SGR do not keep enough livestock for meat production. Poaching for meat was and still is an important activity in rural communities which have traditionally used wildlife as their main source of animal protein. In some areas, such as in the Songea district, subsistence hunting has been replaced by poaching for commercial motives (International Resources Group Ltd. 2000: 17). Th e current hunting legislation prohibits the use of traditional weapons so many villagers cannot hunt legally. Figure 8. A village elder explains the use Traditional weapons and techniques of poisoned arrows in traditional hunting used in hunting include snares, pits, in Kikulyungu.

37 because nearly all poaching in the Selous hippopotami. Today, people who are Game Reserve is commercial and a well Christians, however, regard elephant organized informal industry. Bush meat meat as highly valuable. One big grown- trade has fl ourished because there is no up bull can weigh up to 6,000 kg and an public awareness about its illegality. Th e average elephant weighs about 2,000 kg, demand exists and there is no sense of which provides a large protein resource custodianship of wildlife among local for people (Rodgers 1976 cit. Siege and communities anymore which has lead Baldus 1998b: 51; Rodgers and Lobo to uncontrolled exploitation. Bush meat 1978: 37). According to the restrictions is also cheaper than beef and in many of the game laws of the 1980’s, the rural areas wild meat is the only meat holders of a hunting licence were not available due to tsetse fl y infections allowed to sell wildlife meat or hides (Baldus 2001: 2; Baldus 2002: 23). on the local market but they were able In practice, bush meat supplements to exchange wildlife products against a both diets and incomes, so it is often certain amount of crops or local beer diffi cult to draw a clear line between (Baldus et al. 1988: 24). Safari hunting the subsistence and commercial uses in the Selous Game Reserve did not of wildlife. Th e value of bush meat can produce any meat for the neighbouring be very signifi cant to local and national villages until 1989, when the Wildlife economies in some countries, although Division allowed the safari operators to this value is not often included in the sell meat to the villages. Previously the estimates of Gross Domestic Product meat from wild animals shot on safari (Bennett and Robinson 2000: 2). In hunting was used in the hunters’ camps the late 1980’s, it was estimated that the and as baits. A large part of the meat value of illegal hunting of bush meat was left to rot in the bush (Baldus 1989: was worth about 50 million USD which 27). represented 39% of the Gross National Wild animals are also hunted legally Value of wildlife to Tanzania. Currently, for their meat in Tanzania. Commercial illegal bush meat trade is developing fast cropping shemes constitute the largest in urban areas, such as Lindi (Milledge percentage of the legal game meat supply and Barnett 2000: 4). Th e International (28.8%), followed by resident hunting Trade Centre estimated that 60% of (25.2%), safari hunting (22.4%) and wildlife utilisation in Tanzania was illegal problem animal control (15.3%). in 1994. Th is includes both hunting and Community-based cropping schemes the capture of living animals (Ndolanga provided 8.3% of the total supply in 1996: 14). 1997. Safari hunted meat is only available Before the spread of Islam into the during the hunting season between July area, most game species except the and December (Milledge and Barnett elephants were eaten by the subsistence 2002: 14). Th e District Game Offi cer hunters. At times of famine, even rats coordinates wildlife utilization within and insects provided a source of protein the two Open Areas in Liwale. Th e for the poorest rural people. Islam Open Areas in Liwale are Liwale Open then prevented people from eating Area North and Liwale Open Area the meat of elephants, bush pigs and South. Resident hunting is restricted

38 to Open Areas in Tanzania. Tanzanian Table 2. Th e number of admitted resident citizens are issued hunting licenses for hunting licences in the Liwale District many common game species, such as in 1993-2001. (District Assistant Game impala, hartebeest, buff alo and game Offi cer, Mr. Mohamedi Mtila, Liwale birds. But the resident hunters are not District Council, 22 July 2002, personal allowed to hunt lions and there are no communication). licences which would allow traditional lion hunting for medical products in year number of resident hunting licences Tanzania. Th e resident hunting fees are 1993 8 low and do not generate much income 1994 11 or economic return to the Open Areas 1995 14 (Baldus 2004: 13; Baldus and Cauldwell 1996 10 2004: 7–8). Since 1974, Tanzanian 1997 19 residents have been allowed to hunt 1998 12 certain wild animals during the hunting 1999 n.a. season for a licence fee. Th e hunting 2000 33 licences sold at the District headquarters 2001 36 are valid for the respective district only. Total 143 Th e licence is valid for two weeks and each registered resident hunter can buy that the following animal species have one licence per month. Th ey must also been hunted in their areas: the buff alo, have a suitable licensed gun for hunting the elephant, the hippopotamus, the before they can buy the licence. It is eland, the zebra, the greater kudu, the usually the richer urban population who common duiker, the blue wildebeest, can fulfi l these preconditions for resident the bushbuck, the hartebeest, the sable hunting in Tanzania. For example, 92% antelope, the red duiker, the bush pig, the of the resident hunting licence requests lion, the leopard, the baboon, the vervet were made by citizens from urban areas monkey, the blue monkey, the African in 1992. Th e game fees generated by wild cat, the jackal and the warthog, resident hunting were about 40,000 the honey badger, the porcupine, and USD while game fees generated by several birds. Th e village members did tourist hunters were 3.6 million USD in not defi ne exactly to us who carried Tanzania in 1992–1993 so profi ts from out the hunting but in some villages we tourism hunting are much higher than were told that species, including zebra from resident hunting (Department of and sable antelope, are hunted with a Wildlife 1996: 178-180; Siege 2001b: special licence while other animals are 41). Th e number of admitted resident only hunted through problem animal hunting licences has remained low in control by project offi cials. In Mihumo, Liwale in the 1990’s, but there has been however, one village member told us a relatively high increase in the number that they do not hunt any wild animals of allocated licences since the year 2000 and as a result other villagers started (Table 2.). to laugh. According to the hunting Th e village members of the six quota in Liwale for the year 2002, visited villages in this study mentioned the Kikulyungu village hunted one

39 Figure 9. Some members of Kilulyungu village are assessing crop damages on a maize ﬁ eld after a raid by a group of elephants.

wildebeest and two hartebeests, and the of lion trophy fees is 9.4%. Only the Barikiwa /Chimbuko village hunted two buff alo (21.5%) and the leopard (10.4%) buff alos and three hartebeests during trophy fees contribute more than the the hunting season while in Mpigamiti lion to the Wildlife Division (Baldus village only one buff alo was hunted 2004: 16–17). Th e game offi cers and (Maganga et al. 2003: 90). game scouts carry out problem animal Foreign tourist hunters can hunt on control on the open area to help protect the open area too within the limits of farms, domestic animals and people the annual available quota. Th e foreign living there. According to the Wildlife sport hunters usually pay high prices Conservation Regulations of 2002, an for hunting licences. Tourist hunting animal becomes a problem animal when contributed approximately 10 million it is found destroying crops (Fig. 9.) USD to the Wildlife Division in 2004. or other properties inside or outside a Of this revenue, about one million Wildlife Management Area or when USD was earned from lion trophy fees. it threatens human life (Th e United In total about 2.4 million USD of the Republic of Tanzania 2002c: 24). tourist hunting revenue in Tanzania Game offi cers mostly hunt elephants, can be attributed to lion hunting. Th e hippopotami, monkeys and warthogs minimum lion hunting fee for a tourist to protect crops on the farms. Th e game hunter is 5,000 USD. Th is fee includes a offi cers also kill dangerous animals, such 21–day hunting permit, trophy fee and as lions, leopards, crocodiles and hyenas trophy-handling permit. Th e lion is the to protect domestic animals and people third most important species in revenue in the villages and farms. According generation and the direct contribution to the villagers, however, there is very

40 little protection against wild animals the use of bush meat as an income on the farms because there are so few generating commodity because the game offi cers, lack of equipment and poorest households cannot aff ord to buy communication and the remoteness it and are likely to continue the practice of the area makes it diffi cult to access of illegal exploitation of wild animals. in time. Game cropping, which means Th e price which the hunters get from the commercial harvesting of wildlife the sale of bush meat exceeds the benefi ts for meat, hides and other products is of the community-based conservation considered as one potential economic programme. Th is may tempt them to sell opportunity for the Wildlife Management the meat in the growing urban markets, Areas in Tanzania. However, a study where the growing demand for bush carried out by Christophersen et al. meat may create incentives for excessive (2000: 12), suggests that game cropping commercial exploitation and negatively for local markets cannot compete with aff ect the objectives of the community- the revenues generated by tourist hunting based wildlife management programme. and resident hunting. Markets for bush On the other hand, the economical meat and other wildlife by-products are valuation of wildlife through harvested not yet well developed. Cropping for fresh bush meat in these programmes may meat in remote rural areas has logistical reveal that wildlife is not a competitive challenges, so cropping for dried meat asset compared to more intensive is a much more realistic opportunity land use options, such as agriculture. in some wildlife management areas. Bassett (2005) makes similar fi ndings Th e district is unable to make use of on the links between game depletion, the available hunting quotas and thus commercial bush meat trade and unable to provide enough bush meat economic diversifi cation strategies of for the customers of the fi ve hotels in rural livelihoods in Ivory Coast. He fi nds Liwale town. Legal hunting activities out that the decline of rural incomes and are mainly constrained by lack of bullets cultural valorisation of hunting drives and rifl es in the villages. Th ere is also a farmers to hunt more bush meat for the considerable bureaucracy involved in the growing urban markets. process of obtaining hunting licences for Villages in the Selous Game Reserve the locals. Th e price of hunting licences buff er zones harvested only 30 to 80% of has increased so much that most local their available hunting quotas between hunters cannot aff ord to buy them in 1991 and 2000. One of the explanations Liwale. Th erefore legal hunting can for this is that the markets for harvested no longer be regarded as a means to bush meat are limited during the sustain the demand of animal protein by hunting season due to the seasonality of villagers (Baldus 1990: 50–51). Nielsen local economies. People are more able to (2006) studied the importance of bush buy bush meat when they have received meat in the Udzungwa Mountains in cash from the sale of their cash crops, Tanzania and found out that there such as tobacco, sesame and cashew nut only 7.5% of households practiced (Hahn and Kaggi 2001: 47). hunting so bush meat hunting was not Th e sub-chapters of this part of the important in the area. He criticizes study have provided an introduction

41 to the geography of the Liwale district. industrialized urban societies, many I have intentionally focused on themes people have one or more animals in their which are important in understanding homes as pets or personal assistants. the daily relations between humans However, animals have only received and wild animals there. Although most a minor focus in geographical studies. people in the district currently earn Actually, biogeography has been the their living from agriculture, I have not only fi eld of geography where animals given this as much emphasis here as it have received some attention. Th e depth would deserve. Th is is because most of inquiry and research on animals in ethnic groups living in the district have biogeography has been mainly limited to long traditions in hunting and gathering the description of spatial distribution of but not in permanent settlements and animal species in diff erent geographical agriculture. In the scattered hunting regions. Usually, one chapter or sub- communities the distinction and chapter of a regional geography study borderlines between the domesticated is dedicated to animals, containing the and the wild or between culture and visualization and description of the nature were not as clear as they currently number and distribution of wild and are in the agricultural communities. Th is domestic animals within the studied transition has shaped todays relationships geographical region. between humans and wild animals. I will Geographers including, Charles F. next try to give a theoretical overview Bennett (1960) acknowledge the paucity into the human-animal relationship. of zoogeographical work almost forty I will start by describing the role of years ago. He noticed that geographers animals in geography and then move on tend to leave this fi eld of inquiry entirely to present why cultural perceptions of in the hands of zoologists whom they space are important in studying human- believe to possess an adequate training wildlife confl icts. for it. Davies (1961: 412) writes that zoogeography is considered too 2. Th eoretical framework specialized and too remote from the central problems of human geography. 2.1. Animal geographies Bennett lists three focus areas of animal geography where geographers have Traditionally, animals have not been been doing research during the past at the core of geographical inquiry. At century. Th ese are faunistic animal fi rst, this may seem strange because the geography, historical animal geography interaction between human societies and ecological animal geography. Th e and nature is one of the key areas in faunistic approach, which focuses on geography. Human beings have interacted ascertaining areal distributions of animals, with animals since the early days of is the oldest of these three. Historical human evolution. Th e hunter-gatherers and ecological animal geographies both livelihoods depended on the availability emphasize explaining the distribution of game and fi sh. Domestication of of animal populations as their major animals for farm production boomed goal. Interestingly, Bennett suggests during the agricultural revolution. In the formation of a fourth approach

42 of animal geography, namely cultural his work with a classical division of six animal geography. Th is new approach major zoogeographical regions. His studies the aspects of animal geography research is among the last ones in static which are relevant to the interactions zoogeography which did not include between animals and human cultures. any historical interpretation but mainly Cultural animal geography would not consists of general descriptions of the only focus on the distribution of fauna infl uence of environmental factors, but would also study the utilization, especially climate, on animal distribution. transportation, domestication, and Th e infl uences of Darwinism and human-animal confl icts, such as crop paleontology enhanced the development damage and disease infections stemming of another branch of zoogeography, the from animals. Bennett also suggests that historical zoogeography. It studies the geographers could make signifi cant successive stages in the establishment of contributions in studying the role of the present pattern of animal distribution. man in the dispersal of animals and in Th ese two branches of zoogeography investigating the subsistence of hunting were dominant until 1914 when after and fi shing. Bennett’s work is partially the regional zoogeography re-emerged infl uenced by the cultural ecology later in the new science of ecology. research of Carl Sauer at the University of Regional zoogeography is interested in California. Cultural animal geography is the broad boundary zones between the interested in studying the role of animals zoogeographical regions, which are in in the evolution of place, region and many ways more important than the core landscape. Bennett also points out the regions. Ecological zoogeography, which need to study how animals infl uenced is the third branch of zoogeography, human life opportunities and the was established in the 20th century. It potential dangers which animals cause focuses on the environmental infl uences to humans and their livelihoods in rural on animal distribution. Th e fi rst major settings (Wolch 2002a: 724). published work in this fi eld was Richard According to J. L. Davies (1961), Hesse’s (1924/1937) Tiergeographie auf the fi rst modern zoogeographers ekologischer Grundlage which describes were Compte de Buff on and E.A.W. zoogeography as a study of animal life, Zimmermann, who worked in the its distribution on the Earth and the last half of the 18th century. Th e fi rst reciprocal infl uence of environment and branch of zoogeography, the regional animals on each other. He highlights zoogeography, was developed due to the that in addition to the description of discoveries and classifi cations of new the regional distribution of animals, animals from 1760 to 1860. Th e regions it is also important to determine the were regarded as independent centers specifi c areas or ranges of individual of creation during this pre-Darwinian species. He introduces the concept phase and by 1778 J. C. Fabricius causal zoogeography which was a branch had divided the world into zoological of ecological zoogeography. Hesse is regions. His scheme was followed by interested in the distribution of giraff es, many zoogeographers, most notably rhinoceroses, zebras and antelopes, Philip Sclater who in 1858 published among other animals, in central Africa.

43 While both ecology and geography were looking for centers of creation on are interested in relationships, there is Earth. One of these geographers was some diff erence in their focus. Ecology Sclater (1858), who published his work is concerned with environmental on the six regions of the world according relationships and geography is concerned to the distribution of birds. Th e with spatial relationships. Ecological glorifi cation of historical zoogeography distributions of animals are based on has, according to Darlington (1957), the local scale and habitat preferences led to an almost ignorance of present while geographical distributions distributions of animals among its are comprehended on a regional or practitioners. He mentions two other continental scale. Zoogeographical books on zoogeography, namely Marion studies have mainly worked on the latter Newbigin’s Plant and Animal Geography scale. Similarly, there is a fi ne line between of 1936 and Beaufort’s Zoogeography historical zoogeography and ecological of the Land and Inland Waters of 1951, zoogeography. Historical zoogeography which from his point of view did can be read as an extension of ecological not cover the subject adequately and zoogeography (Davies 1961: 412–417). presented conventional ideas instead of Philip Darlington (1957) criticizes the trying to reassess the subject. Jennifer work of Hesse, Allee and Schmidt by Wolch (2002a: 723) mentions that arguing that their studies are “ecologies Newbigin had already published the at heart and hardly geographies at all.” book Animal Geography in 1913 where He emphasizes the diff erence between she emphasized the need for studying ecology and zoogeography and quoted the relations of fl oral and faunal regions. Charles Darwin’s notion that animal Darlington provides zoogeographers distributions cannot be accounted with seven working principles. He for simply in terms of climates and emphasizes that zoogeographers should local physical conditions. Darlington’s understand that animals are constantly book Zoogeography: Th e geographical multiplying and spreading as well as distribution of animals was clearly a more dying and loosing ground and thus geographical study as it fi rst introduced forming new geographical patterns. He the reader to the land and oceans, climate thus points out the dynamism in animal and vegetation as well as to geological populations. Darlington also mentions time on a global scale. He highlights the that research on the eff ect of barriers distinguished history of zoogeography in limiting animal distributions should and mentions geographer and biologist be at the core of the subject. He advises Alfred Russell Wallace, the father of zoogeographers to work with facts rather biogeography, who studied the theory than opinions and states that other of the natural selection of birds in 1858. people’s opinions about doubtful matters Wallace also shared his results and ideas are not a good basis for zoogeography on evolution with Charles Darwin, a year (Darlington 1957: 1–35). before the publication of Th e Origin of Biogeography studies animals in the Species. Th ere were also other geographers same way as other physical features of the at the time who were presenting their landscape. Animals are studied as beings ideas about animal distribution and without lives of their own and without

44 geographies which would extend beyond mainly focused on human impacts on human existence. In human geography, the landscape and their emphasis on animals have been studied through the morphology of cultural landscapes, anthropocentric lenses. Animals have meant that animals were not their only an instrumental value for human primary subjects of study. However, communities through the production of in some of Sauer’s works such as Seeds, meat, hides, skin, milk, and fur (Philo Spades, Hearths and Herds, he describes 1998: 54). In most geographical texts, animal domestication in the process nature is described as it would not where natural landscapes are converted contain any sentient creatures except into cultural landscapes. humans. Within geography, animals are Cultural animal geography, which usually confi ned within a black box, or had its golden age in the early 1960, merged into ecological and production included studies on the human infl uence systems (Wolch and Emel 1998: xv–xvi). on the spatial distribution of animals By the mid-1950’s animal geography as and partly followed the heritage of a minor sub-discipline of geography had zoogeography. Some of these studies, become recognized as a fi eld of science including animal domestication, were which studied the spatial distribution also linked to cultural ecology. By the of animal populations and their 1960’s Sauerian cultural geography had environmental associations. However, lost its popularity (Wolch and Emel the sub-discipline’s independence was 1998: xiii, Philo 1998: 56, Emel et al. questioned by some scientists because it 2002: 407). Th us animal geography is a had one foot in the realms of zoology and branch of geography which has been in ecology, and the other foot in the realms and out of fashion during the twentieth of paleontology and biology, whose century. By the 1970’s animal geography characteristics were already adopted as a concept disappeared from the by zoogeography. Th e proponents of geographical literature (Wolch 2002a: animal geography were not able to 722). reclaim it from zoogeography and as a Rising concerns on animal rights result it disappeared as a sub-discipline and conservation of nature, together (Philo 1998: 55). According to Salonen with the emerging discipline of (2004: 229–230), the interest in the environmental ethics brought the role of animals in regional geography human-animal relationship back into diminished and animals disappeared the focus of geographers in the 1980’s. almost totally from geographical At the same time with the animal discourse due to the positivist revolution rights movement, the modernization in science after the mid-1950’s. Th e role critique emphasized questions about the of animals in creating local divergence human relationship with nature. It was decreased as a result of the adoption of argued that environmental problems are positivist methodologies. caused by dualism based on Cartesian Th e works of Carl Sauer and the philosophy of science which created Berkeley school of cultural geography a divide between man and nature opened up new dimensions to the study (Salonen 2004: 230). It was the larger of nature-society relationships. Th ey social context and the interest of social

45 theorists in animals during the 1980’s animals’ role in the social construction which launched the reappearance of of culture, and the human-animal cultural animal geography. Th e ideas divide were the particular focus of the of feminism, postmodernism and post- new animal geographies. Th e researchers structuralism, postcolonial theory and were interested in, for example, how and critical race theory challenged human why the line of human-animal divide dominance in the human-animal shifts over time and space. Whatmore relationship. Th ese ideas were supported and Boucher (1993: 176) conclude that by new scientifi c fi ndings in cognitive non-human life-forms and processes psychology, ethology, landscape ecology should be seen as agents of historical and conservation biology, which showed and spatial change and also as objects of that animals also have cognitive abilities human actions and representation. Th ey and questioned the idea of dualism point out that the dialectic between and human superiority (Wolch 2002a: social and bio-physical relations is 725). Yi-Fu Tuan was among the constantly shifting. Th e modifi cation fi rst geographers who brought up the and interrelations of non-human life- unequal coexistence and power relations forms will present new conditions between humans and animals in his book for the humans through which the Dominance and aff ection: Th e making of reconstruction of the meaning of nature pets in 1984. Some radical geographers, is mediated. Jennifer Wolch (2002b: such as Fitzsimmons (1989), identify 202) writes that the consensus about three factors which represent the the human-animal divide has recently inclusion of the Enlightenment dualism broken down because new scientifi c of nature and society in geography. Th ese evidence reveals the complexity of factors are “the institutional separation animal life and some of its similarity to of human and physical geographies, the that of humans. ontological separation of nature and space An important contribution to the in human geography and the urban bias contemporary discourse on human- of the intellectual infl uences and culture”. animal relationship has come from She follows the example of Marxist Actor Network Th eory, adopted by political economy and uses the concept some geographers (such as Woods 1997, ‘social nature’ to show how nature was Murdoch 1997, and Whatmore and reproduced through social relations of Th orne 2000), to argue that analytically production and does not exist outside there is no a priori distinction to be these realms. She points out that it made between humans and animals. is impossible to conceptualize nature Th ey point out that the dividing lines are without social meaning (Fitzsimmons subject to change and negotiation (Emel 1989, cit. Whatmore and Boucher et al. 2002: 408-409). Actor Network 1993: 167–168). Th e revival of animal Th eory is an approach developed by geography in the mid-1990’s was Michel Callon, Bruno Latour and John largely inspired by the above mentioned Law within social studies of science. Th is discourses, including the profound theory seeks to undermine the distinction rethinking of culture and subjectivity. between humans and non-humans Th e nature of animal subjectivity, and argues that they should be treated

46 symmetrically. One means of dissolving cultural impact of animals on places this dualism is to develop translation and landscapes over time. For example, networks, which are heterogeneous. borderland communities where humans Actor networks are chains of translations and free roaming animals share space of varying lengths and kinds which have been investigated by animal give rise to natural and social realities geographers. Th ere are still several areas (Murdoch 1997). Actor Network in animal geography which have received Th eory focuses on associative power little or no interest by researchers, and and places emphasis on the processes of the geographical history of human- translation and displacement. Hunting animal relations is one area that needs has interested the advocates of the further examination (Emel et al. 2002: theory because it contains discourses 409–410). My study aims at bringing a where human-animal relationships are new contribution to this area of animal being defi ned (Woods 1997: 335). Th e geography. nature-society problematic has interested Animals have also received little critical cultural geographers for decades interest in postcolonial studies. Th e and the human-animal divide has been shadow of the colonial legacy of European challenged by postcolonial and feminist modernity still retains the idea of an scholars. Th e study of animals has now absolute diff erence between humans and been included into a societal framework animals intact in many fi elds of science. from which it has long been excluded. Th e civilizing mission of the European Th e sociological interest in the study of colonial governments included both the animals has also inspired human and cultures and the nature of the colonies so urban geographers to integrate animal the superiority of enlightened humans geography into their analyses (Anderson over savage subordinates reached both of 1997: 466). A new animal geography was these realms. However, the indigenous born among a relatively small circle of cultural knowledge of local communities Anglo-American geographers. Content- in the former colonies now continues to wise, it is not a unifi ed fi eld of study challenge the dominance of Western but has several disparate approaches value systems and provide alternative and topics-of-interest. Th e focus of new identifi cations of the human-animal animal geography has not only been divide. Animal studies have shown that shaped by an interest in the relationship the agency in human-animal interactions between humans and nature but also is complex and cannot be reduced by the interest in marginal groups, to simple visions of the pet, the zoo minority rights and feminism. Animals animal or cartoon fi gures (Armstrong can be seen as individual subjects who 2002: 414, 416). Cultural ecology and have limited or no political and legal political ecology have both off ered rights just like other marginal groups in enriching interactions within the fi eld of human societies (Salonen 2004: 230– geography. Th e contributions of cultural 231). Animal geography is interested ecology have been very infl uential in in studying the inclusion and exclusion the debate on human-environment and of certain animals from particular nature-society approaches. Recently, this types of places and exploring the socio- debate has focused on the inseparability

47 of humans and nature, which is an true, the human-wildlife confl icts can especially interesting topic when equally appear when humans intrude studying human-wildlife relations and animal habitats for gathering, hunting, histories. Th e most relevant areas of or agricultural activities and as a result study for cultural and political ecology pose a real or potential risk for the combined with human geography are animals either directly or indirectly. environmental borderlands, which are My main concern here was to study located on the interface of untouched the human-wildlife confl icts from the nature and humanized landscapes. Th ese villagers’ point of view. Th eir cultural environmental borderlands also include perception of space strongly infl uences socio-natures and hybrid landscapes the inclusion and exclusion of animals (Zimmerer 2007: 227–232). from particular spaces within their lived Th e theoretical part of this study environment. I will discuss more on is fi rmly grounded on the traditions the cultural perception of space in the of cultural animal geography and following chapter. focuses on the agendas suggested by Bennett (1960), namely by studying 2.2. Cultural perception of space how wild animals infl uence human life opportunities and cause potential threat Th e question of the production of space to humans and their livelihoods in rural has intrigued geographers for decades. settings. In addition to the traditional Th e infl uence of Marxist thinkers, such cultural animal geography approach, this as Manuel Castells and Henri Lefebvre, study will also address some of the key have turned focused geographers on questions of the new animal geography, socially produced spatiality. Castells such as the human-animal divide and points out that social formation and how and why the line of human-animal modes of production are spatially divide shifts over time and space. arranged, so the spatial structure According to the new animal geography, articulates the social structure. Spaces are the dividing lines between the humans the arenas where social life is reproduced and the animals are being constantly (Livingstone 1992: 333). Lefebvre’s challenged and negotiated. Th is study (1974) La production de lèspace (Th e focuses on the inclusion and exclusion Production of Space) regards space as of wild animals from particular places a complex social construction which and landscapes over time and explains aff ects spatial practices and perceptions. human-wildlife confl icts as intrusions Th e production of space is based on of subjects (animals or humans) into values and the social production of a clearly defi ned and perceived space meanings. He introduces three levels of where the presence of such subjects determination, namely the perceived, the causes disorder and risk of life security conceived and the directly experienced, as well as risk of livelihood security. which contribute to the production of Th e main emphasis in this study is on space through interactions (Lefebvre wild animals who cross the perceived 1974/1991). However, it was not nature-culture borderline and enter only the structural Marxist thinkers domesticated spaces. Th e inverse is also who contributed to the discourse

48 on the production of space. William personal reaction bubbles (Fig. 10.) Kirk (1963) introduced his model of divided the personal territory into four a behavioural environment which is zones within certain distances from the a realm created and operating on an person in question (Sheppard 1996, interface of the external world (natural Brown 2001). and culturally constructed elements) Intimate distance is the space around and the internal world (decision-makers the person, where embracing, touching perception and values). Th e facts of or whispering are the comfortable ways the external phenomenal environment of communication. Th e radius of this are aff ected by values of the internal zone extends to approximately 46 cm environment and as a result will be from the person. Personal distance is the ordered into conceptional patterns that zone where interactions among good are relative in time and place (Kirk friends and family members take place. 1963 cit. Livingstone 1992: 334–335). Th is zone extends to about 120 cm Th e culturally perceived space has been from the person. Th e third zone is the studied by, for example, anthropologist social distance, which is a comfortable Edward T. Hall. He has inspired both space for interaction and conversation cultural anthropologists and geographers among acquaintances. It extends to to consider the importance of relative approximately 3.6 m away from the and relational space. Hall’s infl uence on person. Th is zone also represents the geographical thinking has also surfaced distance between strangers at the bus through the studies on the creation and stop or in a supermarket. Th e fourth use of space in diff erent communities. zone is the public distance and it defi nes Hall introduced the term proxemics in the space used for public speaking and 1959. Proxemics can be described as the extends up to 7.6 m from the person. study of the human use of space within Th is zone visualizes the distance which the context of culture. Hall developed is maintained between the audience and his proxemic theory while he was the speaker. studying diffi culties created by failures Hall’s studies on human perception in intercultural communication. Th e of space and his social distance theories proxemic theory was published in his were partly based on the biological social book Th e Hidden Dimension in 1966. distance theories of the Swiss zoologist In this theory, Hall argues that human Heini Hediger. Hediger (1955) studied perceptions of space are shaped and the proxemics in animal behaviour in determined by culture. Th us the failures zoos and published his fi ndings in a of communication and understanding in book called, Studies of the Behaviour of interpersonal and intercultural settings Captive Animals in Zoos and Circuses. are caused by the diff erent cultural Hediger discovered that animals frameworks for defi ning and organizing maintained various boundaries when space. Th ese cultural frameworks can be they were in contact with other members found in all humans at an unconscious of their own species or with an animal level. Hall is most renowned for his from a diff erent species. He established study on personal spatial territory in four interaction distances which were interpersonal communication. Hall’s determined by the behaviour of animals

49 Figure 10. Th e four zones of personal territory for an average American person visualized as reaction bubbles showing radius in meters. Personal territories vary both culturally and ethnically. Personal territory describes the intuitively respected use of space in interpersonal communication. Th e four zones of personal territory can be used to explain comfortable distances for personal interaction. Adapted from (Hall 1969). studied in captivity. Th e fi rst zone is the namely the personal distance, represents fl ight distance representing the boundary the comfortable distance between two or space after which the animal will run individuals of the same species, such as and escape approaching species. Th e a pair of swans. Th e fourth zone is the second zone identifi ed by Hediger is the social distance, which represents the space critical distance, which represents the where intraspecies communication takes attack boundary of an animal. When place. Hediger was also the fi rst zoologist this boundary threshold is surpassed, to point out that in nature there are no the animal will attack the approaching free animals in an anthropomorphic animal of another species. Th ese two sense. Animals in the wild are always distances are identifi ed in the interaction bounded by space, time, sex and social of diff erent animal species, while the status (Turovski 2000: 381). other two distances are identifi ed In human societies, boundaries are an among the same species. Th e third zone, expression of territoriality. Boundaries

50 are essentially human creations, which Geography, Ideology and Transgression refl ect a basic human need to live in a that there is a notion of people, things bounded space. Territoriality is, however, and actions having appropriate places. also central to animal existence. Human All other people, things and actions are borders do not only separate diff erent labelled out of place and their presence is territories but are also the points or lines perceived as a transgression of normality. of contact for centripetal and centrifugal Similarly, wild animals which cross the forces within these territories. Border borderline between nature and culture landscapes refl ect local inhabitants’ or the domesticated and the wild enter perceptions of regions located at the into space controlled by humans and periphery of a territory. Living in a temporarily break up the order, norms bounded space provides human beings and structures of that space. A wild with feelings of security and off ers animal out of place suddenly becomes a certain independence of action. an object in the landscape which does Environmental psychology explains not match with local inhabitants’ that diff erent personal spaces are a perception of that place and a confl ict phenomenon which is fundamental to arises. Th e spatial aspect of the confl ict all human individuals. Personal spaces is highlighted here because for many are defi ned by the likes of gestures, living outsiders, whose attitudes towards space and activity space. Each personal nature are conservationist, perceive space constitutes a territory which has the particular wild animal naturally its own permeable or impermeable belonging to that particular space so boundary (Fig. 11.). Abraham A. it is not considered being out of place Moles and Elisabeth Rohmer (1972) at all. However, the inhabitants whose introduced a human shell-like spatial domesticated space the wild animals hierarchy in their book Psychologie enter may regard an animal out of place de l’Espace. Th e boundaries between as an object which can metaphorically be territories are social constructs which similar to dirt, as mentioned by Douglas are conditioned by human perceptions (p. 13), which must be removed in order and attitudes towards space. Boundaries to restore the order of that place. By the help us to delimit structures and norms use of these models, which have a strong into certain territories (Leimgruber bias towards the spatial hierarchies of 1991: 43–45). Th is human shell-like individual persons rather than those spatial hierarcy is a rather simplifi ed and of communities or stakeholder groups, mechanical one, which does not have this study diff ers from the mainstream any transition zones between diff erent approaches of new animal geography. spaces. Th e lack of elements of the My emphasis in the empirical part of the behavioral environment mentioned by study is on studying the internal world of Kirk (p. 49) limit its explanatory power. William Kirk’s behavioural environment, Th e three models of human spatial namely the decision-makers’ perceptions hierarchies form the theoretical basis for and values. In my empirical research, my analysis of the spatial nature of human- I did not study the exact distances wildlife confl icts. Tim Cresswell (1996) between the spatial hierarchies but tried writes in his book In Place/Out of Place: to fi nd landscape indicators to express

51 Figure 11. Th e human shell-like spatial hierarchy after Moles and Rohmer (1972). Adapted from (Moles and Rohmer 1972, cit. Leimgruber 1991: 45). the perception of locals’ critical nature- when these animals cross the borderline culture boundaries. Th e indicators also between their usual habitat and access reveal diff erent ways of seeing wildlife in a slightly more cultural sphere in this human and animal spheres. Th e critical spatial hierarchy (Fig. 12.). For example, nature-culture boundaries would then a hare which eats crops in the fi eld may mark thresholds which could launch a not necessarily cause any collapse of the human-wildlife confl ict when trespassed perceived order, norms and structures by wild animals. of that space which would launch a Th e closer a wild animal out of place human-animal confl ict. But if the hare moves to the core of the circle, the enters into the garden and eats some more probable will the appearance of vegetables or fruits there it becomes a confl ict be. Th e most often perceived more out of place than in a fi eld and nature-culture borderline is located now creates a threat to the norms and between the forest and the fi elds of the structures defi ned for the garden. As a farmers of the villages. Th e wild animals result, a human-wildlife confl ict may were considered to be out of place appear between the owner of the garden when they moved to the fi elds from and the hare. Generally, the number the forested area. Th ose wildlife species of wild animal species accepted inside which normally live in inhabitated areas each category of space decreases towards also cause confl icts by being out of place the center. Th e dark background color 52 Figure 12. A framework of critical nature-culture borderlines in a rural setting in Liwale, Tanzania. indicates the intensity of human-animal perceived norms and structures of these confl ict in each category. For example, spaces. Th e nature-culture borderlines the confl ict which emerges when a lion are also culture-related and vary from kills goats in the fi elds of the village is not one society to another. I will show later so intense than a confl ict where a lion in more detail how outside infl uences kills goats in the garden. Th e framework and ideologies have aff ected the changes also depicts that in addition to the major in nature-culture borderlines through nature-culture borderline there are wildlife management and conservation also minor nature-culture borderlines initiatives, such as establishment of between diff erent categories of space. national parks and game reserves. Th ese Th e main issue here is the exclusion initiatives usually contained coarsive and inclusion of certain wild animal measures towards local population who species in each particular category. It are forced to adapt new life styles and must be emphasized here that nature- ways of livelihood but more importantly culture borderlines are dynamic between change their relationship to wild diff erent spaces of the hierarchy and they animals. Human-wildlife confl icts can change through time with the process of even escalate as the people aff ected by modernization. What changes is not only the coarsive measures try to maintain the level of acceptance of certain species the previously existing status quo in the within each category of space but also the perceived order and biosecurity of their

53 daily environment. Th ese confl icts also on wildlife. Opposition and resistance contain a power struggle where the rights from locals have not featured much in to defi ne the contents and activities in the formulation of national wildlife the spatial hierarchies are distributed policies and implementation of wildlife among various stakeholders. Next, I conservation projects across the country. will shed some more light upon the Previous wildlife conservation initiatives human dimensions of these confl icts by in Tanzania have not followed the explaining the importance of attitudes examples of similar projects in Europe and values in the acceptability of wildlife and the United States, where the human management actions. dimensions of wildlife management, such as beliefs, attitudes and behaviours, 2.3. Normative beliefs and receive almost equally as much focus by acceptability of wildlife management the wildlife managers and conservation actions organisations as the biological and ecological dimensions do. Adaptive A modern defi nition of wildlife resource management, which is based management is given by Riley et al. (2002) on the principles of adaptive harvest who write that wildlife management “is management, has been advocated there the guidance of decision-making processes since the early 1990’s by the wildlife and implementation of practices to managers. It aims at reducing uncertainty purposefully infl uence interactions among and developing better predictive and between people, wildlife, and habitats capability about the natural or human- to achieve impacts valued by stakeholders” induced eff ects on biological systems. (Riley et al. 2002: 586 cit. Enck et Adaptive impact management is loosely al. 2006: 698). Th ere has recently an extension of the adaptive resource been a growing public involvement in management approach. Adaptive wildlife management issues all over the impact management emphasizes the world. Public demands, opinions and role of people and human values in the expectations have not often matched the management process especially within scientifi c information and professional decision-making. It tries to reduce judgement of wildlife managers. As a uncertainty about the locals’ perceived result, misunderstandings, opposition objectives of wildlife management and and even confl icts over wildlife to improve the understanding of both management have appeared. Ideally, ecological and human dimensions which wildlife management actions and policies have an eff ect on management outcomes therefore depend on public acceptance. of those objectives. Th ese objectives set Unfortunately this is not the case in the ecological and social boundaries most developing countries, such as for management activities. However, Tanzania, where the central government there is always a degree of uncertainty and international conservation present in wildlife management organisations have strongly infl uenced because the perceived objectives of the establishment of protected areas and diff erent stakeholders may depend on have retained almost full control over the a variety of human needs and interests, management of and decision-making which are sometimes opposing, often-

54 changing and dependent on a particular for the government is still widely spread situation (Enck et al. 2006: 698–700). among the communities participating in Normative theory has increasingly community-based wildlife management being used in studying the acceptability projects. People have used lethal control of a situation, action or outcome in to prevent wildlife damages for over a wildlife management. Th ese studies thousand years now. Some societies, have recently been complemented by however, have taboos against killing acceptance capacity studies, which have certain wildlife species, such as tortoises indicated that an individual’s acceptance (Lingard et al. 2003), although this is threshold for negative wildlife impacts rare. Tolerance towards wildlife damage is situation-specifi c and depends on is strongly infl uenced by cultural factors the perceived severity of this negative (Woodroff e et al. 2005: 3). Local impact. Experience from over three social taboos are part of a social system decades of research shows that most of interactions among people and people directly aff ected by wildlife or between people and their surroundings wildlife management react in a human- and thus should not be treated as biased way. According to a study carried disembodied practices only concerned out in Alaska, the accepted management with environmental actions (West and actions are impact dependent which Brockington 2006: 611). means that they are not primarily Next, I will present some American driven by fundamental wildlife value studies on the rural residents’ attitudes orientations. Context seems to matter towards large predators to refl ect upon more than general attitude towards the results of the human-wildlife wildlife in public support for wildlife confl icts in Liwale. Th ese results, of management activities (Decker et al. course, cannot be directly applied to 2006). the circumstances of rural residents in Recently a movement towards more Liwale but they may be used to support people-oriented wildlife conservation the examination of the confl icts there. initiatives has taken place in diff erent Naughton-Treves et al. (2003b) found parts of the world, including East Africa out in their study, on rural citizens of and Tanzania. Participation of locals in Wisconsin, that tolerance of wolves was wildlife management is now considered more predicted by people’s deep-rooted a prerequisite for success. Community- social identity and occupation than the based conservation programmes have education level or individual encounters been established in the surroundings of with these animals. Increased knowledge many national parks and game reserves rarely leads to attitude or value change. but according to the several scientifi c Th e infl uence of knowledge on attitudes articles, these programmes have not and values is often relatively weak been able to signifi cantly reduce local (Meadow et al. 2005: 155). Political opposition to protected areas. Confl icts values also shaped the attitudes towards between locals and wildlife continue to wolves as many rural residents regarded exist in many diff erent forms in the rural these animals as symbols of federal areas close to protected areas. Mistrust intervention in their aff airs. Th ose between locals and game scouts working who had lost a domestic animal to any

55 predator were not as tolerant to wolves human-wildlife confl icts is the fear of as their neighbours without such losses. being killed by a large carnivore or a Perceived risk of depredation by wolves large herbivore. So the presence of these was almost as important as an actual wild animals becomes a biosecurity experience in shaping rural attitudes issue (Buller 2008). Wild animals kill towards these animals. Attitudes towards thousands of people around the world wolves are deep-rooted, value laden and annually. Many people are afraid of established early in life. Th ese attitudes large predators, such as lions, bears are also connected to individual lifestyles and wolves. Th is fear of carnivores is and understandings of the place of deeply rooted in the human psyche and humans in nature. Many livestock an instinctive anti-predator response producers feel a strong aff ection for of the human species. In addition to their animals, just like the hunters feel large carnivores, elephants and other aff ection for their hunting dogs and as large vertebrates also kill people and a result, compensation payments did destroy crops. Many people hate and not improve tolerance towards wolves or fear elephants in rural Africa as they are attitudes towards lethal control. perceived as a major threat to rural lives Zinn et al. (1998) used a normative and livelihoods. Th e fear of wildlife may approach to study human-wildlife be a suffi cient cause and justifi cation interactions and acceptability of wildlife for pre-emptive killings of some species management actions in Colorado, U.S.A. (Th irgood et al. 2005: 14, 16, 24). Fear Th ey state that a few fundamental value and dislike of large carnivores sometimes orientations, such as honesty or equality, give people a reason to kill them. When strengthen and give meaning to more the distribution of large carnivores numerous and general values and link overlaps with areas where people live, these to more peripheral cognitions they may feel that the presence of these like specifi c norms and attitudes. Th e animals reduces their quality of life, even fundamental value orientations in a in the absence of any direct material or continuum of wildlife benefi ts/existence economic confl icts (Linnell et al. 2005: and wildlife rights/use directly infl uence 163). attitudes towards wildlife management Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) identify actions, such as hunting. Acceptability four situation specifi c variables which of certain management actions thus correspond with people’s attitudes and depends on the respondent’s value behaviour. Th ese variables are target, orientation towards wildlife. Following context, action and time. Target refers Shelby, Vaske and Donnelly (1996), to the animal in question, such as an Zinn et al. take the concept social norm elephant, for example. Context refers to mean “beliefs about the acceptability of to the actual situation (elephants are an action or situation. Normative beliefs destroying crops), and action refers to the are judgements about what is appropriate management response to that situation in a specifi c situation” and are also highly (conduct problem animal control by situational and infl uenced by individual shooting the elephants). Time refers to value diff erences. the day, week, month or year when the One of the primary causes of action takes place. Th ey pointed out

56 Figure 13. Th e cognitive hierarchy model of human behaviour. Elements at the top of the triangular hierarchy are based on the ones below. Behaviors are more numerous and peripheral components of an individual’s belief system than values at the bottom. Behaviors at the top have a tendency to change faster than values, attitudes and norms. Adapted from (Vaske and Donnelly 1999: 525.). that beliefs, attitudes and behaviours are components in the cognitive hierarchy. closely related when observed through Basic belief patterns are such mediators these situational specifi cs. Normative and they do not only serve to strengthen beliefs about wildlife management and give meaning to fundamental values actions are infl uenced by wildlife value but also establish value orientations, such orientations in the continuum of as anthropocentric or biocentric views wildlife use versus wildlife protection on the non-human world. Th ese value (Zinn et al. 1998). Vaske and Donnelly orientations in turn, infl uence attitudes (1999) used the cognitive hierarchy towards nature. Attitudes are much model of human behaviour to explore more situation specifi c and change more the value orientation-attitude-behavior quickly than fundamental values. Th e relationship in wilderness preservation Th eory of Reasoned Action has shown (Fig. 13.). that attitudes can be strong predictors Th e fundamental values, depicted at of specifi c behaviours. Th e most direct the bottom of the triangle, are used by predictor of a behavior is the intention individuals as standards for evaluating to perform a behavior. Attitudes may attitudes and behaviour. “A value is a serve as a mediator between the value preferred mode of conduct or end state of orientation and behavioral intentions existence” (Meadow et al. 2005: 155). to perform certain activities (Vaske Th ese values are not situation specifi c i.e. and Donnelly 1999: 524–527). In they do not depend on target, context, addition to knowledge, human-animal action or time. Values are slow to relationships, personal experience and change and they form the most central real and perceived impacts, attitudes component of an individual’s belief toward animals are also aff ected by the system. Values are limited in number amount and type of media coverage on and often widely shared by all members the animal in question and the species’ of a culture. Values aff ect attitudes economic and cultural value (Meadow and behaviour indirectly via other et al. 2005: 161).

57 Brandenburg and Carroll (1995) in certain places. It is acceptable that studied the eff ect of place creation elephants live in the forest and search for based on environmental values. Place is food there but it is unacceptable that the an essential aspect of human existence. elephants live in a cultivated fi eld and Places are physical locations which search for food there because they do consist of the physical setting, human not belong to the perceived content of activities and the psychological processes the cultivated fi eld landscape. In other related to it. Places enable people to words, the elephants do not fi t into the create individual environmental values associated meaning and value for the and landscape meanings diff erent from cultivated fi elds. Elephants and other those of the other social groups. Places wildlife are associated with inhabited also have associated meanings and values wilderness landscapes, such as forests, which are transferred to people from, and are labelled to be out of place when and shared within the social group. Th e they cross the nature-culture borderline creation of a place is based fi rstly on and enter some other category of space. the socio-cultural contexts, meanings, As a result, most rural human-wildlife values, traditions and experiences of confl icts in wildlife conservation people who defi ne the space as place, programmes are primarily caused by and secondly the nature of a given space the clash of diff erent social norms, i.e. the spirit of place. Place is created associated meanings, values, traditions in a reciprocal relationship between and experiences related to the place people and nature. Th e contemporary designated under these programmes. place theory views a location without Th is spatial value-based explanation of human meaning and value; a placeless or the lack of success in community-based empty space. Brandenburg and Carroll conservation projects means that solving (1995) consider the contemporary the problems will require much more than defi nitions of place rather as defi nitions just economic compensation of losses of landscape. Individual place experience or improvement of the organizational and emotional attributes are important structure of the programmes. elements in the formation of people’s Community-based conservation preferences, values and beliefs related to structures are not a prerequisite for land use. success unless the local communities Th ese introductions to normative are truly allowed to infl uence land use beliefs, social norms, value orientations planning according to their own social and place creation are important to norms, associated meanings, values, understanding the structure of Fig. 12. traditions and experiences related to the Th e starting point is that each individual places in question. In the next chapter, human being has a certain value basis I will describe a wide variety of human- and value orientations related to wildlife. wildlife confl icts in order to avoid Th e social norms adopted by individuals one-sided perspective in my analysis. I defi ne a framework for the acceptability will also explain the existence of these of an action or a situation. Similarly confl icts in spatial context and show social norms and the creation of place their bidirectional characteristics. defi ne what is appropriate and acceptable

58 3. Human-wildlife confl icts to poor countries only. A brief review of some newspapers from around the world A brief review of some international reveals that humans and wildlife collide journals, such as Conservation Biology, in many countries. In India, elephants Wildlife Society Bulletin and Society entered into human settlements from and Natural Resources, shows that there the forests and killed 48 persons in already exists a considerable number 2006 (Kolkata Newsline, 28 July 2007). of articles on human-wildlife confl icts In Sri Lanka, about 150 elephants and written in English. Th e majority of the between 50–70 humans die in confl icts articles focus on the confl icts between with wildlife when menacing elephants humans and grey wolves or between raid crops in villages close to the national humans and bears in the U.S.A. Th is parks (Science and Environment is natural not only due to the origin of Online, 5 December 2007). In northern these journals but also because most of Sweden, a brown bear killed an elk their subscribers are Anglo-Americans. It hunter and his dog in front of the cabin can be assumed that the confl icts related in October 2007 (Expressen, 8 October to wolves and bears are the ones which 2007). Th ese are just the few examples are most extensively studied. of the deadly human-wildlife confl icts Woodroff e et al. (2005: 1–2) use the which took place in the nature-culture term human-wildlife confl ict to describe borderlands. Farms, holiday cabins a phenomenon where a confl icting and zoos are all characterised by the situation between people and wildlife presence of an interface between human takes place in the form of crop raiding, and wildlife and between culture and livestock depredation, predation on nature. managed wild animal species or killing of Case studies from diff erent people. Th ese confl icts occur world-wide geographical regions and climatic and exist both in terrestrial and marine conditions show that these confl icts are and freshwater environments. Human- more intense in areas where livestock wildlife confl icts do not occur only holdings and agriculture are an important between people and large mammals but part of peoples’ livelihoods. Human- involve a taxonomically diverse group of wildlife confl icts are particularly intense animals from sea otters to hen harriers. along the boundaries of protected areas. According to a recent report (Distefano Th e erection of physical barriers, such 2005) by the Sustainable Agriculture as fences, between protected areas and and Rural Development Initiative of the farms can prevent these confl icts only Food and Agricultural Organization of in a limited number of cases (Treves the United Nations, human-wildlife and Karanth 2003: 1495) because some confl icts are a growing global problem. species, such as elephants, monkeys, Th ese occur everywhere around the globe wild pigs and antelopes, have ways where wildlife and humans coexist and to get around such physical barriers. share limited resources, but especially Treves and Karanth (2003) suggest that where wildlife’s requirements overlap in order to tackle the human-wildlife with those of human populations. problem a greater understanding of the Human-wildlife confl icts are not limited socio-economic and cultural contexts

59 within which these confl icts occur is how elephants invade the kingdom of required. Traditional knowledge and Anga causing severe damage. Magige practices should be recognized and used and Senzota (2006) studied rodents at in integrated community development the human-wildlife interface in Western and wildlife conservation initiatives, Serengeti, Tanzania. Th ey found out which would secure the rights of locals that protected areas which neighbour to use natural resources in a sustainable agricultural areas may be sources of way. Th e ability of fences to prevent existing rodent invasion into farmlands livestock predation by large carnivores and houses. Many of the rodent species was also studied around the Masai Mara which are among the most serious crop National Reserve in Kenya by Kolowski pests across sub-Saharan Africa are also and Holekamp (2006). Th ey pointed very anthropogenic and live mainly in out that improved fencing alone was man-made structures, such as houses and not an eff ective solution to livestock stores. Th ese species cause considerable predation on pastoral ranches. Leopards damage to crops and property, and preferred to attack relatively isolated spread diseases. According to a study by villages while hyenas were attracted by Porter, 60% of Tanzanian farmers rated large villages with more human activity. pests as their main economical problem Th e use of pole material in fences more (Porter 1978 cit. Naughton-Treves than doubled the likelihood of leopard and Treves 2005: 254). Similarly, Igoe attacks and the use of bush material in and Brockington (1999: 34) described fences more than doubled the risk of a how the presence of wildebeests caused hyena attack. Th ey concluded that the problems for cattle herders because this size and location of the village were animal spreads malignant catarrhal fever important spatial predictors of predator which is fatal to livestock in northern attacks on livestock in the study area. Tanzania. Local Masai pastoralist Improved fencing of the villages, the use deliberately converted the traditional of guard dogs, and active guarding of calving grounds of wildebeest to wheat the villages by its people should be used farms in southern Kenya to reduce together in order to reduce predator the contact between their livestock attacks. and the wildebeest, which carry this People-wildlife confl icts can be malignant disease (Woodroff e et al. found on land and in waters, in the city 2005: 11). According to John Knight as well as in the countryside. Sukumar (2000: 2), human-wildlife confl icts (1998: 303) described the incursion of appear universally but occur most often elephants into the suburbs of Bangalore in human settlements in forest-edge in India as a modern example of human- regions. He distinguished eight diff erent wildlife confl ict. He pointed out that human-wildlife confl icts: such encroachments of elephants into • attacks on people human habitations are not a new or • attacks on livestock recent phenomenon in India. Th ese • crop-raiding kinds of incidents were already recorded • forestry damage into old lore of the Gajasastra in the fi fth • competition for wild forage with or sixth century BC. Th is lore describes humans, livestock or with game animals 60 • competition for prey with Colorado described by Alice K. Wondrak hunters (2002). She noticed that the insiders’ • house and other building and outsiders’ senses of place confl icted infestations with the idea of displaying small local • threats to other natural species fauna in plexiglass environments. Th e and to biodiversity perceived nature-culture divide is clearly He notices that there are also many present in this confl ict because the idea other kinds of confl icts, such as garden of a zoo-like institution built so close to damage, traffi c accidents and diseases a nature reserve is strongly opposed by caused by wildlife. People-wildlife those people who support the ideals of confl icts usually arise from territorial nature preservation. Wondrak then raises proximity, reliance on the same resources a reverse question on the acceptability of or threat to human livelihoods and safety. caging small animals in urban areas. Th e Competition and predation are essential proponents of this activity may, however, elements of human-wildlife confl icts strongly oppose the caging of small which can be horizontal and vertical animals near a more wild nature setting, (Fig. 14.). Many people-wildlife confl icts such as a nature reserve. Plexiglass cages can also be understood as people-people are considered to be an environment confl icts (Knight 2000: 2–3), such as the which is not natural and which display stag hunting (Woods 1997) in Somerset, wild animals as out of place, namely England, and fox hunting (Milbourne out of the wilderness, which the visitors 2003) in England and Wales. Th ese come to experience in nature reserves. people-people confl icts can also be Ari A. Lehtinen (2006: 93–104) struggles over diff erent ways of seeing discusses the human-brown bear confl icts wildlife in human and animal spheres, in Finland and shows how current such as the case study of Estes Park in debates on wild nature has been shaped

Figure 14. Horizontal and vertical human-wildlife confl icts. Vertical confl icts are direct and based on predation of humans by wild animals or vice versa. Horizontal confl icts involve indirect competition between humans and wildlife on sources of food and habitats. Modifi ed from (Knight 2000: 3).

61 by historical-cultural mechanisms, such and international interests involved in as transformation of the last remaining the processes. In spite of the diff erent old-growth forests into economic forests. scales, the norm is a chronic political Loss of habitat pushes bears closer to confl ict, including diff erent stakeholders human settlements and revives risks of and interest groups, over wildlife confrontation that were very common management practices, the impacts of in the past when the ancestors lived resource extraction, land use on animal under pressure of the hostile wilderness. habitats and risks of extinction (Wolch Today, brown bears visiting Finnish and Emel 1995: 634). Lehtinen (1991: home yards can be regarded as hybrid 67) points out that most of the current remnants from the past, which also interest confl icts on natural resource- mediate the socioenvironmental risks use are “expressions of the confrontational from the outside. Treves and Karanth assessments and expectations on the (2003: 1491–1493) write that human- utilization of nature”. An interesting work carnivore confl icts and the resulting on the multidimensional characteristics carnivore harvest have faced increasing of nature conservation controversy is the political opposition in the United States PhD dissertation of geographer Annukka and Europe. Th e opponents of carnivore Oksanen (2003). She studied the hunting are not only urban or suburban establishment of Natura 2000 network residents but also rural residents. and related environmental confl icts in Th ey base their critique towards south-western Finland. She points out carnivore hunting on animal welfare, that people-people confl icts originate conservation, tourism and scientifi c from the diff erent values, attitudes and issues. Human-carnivore confl icts pose conceptions of nature which people have. an urgent challenge world-wide because Th e socio-cultural dimension appears they do not only result in confrontations to be as important as the ecological between humans and carnivore but and economical dimensions in these they also cause a juxtaposition of confl icts. Oksanen uses the model of diff erent groups of people. Th e humans Rauno Sairinen (1994) to explain three experience wildlife confl ict both directly diff erent and often overlapping reasons through exposure and protective labour, to environmental confl icts. Sairinen and indirectly through various cultural divides environmental confl icts into practices and performances (Knight cognitive confl icts, confl icts of interest, 2000: 8). Th e wider social confl icts and confl ict of values (Oksanen 2003: over large carnivore conservation often 5–36). All these three confl ict categories include confl icts on knowledge systems, are simultaneously present in the case where rural communities feel that they study from North-East Tanzania by Igoe are overruled by urban societies and for and Brockington (1999). that reason they generally resist outside In the modern world, humans infl uence in their aff airs (Linnell et coexist alongside numerous wild animal al. 2005: 164). Th ese people-people species. Th ere are species which try to confl icts are very common in modern avoid the presence of humans as much nature conservation because in addition as possible and remain in their shrinking to local interests, there are also national and evermore remote habitats. On the

62 other hand, there are species who have are also the product of socio-economic adapted to and benefi ted from human- and political landscapes. Th ere has been modifi ed environments and seek to a shift in predator conservation from fi nd subsistence in human spaces. Th is decisions primarily based on competing phenomenon is called commensalism. economic interests to decisions Th e commensal species include many which are based on the integration of wild herbivores and wild predators ecological and socio-political systems. (Knight 2000: 7). Wild predators Competition between people and occasionally prey on domestic livestock predators for shared limited resources and other farm animals. Some bears have has been the primary cause for these even started to feed on the composts and confl icts. Th e two most well-known garbage of households. Foxes have found types of human-predator confl icts across new habitats in the suburban gardens and the world center on attacks on livestock roadsides in Great Britain. In many cases, and competition for game species. Th ese commensal wild animals are benefi cial confl icts usually arise, when the large to humans, at least indirectly or directly home ranges of carnivores overlap with through hunting. Snakes and foxes areas inhabited by humans, and lead to reduce the rodent population, birds kill resource-competition. Habitat loss and harmful insects and large predators kill fragmentation often drives carnivores wild herbivores which would otherwise to expand their home ranges in order cause considerably more damage to to fi nd enough prey. Human hunting of crops if populations were allowed to game may also reduce the availability of increase. However, despite the benefi ts prey for carnivores which can increase of shared territoriality the presence of attacks on livestock. Changes in animal wildlife in human spaces often leads to husbandry have played an important confl ict. Confl ict is typically caused by role in many predation incidents. Th e rivalry between humans and animals anti-predator behaviour has diminished on the material conditions of existence. in most domestic livestock, which makes Human settlement and agriculture has them an easy prey. In parts of Europe, been based on the territorial exclusion of domestic livestock are today no longer wild large mammals throughout history. guarded by the shepherds and these Even today this rivalry is most clearly animals are more vulnerable to carnivore visible among the forest-edge farmers predation. Th e fear of carnivore predation whose labour does not only include of livestock has launched persecutions of agricultural production but also the carnivore, opposition to protected areas protection of that production from the in the vicinity of farms and resistance to threat of wild animals. One of the roles the reintroduction of carnivores to these of African kings was to protect their areas. (Graham et al. 2005; Th irgood et people from predators and other wild al. 2005: 17). Th e reduction of human- animals (Knight 2000: 6–7). Graham predator confl icts on farms requires et al. (2005) studied the literature on changes in the behaviour of the producers confl icts between humans and predators (Treves and Karanth 2003: 1495). around the world. Th ey noticed that Lion attacks on humans are a confl icts between humans and predators common problem in the areas bordering

63 the protected areas in Africa. In Tanzania, or when it is defending a source of food lion attacks are not only confi ned to against intruders. However, a provoked these protected area boundaries but are attack can also take place without widespread throughout the southern aggressive intentions from the human and eastern parts of the country. Lions side, when a person accidentally moves killed 175 people in four regions of too close to an animal. Unprovoked mainland Tanzania between 1989 and attacks are incidents where animals 2004. Th is number of fatalities may be approach and attack people as predators. an underestimate as many attacks are Here the target is a person, not food nor not recorded at all. In Kenya, elephants garbage. Th e unprovoked attacks are killed 221 and predators killed 250 often preceded by stalking or pursuit. people during 1990–1997 (Th irgood Diseases, such as rabies, may also launch et al. 2005: 14). Brian Morris (2000: an unprovoked attack by a sick animal. 36–39) provided a historical outlook According to the study of Naughton- into the man-eating predators in Treves et al. (2003a) in Peru, large Malawi during the fi rst half of the 20th herbivores and carnivores and most century. He writes that man-eating primates are unlikely to live in lions killed hundreds of people there, permanently settled, multiple-land use mostly women. Th is threat of lions zones around national parks if hunting caused people in many villages to stop is not restricted there. Wild animals cultivating and guarding their gardens. encroaching the swidden cultivations and Monkeys and other wild animals were fallows in search of rich food sources are able to destroy their unprotected crops often hunted by people. Th is activity is which fi nally made people to abandon called garden hunting by anthropologists. their villages. Th ey call the wild animal species which Quigley and Herrero (2005: 29– inhabit human-managed ecosystems 33) divide wildlife attacks on humans anthropogenic fauna. In the ideal into two categories, namely provoked scenario, there is an assumed balance and unprovoked attacks. A provoked where hunted animal protein substitutes attack takes place when a person enters crop losses suff ered by the farmers and the individual space of an animal. Th e the mosaics of swidden cultivations and individual space of the animal is the area forests provide a rich habitat for certain around an animal where it reacts to the game species. However, in reality wildlife presence of a human being. A provoked survival in such ecosystems depends attack may also be caused by persons on a variety of conditions including who try to touch, injure or kill the hunting intensity, cultural norms, animal or who have brought with them property rights, forest cover type and food or garbage which attract the animal the size and disturbance-tolerance of the to move closer to the humans. Th e species (Naughton-Treves et al. 2003a). individual space of an animal and the Wildlife pestilence changes over time distance at which the animal reacts on a and is usually relative to changes in land- threat are not constant but change with use. Introduction of permanent farms, situations. An animal can be especially for example, has marked a decline of aggressive when its off spring is present swidden farming pests (Knight 2000: 9).

64 Human-wildlife confl ict management is attacks has, however, decreased since the aff ected by land use structure. Confl ict early twentieth century as tigers killed management is much more complicated over 900 victims in 1908 in British in fragmented landscape mosaics India. One of the reasons for human- where agricultural areas and pasture wildlife confl icts in India has been lands are mixed with forest patches, as habitat and resource depletion. New in the case of human-wolf confl icts in human settlements and farms have been Wisconsin and Minnesota. Th ere is no established around wildlife habitats and clear edge or boundary between wolf as a result the length of the boundary habitat and human land uses, so confl ict between forest and human settlements management is diffi cult when livestock has increased which in turn has caused and poultry operations are located in more frequent contacts between humans forested pastures or in the vicinity of and elephants and tigers, and many forested lands where they overlap with other wild animals. wolf ranges. Dense vegetation in the All in all, it can be summarized forests favours predation on livestock that human-wildlife confl icts around by large carnivores, while proximity the world are basically confl icts about to dense road networks and human exclusion or inclusion of wildlife into a settlements decreases predation (Treves particular landscape or place. Usually, a et al. 2004: 115–116). In a study confl ict takes place when wild animals carried out in Kenya, it was detected cross a line or border between the that hyenas will more likely attack small domesticated and the wild and enter the stock from farms which are located close human sphere uninvited. Diff erent types to the bushy vegetation cover. However, of fences around the farms, as discussed no signifi cant correlation was found above, are a very common technological between the distance to cover and small measure to keep the domestic animals in stock predation by other carnivores, and wild animals out of these human- such as lions or leopards (Ogada et al. controlled places. Any wildlife which is 2003: 1527). found inside the fences will be treated A brief look into the situation in Asia as intruders and will face consequent demonstrates that in general, attacks on actions by the humans. Th e sudden livestock are much more common than appearance of wild animals inside the attacks on people. Sukumar (1998: domesticated sphere causes humans to 305–307) found that tigers and leopards loose total control over the contents and killed 622 heads of cattle near the activities of that place and they usually Bandipur reserve in India between 1974 take immediate actions to regain that and 1983. Every year the elephants kill control by chasing the intruder away from from 165 to 210 people in India. A study the domesticated sphere. Th is is done from southern India shows that 45% by catching the animal and relocating of these killings take place within the it into the wild or simply by killing it. settlements. Tigers killed about 57 people Th e borders between the domesticated annually between 1975 and 1984 in the and the wild are not static but appear Sundarbans of India and Bangladesh. on diff erent scales and are also species- Th e number of human casualties by tiger related. For example, a fox seen in a corn

65 fi eld does not necessarily cause a confl ict intruding wild spider inside the house. between the fox and the farmer, but if Th is brings us to the categorization of that fox enters the courtyard or even the pets, domestic animals and wild animals, hen house, a confl ict will most likely which is discussed later. I use the concept take place. A fascinating element in wildlife in close accordance with that of human-wildlife confl icts is that a non- Lyimo and Ndolezi (1996: 38). Th ey dangerous or non-harmful wild animal, defi ne wildlife as all non-domesticated which crosses the culture-nature border species of mammals, birds, fi sh, reptiles and enters into the human-controlled and amphibians, including their natural space, will usually face similar defensive habitats and environment. I do not, actions by humans as crop-raiding and however, include the natural habitats predatory wild animal intruders do. and environments of wild animals in the When a fl y enters a dining room from concept of wildlife in my study. Th us the the open window and tries to land on way I defi ne wildlife here encompasses a piece of bread on the dinner table, it only the fauna. Another important is very common that everyone tries to concept in this study is culture. I will chase it away from the food or kill it use the concept of culture defi ned by while it fl ies inside the house. A fl y may Anderson and Gale (1992) in Head et al. be perceived as dirty and impure as a (2005: 255) as “a dynamic mix of symbols, contrast to the state of purity maintained beliefs, languages and practices that people in kitchens and dining rooms. Th e fl y create, not a fi xed thing or entity governing represents dirt and disorder, (Douglas humans”. Culture has the ability to 1966), in the house and eliminating is change and adapt to prevailing social a positive eff ort to organise the space and environmental conditions. Head and restore order there. Death is almost et al. (2005) emphasize that culture is certain for a non-poisonous spider which not only transmitted over generations suddenly walks across the living room but is being actively produced by each rug and takes the breath away from any generation. arachnophobic in the same room. In these two examples, the fl y may be killed 4. Th e origins of the nature- because it is considered that it might spread some bacteria into the food stuff culture and human-animal but the spider will also be killed despite divide its harmlessness. Th e confl ict occurrs because the wild spider is inside the New animal geography critically house. I emphasize the word wild here examines and challenges the ontology because some people keep pet spiders, of the human-animal divide. In the next such as tarantellas or Black Widows, fi ve sub-chapters, I will present how the voluntarily in their homes. Th ese pet human-animal divide has originated spiders, just like some other uncommon and changed in time and space through pets like scorpions and snakes are kept in the advancement of civilization. Th e glass terrariums and are seldom taken out distinctions of nature-culture and from these cells. However, a pet spider human-animal spheres are deeply owner may without hesitation kill an attached to Western culture, norms and

66 behaviour. Th e Western ideas of nature- and wrote that hunting has dominated culture and human-animal divide the course of human evolution for were exported to Africa in a process of hundreds of thousands of years and has establishing protected areas for wildlife made Homo sapiens to what it is now. and nature during the colonial era. Th e Agriculture has dominated less than one ideas of nature-culture and human- percent of human history and has not animal divide provide an essential basis resulted in any major biological changes for understanding the current human- to humans during that time. However, wildlife confl icts in Africa. more recent research has questioned the conclusions of Dart, as well as the 4.1. Th e mythical past whole hunting hypothesis, which today is considered to be a fable or a myth. Th e coexistence of human beings and Th e acceptance of the hunting myth wildlife is a phenomenon as old as Homo among the scientifi c community after sapiens. Th e evolution of human beings the World War II was based more on from our anthropoid ancestors took new conceptions of the animal-human place in an environment rich in wildlife boundary than on facts about our and encounters with animals through anthropoid ancestors (Washburn and hunting has raised anthropological Lancaster 1968, cit. Allison 1991: 120; interest for the reasons why the man- Cartmill 1993). apes become humans. Th e hunting Man has been a hunter-gatherer hypothesis, originally introduced by for roughly 99% of his history on Raymond Dart in 1957, was based on Earth (Serpell 1986: 4). Th roughout the idea that Australopithecus africanus, the history of Man, the natural world one of Man’s ancestors, had been a and wildlife have had an infl uence on hunter ape and had adopted human human culture, especially through the characteristics as a result of this. Th e arts, crafts, beliefs, rituals and myths. hunting hypothesis was embraced Hunter-gatherer societies across the by researchers of human evolution, Globe depended on the availability of anthropologists and the mass media from meat, skins, furs, bones and antlers of the 1950s to the mid 1970s. Th e hunting wild animals, which were important raw hypothesis was further developed by materials for survival. Th e perpetuation several anthropologists and zoologists, of the nomadic hunting cultures required especially on the side eff ects of hunting an extensive knowledge on wild animals on our ancestors, such as coordinated and their habitats. Th is knowledge group eff ort, tool use and diff erentiation was integrated with subjective beliefs of sex roles, which were distinctively and values of the natural world, which human characteristics. Th e adaptive shift formed the basis of the culturally in the evolutionary process from ape to conditioned orientation toward nature man was emphasized in neo-Darwinian and wildlife. For the Oglala Sioux of the theory of that time and the hunting North American Plain the bison was not hypothesis fi lled the demand perfectly. only an animal hunted for meat but also Washburn and Lancaster (1968) were believed to have sacred and feminine proponents of the hunting hypothesis aspects. Th e Oglala Sioux respected

67 the healing powers of the bear, which controversial topic among scientists represented the masculine part of nature. and clergy for centuries. Th e Christian Th ey also believed in a metamorphosis of doctrine is a strong proponent of the man and a bear (Brown 1992: 23–33). distinction between humans and animals. Th e Achuar Indians, living in the It emphasizes human dominion over forests of Upper Amazon in Ecuador, nature and supports the transformation practice slash and burn agriculture and of nature. Humans belong to a totally hunt certain wild animals only during separate order, namely culture, while the the day. Th e Achuar have a specifi c non-humans belong to nature. However, taxonomic order for animals and all game the distinctiveness and dominance of animals belong to the category of diurnal humans over nature was questioned animals. Th e only nocturnal animals during the 1500’s. Erasmus, Th omas ambushed are nocturnal curassow and More and Montaigne, for example, rodents, which enter the gardens to eat criticize hunting because it gives manioc tubers. As the hunters return to people certain animal characteristics their homes at the end of the day, the and behaviour (Anderson 1997: 472). wild predators, which pursue their prey Michel de Montaigne spoke out in the in dark replace them. Th e Achuars do mid-16th century in favour of animals not eat certain animal species, which and emphasized that cruelty to animals are considered as the metamorphoses was wrong (Serpell 1986: 128). Th e of human beings or their deceased body works of Francis Bacon focused on the parts. Th ey believe, for example, that the inductive methodology for scientifi c lungs turn into butterfl ies, the shadow inquiry. He also wrote extensively about of a deceased into a brocket deer and the question of man’s control over nature. the liver into an owl. Th e tapir and the In Th e New Atlantis, Bacon (1627) points spider monkey are also considered to be out the aesthetic, existence and the reincarnations and are not consumed scientifi c value of parks and enclosures by the Achuars (Descola 1994: 91–92). where wild animals and birds live. He Th ese geographically diverse examples writes that such places can be used for reveal the various coexistences between viewing rareness and also for dissections human beings and wildlife. Th e rural and trials for discoveries (Glacken 1967: communities in Liwale even today share 471–475). Th e metaphysical foundation beliefs and superstitious elements in their of Western science has been grounded in relationship with wildlife indicating that the work of René Descartes, who in the these elements are remnants of their past fi rst half of the 17th century describes during hunter-gatherer times. Transition animals or beasts as machines without from hunter-gatherers to small scale sentience and moral standing. He overlaid agriculturalists has not yet caused the ancient dualism of reason/nature the total disappearance of traditional with the distinction of mind and body taboos and beliefs among the studied (Anderson 1995: 277). At the same time, communities in the Liwale district. philosophy was slowly detached from Th e separation of humans and theology and the divine origin of nature non-human animals in philosophy started to be questioned by Rationalist and science in general, has been a thinkers. Th e dividing line between

68 humans and animals was not very clear can no longer sustain conservation in before the Age of Enlightenment. Prior the long run. However, in Liwale, for to the early eighteenth century, animals example, the beliefs, myths and bush had even been sued in courts and tried meat still play a part in human-wildlife for crimes in the same way that humans interaction. were. Jeremy Bentham’s Introduction to Animals have had a central role in the principles of Morals and Legislation in African mythology. Th e African hunters 1780 argues against cruelty to animals had a great respect for buff alos because and advocates their humane treatment. of their size and strength. Th e Kiswahili Bentham did not directly question the name of the buff alo nyati refers to a superiority of humans but pointed out man of muscular force, bravery and that cruelty towards animals was immoral endurance. Elephants are often regarded because animals suff er just like humans. as wise chiefs who settle disputes among Concern for animal welfare was widely the other forest creatures. Th e Wachanga adopted by the educated middle-classes in Tanzania believe that the elephant was of Britain at the turn of the 18th century. once a human being who was cheated However, the Catholic Church did not out of his body except for his right arm accept moral responsibilities toward which now operates as a trunk. Th e animals even as late as the middle of the hyena is believed to have the ability 19th century. Anthropocentrism and to carry the spirits of the ancestors to resistance to the Darwinian evolution are visit their relatives as ghosts at night in still widespread in the United States as East Africa. It is also believed that if a scientifi c creationism is taught alongside person is eaten by a hyena, the spirit the theory of evolution at some schools of the dead can be seen through the (Serpell 1986: 129–133). luminous eyes of the animal. Th erefore In many human societies, certain some tribes take their dead into the bush aspects of the human-animal relationship to be eaten by hyenas. In many African have disappeared through time or have religions it is believed that God can been replaced by new aspects during the take the shape of a lion and appear to modernization process. Th e coexistence humans. Th e man-eating lions of Tsavo of man and wildlife in present day in Kenya were believed to be kings and Europe is not so much grounded on queens of ancient times who reappeared beliefs, myths or the importance of meat in Tsavo to defend their territory against acquired from these animals, like it the intruders. Many chiefs and kings used to be in the past. Th e economical, in Africa trace their descent to lions. existence and intrinsic values aspects of Th eir sons, the princes, could change wildlife have mainly replaced these earlier themselves into lions when they went out important aspects of the coexistence. hunting at night. Snakes have a special Sukumar (1998: 303) points out that in status in Africa because it is believed that India the religious taboos used to play they are the incarnations of the spirits an important role in people’s tolerance or carry spirits with them. Th e python towards animals in the past. Today, has had a very important status among human societies are changing rapidly the Nyamwezi of Tanzania. If they met and such traditional attitudes and beliefs a python in their fi elds or in the bush,

69 they greeted it in the same way as they where trees were cut to make open space greeted a king by clapping their hands. for cultivation. Sauer mentioned that If a python entered their house, people the domestication of plants and animals off ered oil and water to it and informed originated in areas with a high diversity the local chief about such a honorable of species. Sauer believed that hunter- visit. Th e chief usually ordered a goat to gatherers had acquired special skills be sacrifi ced to the python. When the that allowed them to start agricultural Nyamwezi found a dead python it was experiments, domestication and breeding buried just like human beings (Knappert of plants and animals. According to 1990: 42–221). Wolch (2002a: 724), Sauer resisted economism in understanding society- 4.2. Domestication and agricultural animal relations. Other geographers revolution who followed the Sauerian tradition emphasized that economic benefi ts Domestication of wild animals launched of animal domestication were not as a huge shift in the relationship between important as the religious motivations humans and animals. Th e birth of for taking animals into the human agriculture and animal husbandry sphere. launched a shift away from traditional In agricultural societies, domestic hunting and gathering in the human animals, crops and other farm products societies. Th e egalitarian relationship reduced the dependency on wildlife of the hunter and the prey animals resources, although wildlife provided disappeared with the advent of important protein subsidy during the domestication. Archaeological evidence times of bad harvest or drought. In has shown that the fi rst wild animal Europe about 600 BC, the Celtic peoples species to make the transition from wild were small farmers who hunted wildlife, to domestic was the wolf in the Near such as elks and boars, but mainly for East about 12,000 years ago. Soon after sport and training for warfare. Th ey the domesticated wolves, which are the mainly used domestic animals for food, ancestors of the dog, sheep and goats sacrifi ce and rituals. Th e Celtic legends were also domesticated by catching contain tales of animals with superhuman their wild ancestors and bringing them wisdom or the ability to communicate into close contact with humans. Cattle with gods and humans. Shape-changing and pigs were being raised in parts of and metamorphosis from human to Asia about 9,000 years ago. By 2000 animal form are a common thread in the BC all the important domestic plants early Celtic tales. Th e Celtic people had and animals had been domesticated many Gods, which were the mediators (Serpell 1986: 4–5). According to between humans and animals and could Sauer (1969), agriculture emerged take the animal form whenever they among sedentary communities which wished to do so (Green 1992). Th e were not suff ering from shortage of Hellenistic period between 323 BC food but lived at a comfortable margin and 146 BC was one of the periods in above the subsistence level. He claimed Western civilization when the contrast that agriculture began in wooded land, between natural and cultural landscapes

70 was the sharpest. Th e large size of many archeological sites in Europe to describe Hellenistic cities and the profusion the organization of life of the Neolithic of urban life increased the distinction Man. Th e built forms of the excavation between the natural and the cultural in sites revealed a distinction between the poetry and landscape descriptions. Life domus, which was the place where wild in the country was considered as more resources, such as clay, plants and animals natural to man because it was based on were brought in and transformed; and the gifts originally given to man by the gods agrios which lay beyond and contained (Glacken 1967: 32–33). danger and death. Th is distinction Kay Anderson (1997) describes between the inside and outside has how domestication of wild animals has been under constant construction and defi ned the location of both humans and negotiation through human history. Th e animals along the boundary between domestication process has signifi cantly nature and culture. She concludes that aff ected the terminology and concepts the domestication of the wild means which we currently use in the discourse drawing it into the boundaries of the on dualism between culture and nature known and to fi x it into a secure state. and civilization and wilderness. Th e Anderson refers to that Nathaniel Shaler domesticated wild animals were the who wrote about domestication in reference point for distinction of tame the 1890’s and noticed that when the nature, which people make, and the Neolithic peoples began to domesticate nature which was indomitable in the era wild plants and animals some 11,000 before year 300 AD. Th e word culture years ago these people started their in its earliest European use meant to transition beyond the threshold of cultivate or tend crops or animals. barbarism. Th is was an advance of culture Nature which was not cultivated came that separates people from animals in to signify a space of danger and space nature. Domestication was conceived as which was not tame. Andersson (1997) a civilizing activity for the savage men writes that According to Hodder, the and women leading them to a higher walled city of the classical era represented level of perfection. Domestication a space where civility and wilderness enabled the development of pastoral were clearly separated. Domestication and agricultural economies which had has signifi cantly altered the content and enormous impacts on the landscapes construction of space through enclosure and the human-nature relationship. practices. Domestication started a process Domestication was also a process where human activities shifted from where wild animals were brought into a hunting to protection of food sources. human nexus and control away from the Cultivation made animal husbandry wilderness. Domesticated wild animals possible and created spheres where were nurtured and included into the these domesticated animals became cultural practices of humans. Anderson habituated to people and vice versa. also mentions that Ian Hodder who Th e locus of the house became situated locates the distinction between civility within the setting of a more inclusively and wilderness in the Neolithic era at the domesticated nature. Th e domestication dawn of domestication. He used many of animals was integrated into the ideas

71 of human control and improvement of space within a physically and spiritually the wilderness. Th e Cartesian world- untamed forest landscape. However, view with the distinction of mind and the Bantu adapted into this new body further increased the segregation of environment over time and developed humans from animals. Th e conceptual a new tradition where their savanna boundaries between animal and human traditions merged with those traditions were included into the larger Cartesian adopted from other forest-dwelling framework of western dualistic thought. tribes (Köhler 2005: 413–414). As a result, animals were the opposite of humans and placed into the inferior 4.3. Th e wilderness realm of nature which these non-human creatures shared with plants, soils and Th e wild embraces a special place in the stones. Th e idea of improvement, imagined entities of human civilization. adopted by the European states by the Th e hunter-gatherer societies did not mid-eighteenth century, formed an make a distinction between wilderness ethical basis for the transformation of and the rest of the environment. Since nature and reclaiming the frontiers of all land was uncultivated, there was the new world from their wilderness. no division between cultivated and Th is civilizing mission did not only wilderness and therefore all animals focus on nature but was also extended were considered as wild. Wilderness as to the indigenous people of the colonies a social defi nition emerged during the (Anderson 1995: 277; Anderson 1997: agricultural revolution about 10,000 464–481). Wild animals who were years ago. Its usage marked the transition considered useless by the people or which from a hunting and gathering economy tried to compete with them on their own to an agricultural society. Th e English domesticated ground were universally concept wilderness may originate from classifi ed as vermin that needed to be an old English term wildeoren which exterminated. Uncultivated areas, such means wild beasts. Th e wild has been as forests, were seen as bleak and hostile understood as a place which is situated wilderness where dangerous animals outside a historical and geographical and monsters lived and it was the duty realm of civilization. It is a place without of people to tame such areas and bring civilized humans and populated by them under human domination and creatures. Th is image of the wild has control (Serpell 1986: 137). Turnbull’s provided a framework for the spatiality interpretations of oral traditions of the of non-domestic animals, which live Bantu forest-dwellers in central Africa out there in the wild. Wild animals are show signs of culture-nature dualism seen as animate fi gures in uninhabited in the non-Western worldview. Part of landscapes. Such categorical binaries the Bantu oral tradition described their between society and nature, human penetration into the forests from the and animal and domesticated and wild savannas where they had previously were reproduced in the conservation lived. Th ese oral traditions refl ect the discourses in the nineteenth century diffi culties they faced when trying to (Short 1991: 5; Whatmore and Th orne clear and maintain a domesticated 1998: 435–436). Th e Western concept of

72 wilderness originates from the distinction a distinction between the fi rst nature between nature and culture, and from (original, pre-human nature) and the the conquest and transformation of the second nature (the artifi cial nature that wild, not from the perspective of living people erect on the fi rst nature). Cronon in the wilderness itself. Historically, points out that the nature which we wilderness was conceived as an opposite inhabit is never just purely fi rst or of culture, civilization and development, second nature but a complex mix of even as an obstacle to progress in Western both (Demeritt 1994: 176). A similar and Anglo-American societies (Saarinen point of view is represented by Jonathan 2002: 29). Yi-Fu Tuan (1974: 112) Maskit (1998: 266–274) who studied writes that “wilderness is as much a state the impossibility of wilderness through of mind as a description of nature”. He the works of two philosophers, Gilles adds that wilderness can not be defi ned Deleuze and Félix Guattari. Maskit objectively. describes a few characteristics which Th e culture-nature dichotomy is can be used to defi ne wilderness in the not only a central theme in academic classical sense. A place can be classifi ed discourse but has been made tangible as wilderness if it has a certain level of by the process of drawing boundaries purity and remoteness and has no or few between human spaces and nature in visible signs of civilization. Wilderness the name of biodiversity protection. can also be associated with wildness People are evicted from their homes in as the nature in question is considered the forests and other areas with high to be pristine, apart, uncultured and biodiversity values to make way for uncivilized. Wilderness is the other nature. Th ey are asked to move to the of culture, something raw, dangerous other side of the boundary of the nature and unpredictable. It is a place where reserve. Th is kind of boundary-making one may get hurt. Wilderness is often can in fact be a matter of life and death. regarded as a space where the wild things According to Demeritt (1994: 176), are, namely objects and species of wild William Cronon linked the nature- nature. Maskit also provides alternative culture dualism to another binary, ideas of wilderness by using the examples namely the country and the city. Cronon of contemporary ecophilosophical highlights that these two elements are literature, especially those writers who closely intertwined and cannot exist he names as the wilderness constructivist without tensions between them. Cronon camp. Th ese writers do not regard mentions that the ontology of the two is wilderness as something independent based on their diff erence which marks and free but as a human construct. off the place where the city or country/ For the wilderness constructivists, nature is not. Th e city and the country wilderness was not the other of culture are symbolic opposites which we alter but a product of culture, which is with our presence and with the ways formed by the act of naming, marking that we think about them. In addition, or designating spaces. Wilderness can be Cronon displaces the culture-nature considered as a geographically produced dualism and provides stratigraphic human product. According to the works metaphors of surface and depth to make of Deleuze and Guattari, all space in

73 the world is a mixture of smooth and 4.4. Human-animal boundary striated. Smooth space is the space of the nomad who lives outside state control. Th e human-animal boundary is not static Smooth place has a sense of wildness but constantly negotiated. Sociologists in it as it is characterized by openness, have pointed out that human and freedom and unconstrained by laws and animal identities are constructed regulations. Striated space is the space through interaction. Th ey have also of the State and can be characterized shown that the social meaning of the as Newtonian or Cartesian space. It is human-animal boundary is socially and impossible to fi nd a space belonging historically constructed with the concept purely to one category because the of species being one such construction. mixture of smooth and striated spaces Drawing the boundary between humans is unstable and constantly changing and and what are considered animals, is transforming in both directions from an important part of modern human smooth to striated and vice versa. activity (Hobson-West 2007: 27–29, Whatmore and Th orne (1998: 437, 34). In Liwale, the multidimensionality 451) introduce the concept topography of human-animal interaction has aff ected of wildlife to mean that wildlife is and still aff ects the social construction being constructed as an imagined agent of human-animal boundary today. Th e between people and animals, and where distinctiveness of the human-animal wildlife operates in heterogeneous boundary has increased among the locals social networks performed in and after the transition of communities from through multiple places and fl uid hunter-gatherers to shifting-cultivators. ecologies. Whatmore and Th orne use Traditional beliefs are no longer strongly the topography of wildlife to move followed by the youth and the eff ect beyond the familiar utopian space/time of these beliefs on the human-wildlife of pristine wilderness and to describe relationship is about to diminish further and refi gure wilderness as a heterotopic as the modernization process continues space or other space, in accordance with in the rural villages. the original heterotopia developed by Adrian Franklin (1999) mentions Michel Foucault (1967). Th e topological that the human-animal boundary approach opens up the traditional has been dismantled in a shift from spaces of wildlife and brings wildlife modernity to post-modernity. Th e loss of from the exteriority to the multiple distinction between nature and culture spaces and ecologies of performative and the weakening of the human-animal networks. Naughton-Treves (2002: 500) boundary take place in post-modern emphasizes that the nature as a garden societies because it is understood that metaphor is misleading in wildlife humans have the capacity to destroy the conservation because it ignores the planet and therefore animal and human social and ecological conditions outside interests in safeguarding the environment the garden. Wildlife conservation areas are tied up together. Also, the mutual cannot be seen in isolation from the dependency of humans and animals, surrounding realities. especially pets, has signifi cantly increased as animals have become substitutes

74 for love objects and companions to defi ned boundaries with varying degrees some people in post-modern society. of inclusiveness in the discourse of the In addition, there is a growing notion ruddy duck campaign in the United that pure wilderness or nature as such, Kingdom. Th e least inclusive boundary does not exist because everything is the one between two species. Th e around the world is subject to human second and more inclusive boundary control. Th ese notions of post-modern is the boundary between native and society can be seen as characteristics of alien species. Th e third boundary is Western society but cannot be planted the most inclusive one, namely the universally as these appear to ignore boundary between human and non- cultural diff erences (Franklin 1999, cit. human processes or between culture and Hobson-West 2007: 26). nature, respectively. Th ese boundaries Interestingly, one strand of are a part of the human understanding structuralist approach to animal of the world, especially from within symbolism has emphasized the role of conservationist discourse. In this classifying animals in terms of space. discourse the ruddy duck is an alien Here space is understood as being species introduced by humans and is out culturally divided into diff erent spheres, of place and disrupts the natural order in such as land and water. Some species its current habitat which it shares with will become anomalous because they are the conserved white-headed duck. associated with more than one diff erent Since the beginning of the agricultural sphere. Such social understanding of revolution, people have had the need to environmental order makes animals, keep wild and domesticated animals out which are found out of space, pests or of planted fi elds. Th e old metaphor of vermin. Th is anthropological point of nature as a garden eventually brings up an view explains that at least some wildlife image of a spatially divided environment pestilence is connected to boundary- with bounded spaces subject to human crossing behaviour of diff erent spatial control. In this image, wildlife is spheres as much as its economic relocated inside the uninhabited spaces consequences. Th ose species crossing and outside inhabited spaces. Th e idea the spatial boundary are often subjected of created and mutually exclusive spaces to negative symbolism and regarded for people and wildlife originates from as immoral characters, such as thieves the nature/culture dualism in Western or murderers (Knight 2000: 14–16). thought. Nevertheless, wild animals For example, in Sumatra, the wild pig often defy these boundaries and move is regarded as a polluting and an evil inside restricted spaces and thus threaten creature hiding in the surrounding human interests. Th ese border incidents forest, where it continuously competes reveal the limited ability of people to with human beings and threatens keep good animals in and bad animals their cultivated lands. Th ere, forest is out. Th e actions of each gardener and clearly regarded as a non-human space their interplay with the broader social which is uncultivated and threatening and physical landscape shape the type (Rye 2000: 111). Kay Milton (2000: of wildlife surviving in nature and also 234–235) introduces three culturally defi ne the status of these species as pests,

75 game or protected species (Naughton- also attach more human characteristics Treves 2002: 488–490). Animals, such to pets than to any other animals. Pets as wild pigs, elephants, hippopotami are animals which are humanized and and baboons, are considered as problem treated almost like human beings. In animals if they live in the vicinity of the U.S.A. alone millions of pet owners’ agricultural areas. dollars are used for pet welfare. Pets Th e zone between protected areas have day care centers and hotels just like and agricultural land is a complex and humans do. Pet fashion, trimming and dynamic place. Osborn and Hill write pet psychology are growing sectors in that Bell describes the human-animal the pet business nowadays. Sometimes interface as a rolling zone of attrition, wild animals enter the gardens and even in which wildlife is utilized during the houses where pets are kept and attack elimination process. Many protected and kill these companions of humans. areas are unfenced and wild animals are Th ese incidences usually launch a able to move in and out to forage in the strong human-wildlife confl ict. James agricultural areas. Similarly, people are Serpell (1986: 35-62, 101–102) writes able to enter the protected areas to hunt comprehensively on the relations of animals, collect fruits and fallen trees people and their pets using several and graze their livestock. Th e main task examples of diff erent historical periods, of the game guards is to keep the wild ethnic groups and animal species. Pet animals away from the agricultural areas. keeping has been a common activity Diff erent animal species have diff erent among people across the planet for dietary preferences, body size, dexterity about 12,000 years. He points out and food processing capabilities, that pre-historic pet-keeping, such as which make it very diffi cult for the dogs and cats in many hunter-gatherer farmers to fi nd sustainable preventive societies may have paved the way towards measures for all the species which domestication of other animals as well create problems. Th ere exists no single and contributed to the development of management option which would stop animal husbandry and livestock farming. all problem animal encroachment into Serpell’s book describes how pet-keeping the agricultural areas. Diff erent animals on the one hand refl ected a defi nite class have diff erent activity patterns and distinction in human societies over ranging behavior which also infl uences time and how pet-owners on the other the types of crops damaged and the hand were in a risk of being accused seasonality of the crop-raiding (Osborn of sorcery in Britain during a period and Hill 2005: 72–76). from 1560 to 1700. He tries to fi nd an explanation why people keep pets in the 4.5. Pets and humans fi rst place. According to Serpell, Yi-Fu Tuan argues that pet-keeping is based on Pets are an interesting category of a patronizing relationship where people animals. Th ey often share the same space display their abilities to dominate, with humans and enjoy privileges which control and subdue the unruly forces of other animals are not entitled to. Pets are nature. Many researchers have regarded usually named by their owners. People the contemporary popularity of pets in

76 modern industrial societies mainly as Pets are a category of animals a direct product of Western material which belong to the culture side of the affl uence, but Serpell sheds some new nature-culture divide. Although pets are light on this discourse. He shows that physiologically regarded as animals, they when compared with wealthy Western are located in the grey area between the societies tribal societies around the human-animal divide. Recent fi ndings world also share many similar aff ections in cognitive psychology show that and rules towards animals classifi ed animals also have cognitive abilities. as pets. Pets are not eaten or killed by Th ese fi ndings question the whole idea their owners even though some pets may of dualism. Overall, the human-animal belong to species which are classifi ed as divide has become blurred and lost its edible. However, there are diff erences clarity in the shift from modernity to among societies in the classifi cation post-modernity. of animals into edible and non-edible. In Europe, dogs are not eaten because 5. Landscapes of conservation it is considered as a cruel, barbaric and disgusting habit while in some Asian I will now expand the perspective cultures, such as in Korea, Vietnam of my study towards a more holistic and Th ailand, dog meat is considered examination of animals in the changing a delicacy. Serpell uses the horse as an context of human relations with nature. example to reveal diff erences also among I will take a look back at history and Western societies. Horse meat is regularly examine these relations through the eaten in some European countries while concepts of landscape and wilderness. in Britain and in the United States horse- Th e changes in human relations with eating is a taboo. Th ere is a tendency to nature have shaped the ways how interpret pet-keeping in non-Western wildlife has been perceived, managed cultures as only based on practical or and protected in diff erent continents. economical reasons which ignores the Th e Western environmental ideology gratuitous aff ection, desire to protect has largely determined the current and nurture. Serpell provides a reason to human relations with wild nature why dogs and cats are today the most globally, so I will briefl y introduce the common and pets around the world. background of this ideology and show He explains that wolves and wild cats how it has shaped our comprehension possessed particular characteristics, such of landscapes and the formation of the as development of social bonds, the habit national park model. of remaining within one specifi c area and being active during the day-time, 5.1. Religious roots of the conquest which made them suitable and desirable of nature animal companions for humans. Th ese animals also learned to defecate in the Th e widespread environmental changes, gardens and parks outside their homes, especially the increased clearance of which gives humans control over the forests, which took place in Medieval mess they produce. Western Europe in the 11th and 12th

77 centuries, faced resistance and concern the monks in the forests and become their among hunters from the nobility. Th ey helpers. Th ese legends may be based on started to maintain the remaining forests events, where monks reclaimed deserted at the expense of poorer people who agricultural lands using feral animals wanted to cut the forests and increase the and redomesticated them. Th ere are also area of arable land. Th e Mediterranean legends on the friendship of monks with and the Chinese cultural landscapes were wild animals, such as deer and wolf. simultaneously created by clearing the Th e monastic enclaves in the forests forests, building irrigation systems and also provided asylums for wild animals canals, driving back wild animals and hunted by the royalty. Th e Christian lore causing the extinction of some larger is full of stories about saints and their predators. Many of the landscape changes harmonious life with wild animals, for were not yet permanent or progressively example Saint Mark and Saint Jerome expanding during the Middle Ages. with their lions and Saint Euphemia Th e main objective of the time was to with her lion and her bear. However, maintain the cultural landscapes against wild animals were also hunted in the the powerful recuperative forces of forests owned by the abbeys to supply nature. Th e eff ects of Christianity on the the monks with leather and skins for relationship between humans and nature bindings (Glacken 1967: 289–294, 303, were strong, although economical, 308–313). Th is classical perspective on social and technological factors should wilderness predominated the Western not be underestimated either. In the world until the end of the 18th century Middle Ages, it was strongly believed when the romantic perspective started that landscapes which formerly were to gain more attention. In the classical frightful wastelands occupied by wild perspective on wilderness the activities beasts could become pleasant places of of human societies conferred meaning residence for humans. Man was seen as to space and brought nature from the God’s helper in fi nishing the creation darkness of the past into the light of by transforming the nature into a fertile the future. Wilderness was a place Garden of Eden before the Fall. Monks outside the society. It was regarded as a often built their monasteries deep in fearful place, a wasteland which had to the forests where they cleared patches be brought into salvation by mankind. of forests into tillage. Th ese improved For the classicists, the conquest of lands which were previously deserted the wilderness manifested human or inhabited became places of spiritual achievement. Th e romantic perspective perfection for the monks. Monks also on wilderness emphasized the purity cut down the sacred groves and sacred of untouched spaces and their deep trees which were the centers of pagan spiritual signifi cance for the humans. worship. Gadgil and Vartak (1998: 85) Th e romantics were more pessimistic point out that the sacred groves and about human conquest of the wilderness associated cults had their origins in the and they wanted to save these spaces hunting-gathering stage of the society. from human caused degradation. Th e biographies of saints often tell of For them the conquest of wilderness legends in which wild animals appear to was a measure of the fall from grace

78 (Short 1991: 6). Th e romanticists valued woods. Th is concept originates from the escapistic and isolating views of nature, Latin word silva, which means wood. namely the virginal and wild (Lehtinen Fear of wilderness dominated European 1991: 63). attitudes up to the nineteeth century. Th is Th e rational land use philosophy in fear was not only directed at forests but John Evelyn’s (1664) Sylva or a Discourse also towards other inaccessible parts of on Forest Trees, which is considered a the landscape, such as mountains. Both classic in the history of conservation, spaces were regarded as homes of demons has strongly infl uenced the history of and gods. Fear of wilderness was found conservation in Europe. He realized that in most societies where a sky-centered landscape changes very often resulted religion had replaced earth-bound from the continuous deforestation and animism practiced by many hunter- appealed for proper understanding gatherer societies. When Christianity of the relationship between forestry, replaced animism, the uncultivated agriculture, grazing and industry. Evelyn’s wilderness became a place to fear. Th is philosophy supported the creation of fear was also directed towards those useful and pleasant landscapes. Th e humans and animals which lived in the French Forest Ordinance of 1669 was a wilderness. Th ey were not considered pioneering work in forest legislation in part of the normal social order. People Europe. Th is revolutionary ordinance were also afraid of being exposed to the placed severe limitations on the use infl uence of wilderness, which as wild of forests. It regulated the cutting and and untamed brought them into contact collection of wood from the forests and with the wild unconscious. Wilderness also prohibited grazing of livestock there. was believed reveal the dark underside of Restrictions also concerned charcoal humanity. In addition to these causes of making, uprooting of trees, furnaces, fear, there were also more solid reasons and removal of acorns and other forest to fear the wilderness, such as dangerous products. Burning trees and removing wild animals which could attack people their bark also became forbidden and their livestock in frontier settlements activities in the forests. Th e ordinance (Short 1991: 6–9). also set a certain radius around the forests inside which it was prohibited 5.2. Social construction of to build huts. Huts within this circuit landscapes or border were demolished (Glacken 1967: 485–493). Th ese new approaches Landscapes are important parts of our to forests marked a clear transition life world. Landscape is a concept which in attitudes toward wilderness. In has been extensively studied and widely traditional agrarian societies large tracts and loosely used as a concept in human of forest were regarded as wilderness, the geography, where it has been given home of evil spirits. People living in the several diff erent defi nitions. Carl Sauer forests were considered as uncivilized (1938: 26–30, 48) defi nes landscape as and marginalized elements of the “an area made up of a distinct association society. Th ese people were called savages of forms, both physical and cultural.” which literally meant belonging to the He says that geography is based on the

79 reality of union between physical and particular angle of vision and through a cultural elements of the landscape. He special fi lter of values and beliefs”. Th us also writes that landscape has an organic landscapes can be understood as symbolic quality and it means more that just an environments which humans create by actual scene viewed by an observer. conferring a culturally related meaning Sauer highlights the individuality of the on nature and the environment. Th e landscape and its relationship to other physical characteristics of a landscape landscapes. Th e content of a landscape is may be the same but that very landscape determined by personal judgment, often carries multiple symbolic meanings based on anthropocentric valuations. for diff erent people fi ltering through People select those contents of landscape their personal and cultural values and which are or may be of use. Sauer sees beliefs. Landscapes refl ect people’s culture as a geographic expression, such cultural identities and self-defi nitions. as the imprint of the works of humans Greider and Garkovich also write that upon the area. As a result, Sauer argues postmodern theorists, such as Edward that there is no place for a nature- Soja, point out that space is not a given culture dualism of landscape. However, but socially constructed and it refl ects he points out that geography has never and confi gures being in the world. Th e disregarded the subjective aesthetic symbols and meanings in landscapes are qualities of landscape. negotiated, renegotiated and imposed Th e concept of landscape has been on other groups, who encounter those defi ned in various ways in cultural places, through the use of power. Th e geography. Since the 1980’s, the concept of landscape can be used to cultural turn in geography increased interpret confl icts within communities emphasis on the study of culture and or diff erences between ethnic groups simultaneously placed less emphasis with regard to the natural environment. on the study of economics and politics Head et al. (2005: 252, 257) write that in human societies. Th is has also all people have a culture in which they aff ected the defi nitions of landscape. are socialized into think about land and Cosgrove and Daniels defi ne landscape natural species in particular ways. Th ese “as a cultural image, a pictorical way of diverse cultures of nature continuously representing, structuring and symbolizing lead to confl ict over land management surroundings” (Cosgrove and Daniels decisions and give birth to contested 1988:1, cit. Widgren 2004: 457). Hard landscapes. Greider and Garkovich defi nes landscape as a cultural landscape (1994: 1–15) mention that changes which is “the unique-individual regional in the environment which cannot be result of the encounter between man and incorporated into the everyday life world nature” (Hard 1982 cit. Leimgruber or that threaten access to valued resources 1991: 44). Greider and Garkovich will require a renegotiation of the self- (1994: 1–15) defi ne landscapes as defi nition and its relationship with the “the symbolic environments created by environment among the members of human acts of conferring meaning to the group. People often use traditional nature and the environment, of giving the symbols and beliefs as an interpretative environment defi nition and form from a framework within which they construct

80 meanings for these changes and new as a scenery builds on the cultural technologies. image, a picturesque and symbolized Milbourne (2003: 158–159) describes representation of nature and environment. nature as a social nature which is Th is concept often links landscapes with reproduced through the social relations environmental perception or “a way of of production. Meanings which are seeing”. Landscape as an institution is attached to nature originate from based on an idea of territory where land cultural representations and social is governed through customary law and practices. He writes that nature rules. Here landscape is understood has become closely connected with as a lived-in territory which is formed discourses on countryside and rurality. through “a way of communicating, a way In such discourses, the countryside has of acting”. Th e third concept, landscape started to represent the spatialization of as a resource, describes it as a resource nature. Th ese constructed spaces of the which is transformed by labour. Land countryside represent transitional spaces is not only a resource for biological between the city and wilderness where production but also for the production the landscape, animals and indigenous of capital. I will use and defi ne landscape people are expected to function and in this thesis according to these three express themselves according to the interrelated concepts. To me, landscape pastoral myth of rural idyll. Williams is not just constructed through a way of (2002: 123–124) emphasizes that the seeing but also through a way of acting, meaning of socially produced landscapes experiencing and producing. is anchored in history and culture Lehtinen (2006: 118) in his study and is thus continuously created and on the Finnish landscapes lists three key recreated through social interactions. elements of landscape formation. First, In the social construction of wilderness landscapes provide a spatial framework landscapes, there is an interplay between by which the familiar environment is representing the meaning and values for identifi ed as a territory under domestic landscape and managing that landscape control. Second, landscapes are a according to these meanings and values. tool for (re)producing a distinction Confl icts are inevitable when several between the familiar and unfamiliar. diff erent communities and stakeholders Here landscapes are formed in a process off er multiple representations and values of socioenvironmental exclusion and to a single place or landscape. All these inclusion. Th ird, landscape identifi cation diff erent meanings cannot be reduced to provides a basis for self-identifi cation any single form. Leimgruber (1991: 44) and cultural diff erentiation. Th ese three points out that the concept of landscape key elements of landscape formation must be considered from both a spatial can also be identifi ed in south-eastern and a temporal point of view. Tanzania where this study was carried Widgren (2004: 459) identifi es out. three interrelated landscape concepts Gerber (1997) writes that language, in modern cultural landscape studies. metaphors and categories are very Th ese landscape concepts are scenery, important for the social construction institution and resource. Landscape of nature but the relationship between

81 them and nature has not been studied been applied to the analysis of landscapes widely. She brings up Lefebvre’s search by some geographers, such as David Ley. for a theory of the social production of Demeritt mentions that the metaphor of space where the unity of physical, mental landscape as a text excludes non-human and social fi elds is of crucial importance. actors from the production of landscape. Gerber shows that these three fi elds are Th is approach views landscape as a black inseparably linked and interact through space that only humans can read and complex processes. Her analysis using write upon. Demeritt introduces the this triad revealed that the Cartesian ideas of Denis Cosgrove who analyzes dualism between nature and society, the history of landscape as a way of mind and matter or reason and emotion seeing. Cosgrove acknowledges the does not exist at the concrete level but dualism of landscapes by combining has been very infl uential at the abstract the aff ective engagement of people level. Palang et al. (2004: 5) point out with nature scenery through art and the that landscapes are full of borders, which objective observation of real phenomena can be interpreted as dividing lines visible in nature. Cosgrove’s work raises between diff erent territories both in a important criticism of geographers’ uses human and a natural sense. of landscapes as a central disciplinary Demeritt (1994: 164–179) reviews concept. Geographers search for the works of environmental historians objective knowledge of landscapes and cultural geographers in order to is interrupted by the aff ective senses fi nd mutually accepted metaphors of and emotions of landscapes which nature. He fi nds out that these fi elds dissolves these claims into individual of science occupy alternate poles subjectivity. Sally Eden (2001) points of the nature-culture dualism. Th e out that if nature is categorized as a environmental historians emphasize merely culturally constructed object that nature is an autonomous agent and not as a concrete whole under while cultural geographers view nature threat, environmental problems can be as a cultural product. Environmental viewed as fi ctional outcomes of these historians tend to represent the agency constructions which do not have to be of nature as autonomous from cultural solved or prevented. She also states that understandings and metaphors. Th ey the postcolonial debate on culture and believe that there are no landscapes nature is highly Americanized and as a which are completely cultural but result it does not pay enough attention all landscapes originate from the to how nature and the environment are interactions between nature and culture. diff erently perceived, classifi ed and used For cultural geographers, landscapes by diff erent groups of policy outcomes are not something which already exist across diff erent continents. I will not go out there autonomously waiting to be any further into the details or defi nition discovered and represented without of the social construction of nature cultural infl uences. Demeritt (1994) because it has been extensively discussed criticizes the cultural geographers’ appeal by Demeritt (2002), who made a to the hermeneutics of the anthropologist distinction between the conceptual Cliff ord Geertz whose text metaphor has and the material social construction of

82 nature. I have tried to adopt an approach rejected any romanticization of the in this dissertation which regards nature landscape. Th eir idea of conservation was as both a real material actor and a socially based on the sustainable management constructed object. of renewable natural resources. Parallel to the farmers’ views of the countryside 5.3. National park model and the in England, which over-estimated the wilderness ideal management for sustainable production over aesthetic values, the economic Since the colonial times, the European conservationists used similar expressions way of seeing the landscape and ideas in the United States. Aesthetic of nature has perpetuated the process of conservationists or Transcendentalists, nature conservation in Africa, Asia and such as Horace Albright, Stephen South-America. Roderick Neumann Mather, Ralph Waldo Emerson and John (2000: 117) writes that environmental Muir, emphasized the recreational values conservation in Africa has its own of wilderness and the aesthetic pleasures unique policies deeply rooted in it provided for people. Th ey believed colonial history. Wildlife conservation in natural harmony in an unspoiled in colonial Tanganyika was built up landscape. Conservation was based on on strong governmental control and a concern for the intrinsic value of wild policies which fundamentally changed species and nature. Th e non-market settlement, land and natural resource values, aesthetics and recreation values use patterns. International conservation provided a strong justifi cation of the NGOs had a strong infl uence on the establishment of wilderness reserves in formulation and implementation of these the United States (Allison 1991: 96–98; policies in Tanganyika. International Adams and Hulme 2001: 14). Th is has conservationists encouraged colonial also been the dominant background to governments to establish national parks wilderness conservation in sub-Saharan in Africa. Neumann (1995) argues Africa. that the English landscape tradition Th e Naturdenkmal movement in was transported to East Africa through Europe in the early twentieth century colonialism and the nature aesthetic promoted the protection of valued underneath supported the adoption and attributes of European landscapes. formulation of the national park model Hugo Conwentz, who was the visionary there. Th e national park model also of this movement, believed that nature refl ected the infl uences from the United monuments had to be protected because States of America, where the debate they were places where people could and practice of wilderness conservation learn to appreciate their homelands. was supported by two diff erent groups He considered certain landscapes as in the late 19th century. Economic natural monuments which needed to be conservationists, such as Chief Forester commemorated (Jepson and Whittaker Gilbert Pinchot, highlighted the 2002: 135–136). idea of sustainable production in the Th e characteristics of contemporary management of wilderness. Th ey believed landscapes have been formed through in the tradition of good husbandry and diff erent natural processes and human

83 activities throughout the course of time. universalizing perspectives emphasized Landscapes are constantly changing but the role of nation states, placeless national landscape representations and discourses society, universal rights and individual tend to maintain and reproduce sovereignty. Nature was understood cultural values and political power- as a mechanical object which could be relationships. Landscape discourses can reduced into individual parts (Williams be understood as defi nitional struggles 2002: 120–121). over cultural heritage. Heritage is the Th e foundations of the British primary instrument for shaping local countryside ideal lie in landscape representations of place (Graham et al. aesthetics, which started to develop 2000: 204). A circuit of the production in the turmoil of the urban-industrial of cultural heritage and three diff erent revolution. In the second half of the ways of understanding the landscape eighteenth century, the infl uences in this process is described in fi g. 15. of romanticism brought an artistic Landscapes are not neutral images of and philosophical shift in values by the earth but instruments to represent encouraging people to return to nature a region or space through diff erent and seek identity and consciousness interpretations at both institutional and there. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was one communal levels. Additionally, personal of the philosophers of the time who images of landscape may contain both believed that a human should live a life descriptions of what the landscape is like, which was natural. He stated that living and descriptions with certain imperative in the natural state was the prerequisite on how the landscape should be (Nagy for the perfect human society. Th is and Kumpulainen 2006: 16–18). Th e romantic view of nature appealed to historical roots of the Anglo-American the middle-class who experienced the countryside and landscape ideal have problems of industrialism. Th e European been discussed in many previous studies, romantic tradition also infl uenced North such as Bunce (1994), Jackson (1994), American art, literature and philosophy. and Neumann (1998) so I will not go Th e nature ideal of the American into the details here. Th ere were two romanticism was represented to the important philosophical shifts, namely public through the picturesque scenes romanticism and transcendentalism, of untouched wilderness by Th omas which have aff ected the formation of the Cole and through the books of James late-eighteenth century landscape ideal Fenimore Cooper. Cooper’s fi ve novel and also infl uenced the establishment chronicle Th e Leatherstocking Tales tells of protected areas in the U.S.A. and a life story of the noble backwoodsman in Africa. At the beginning of the Nathaniel Bumppo, who lived in 18th century, the Enlightenment harmony with the forest and adapted fostered signifi cant changes in science, to both European and Native American technologies, societies and in the cultures. Following the American interpretation of nature in Europe. romanticism, the spirituality of nature Th e industrialized and market-oriented was highlighted by the transcendentalist economic order in the modern world philosophy and its practitioners, is the legacy of the Enlightenment. Its such as Henry David Th oreau. Th ey

84 Figure 15. Th ree ways of understanding the landscape in the production of cultural heritage. Reproduced from (Nagy and Kumpulainen 2006: 17). saw nature as the source of spiritual de-contextualized local and particular fulfi llment through personal experience. meanings in universalizing discourse. For Th oreau, self-reliance, simplicity For example, indigenous meaning of and living in close contact with nature a wilderness is often marginalized in were virtues which fi nally led to true these discourses. Th e abstraction process freedom. However, the growing public also decreases the highly subjective interest in wilderness was based more experience of place and moves toward on the creation of pleasant sceneries and a more public, external and objective their picturesque values than on higher experience of that place. In the modern personal spiritual virtues of nature. world, globalization has continued to Th e appreciation of scenic values of the destabilize place meanings and create British countryside increased in the late confl icts over the management of nineteenth and early twentieth centuries wilderness landscapes. Nowadays, place when many workers left rural areas and meanings are increasingly created and moved to towns (Bunce 1994: 10, 26– produced in a spatially de-contextualized 28, 35). world of mass consumption and Designating places for wilderness, communication. Th e social construction where people could escape modern of meaning is not a discrete process civilization, refl ected a romantic critique but involves interalia several social of Enlightenment views on nature. interactions structured by interest groups, Preservation of nature for its ecological administrative procedures, law and values rather than for its commodity planning processes. It is often a question values can also be interpreted as a critique about power relations (Williams 2002: of the Enlightenment. Th e process of 122, 124–130). In geography, places abstraction, which science has inherited have been treated rather diff erently if from the era of the Enlightenment, has one compares the scientifi c discourses

85 of the 1950’s with those of the late nature. Landscape was divided into two 1970’s. In the early 1950’s, places were diff erent spheres, practical and aesthetic. increasingly considered as abstractions By the end of the nineteenth century, two rather than actualities, while by the late new types of landscapes emerged with the 1970’s many geographers returned to new division of labour. Rationality and treat places as experienced actualities. profi t ruled in the productive landscape In the early 1980’s, the role of arts and while recreation and contemplation humanities became central in geography. occupied the consumptive landscape. Humanistic geographers focused their African people and nature were regarded interest in creative arts and literature in as representatives of a romanticized studying the sense of place (Ley 1985). wilderness or an earthly Eden by the By the 1990’s, places became playgrounds arriving European colonists who had of postmodern consumerism, stylishness traveled a long way from the decadent and social status. Philosophies of place metropoles. Th e Edenic landscape are closely related to place making, accommodated African people, regarded which consists of three consecutive as noble savages who were closer to steps, the act of marking the place, the nature than to civilization. Preserving act of naming the place and the act of both wild natural landscapes and noble narration. A place becomes visible and savages was an integral part of the designated when it is marked. Marking European national park mission in the brings order to the wilderness. When colonies. National parks were established a place is named, it actually means a to represent the remnants of the pre- symbolic transformation of a space into European landscape. a place with a history. Narration, in turn, National parks, nature reserves gives signifi cance and identity to a place and game reserves found in diff erent (Smith et al. 1998: 1–4). parts of the world today all carry a Th e social construction of landscapes legacy of certain cultural perspectives has defi ned the content and activities which date back to the late nineteenth of protected areas in most of Eastern and early twentieth centuries (Jepson Africa. Natural landscapes are regarded and Whittaker 2002: 130–131). For as cultural constructions, which have example, the development of the a long tradition in pictorialized and national park concept in Yellowstone artistic representations of landscapes refl ected certain characteristics of the in European history. Th e national park picturesque European landscapes, such ideal has been adopted from the cultural as the absence and removal of human practices of pictorialized nature in the labour, the separation of the observer nineteenth century Anglo-American from the land and the spatial division of culture, where the American romantic production and consumption (Neumann constructions of the wilderness and the 1998: 15–24). Environmental historians English aesthetic tradition of nature view conservation as a social movement, merged into one. One of the typical which develops and maintains values features in European landscape painting in society regarding the human-nature from the eighteenth to the nineteenth relationship. Most of the social values century was the absence of labour in in conservation can be regarded as elitist

86 because these values have surfaced from a are meaningful only to those people small group of infl uential well-educated who experienced them. Place-relative opinion makers in international lobbying values are therefore not often part of networks (Jepson and Whittaker 2002: the market analyses or environmental 130–131). policies developed by outsiders. Policies After the Second World War, there was and natural resource management a signifi cant shift in Western landscape projects which ignore local variation values. Landscapes of natural resource and local experience of place will not production gave way to landscapes of be successful in protecting biological aesthetic consumption. Local inhabitants or cultural diversity. Th e competing who were still mainly involved in the constructions of nature and the rural natural resource economy had to start to environment by ex-urban incomers and adjust local industries to the landscape farmers in rural areas represent the key image that suited the exurbanites’ and components of social confl ict in the primarily the urban aesthetics of pristine countryside today. Th e incomers do not nature. Th ese aesthetic environmental necessarily share similar knowledge of ideologies were not obstacles to capitalist the traditional elements of rurality, such accumulation in the rural areas. Th ese as farming and hunting, with the local ideologies formed the core of a new farmers. Th e incomers may have adopted kind of capitalism based on tourism a more complex relationship between and leisure industry (Walker 2003: 17). nature and society where farming and In the modern world, more and more hunting constitutes a less signifi cant people live in urban areas and in cities element of rurality (Milbourne 2003: where they are separated from the process 170). Th e majority of human-wildlife of rural production. Cities are centers of confl icts take place in the countryside power, both fi nancially and legislatively, where the natural and cultural spaces where decisions on the future of rural are in close proximity. Th ere are also areas are made. In the post-productive human-wildlife confl icts in urban areas, countryside, the symbolic values have but they are not as common as confl icts now a supremacy over the material values in rural areas. I will next examine some of rural landscapes. People, who are no elements of the countryside which make longer engaged with farm production wildlife conservation a challenging task or forestry have no bonds to rural areas, there. seem to encounter the rural environment more and more as a commodity. Th ey 5.4. Countryside as a stage for often regard the rural landscape as wildlife conservation a marginal place with nostalgia and fascination. A sense of place is important Conservation of biodiversity is one of in understanding environment as a the many functions that rural areas lived in place (Soini 2004: 83–86). have in the future. Th e successful Norton and Hannon (1998: 127–131) implementation of this function in rural describe that sense of place values, areas is diffi cult because conservation, especially place-relative values, such as especially of large mammals, whose conditional transferrability and locality, presence demands the adaptation of

87 local communities and their livelihoods. has been created and shaped by violent Th is may be rather diffi cult because changes, but also a sense of harmony, rural people’s threshold of tolerance which does not tolerate such changes. towards wildlife damage changes over Traditional ways of living and doing, time and was recently lowered due to which are indications from our past still the modernization of rural lifestyles constitute the core of the countryside through the use of pesticides and idyll. Th e countryside is considered as other new technological inputs. Th ese threatened because the reality of living in thresholds are particularly low in areas the countryside often disappoints people where large mammals have been absent when they compare it to the images for many years and are now returning. associated with childhood memories. Th e emotional factor has an important Th us harmony, nature and tradition are role in the perception of wildlife damage paradoxes, lies and hopeless ambiguities (Fourli 1999; Knight 2000: 9–10). in relation to the concept countryside. Large mammals are a valuable resource, It is a typically complex ecological which could be utilized through eco- concept, which involves humans and tourism. Local farmers` image of rural animals, as well as observers and would- nature, countryside and its functions be controllers. Protected islands have are often relatively diff erent from those been formed in this complex landscape of conservationists, who want more to preserve the variety of places and the large mammals to roam in rural areas. perceptions of diversity and tradition, Large mammals represent the image which are so meaningful for us in the of untamed and wild nature, echoes image of countryside (Allison 1991: 98– from the past and a desire to preserve 101). a piece of wilderness in rural nature. Rural people play the most central Higher densities of freely roaming large role in the conservation of large mammals do not easily fi t into farmers’ mammals in rural landscapes because modern, cultural image of rural nature, they are the ones who have to bear the whose livelihood is based on the control costs of living with these animals and of natural processes to achieve the best should consequently benefi t from doing productive results. so. Th ey manage forests and pastures, Th e concept countryside is a very which are also wildlife habitats. Without complex one. It means diff erent things their participation and commitment, to diff erent people. Th e countryside wildlife conservation is not sustainable can be understood as a combination in the long run. Many previous studies of space, nature, ecological complexity support this view, (see Western 1989, and food production. In addition, there Wells et al. 1992, Munasinghe and must also be other elements present to McNeely 1994; IIED 1994). Local make the countryside fi t our images. attitudes towards wildlife have become Th e temporal dimension of countryside more important in modern wildlife includes the historical complexity where management and the human dimension shifts in agriculture, infrastructure and is a central part of sustainable wildlife livelihoods have left their marks on the management planning. However, surface of the earth. Th e countryside Baland and Platteau (1996) argue that

88 one should not adopt a too romantic nature as an immediate object of action, view of the ability of traditional societies not just as a manifestation of natural to manage their natural resources. beauty. Not only fi elds but also forests Th ey point out many examples of pre- are productive landscapes for rural colonial societies who hunted some people. Th e forests provide logs, berries wildlife species excessively and almost and game for local consumption. Th e caused their extinction. In some cases, aesthetic valuation of nature is quite a locals believed in supernatural forces, new phenomenon, a product of modern which provided them with enough society. Chavez et al. (2005: 524) write wildlife to eat and hunt; so, people that rural people often have utilitarian themselves were unable to regulate the attitudes towards nature because most of amount of wildlife by changing their their occupations are nature-extractive. behavior. Baland and Platteau also point Th ese utilitarian attitudes may spread out that many traditional management across rural communities through practices may rather be a coincidental mechanisms based on shared longing than intentional way to protect natural of rural lifestyles. According to Martin resources. Some practices were originally Holdgate (1993), the ethical views of developed to maintain the local political conservation cause confl icts because and social order, not to protect natural urbanized people have lost their rural resources from excessive use. Nummelin roots and their attitudes towards wildlife and Virtanen (2000: 224) mention have changed, making them unhappy that conservation of biodiversity is with any commercial use of wild species. seldom the primary driving force of the Th is growing dichotomy separates traditional institutions responsible for people with diff erent lifestyles, especially protected forests. It is rather a side eff ect dwellers in urban and rural societies. Th e of religious beliefs. denial of markets for wildlife products Th e dichotomies of urban/rural would erode conservation because it and conservationists/rural residents eliminates the socio-economic value are common in environmental and of wildlife and hence the incentive conservation debates. Th e public to maintain it (Holdgate 1993 cit. image of the traditional dissimilarities Chavez et al. 2005). Th e international between the attitudes of rural residents anti-hunting lobby concerning the and urban dwellers (conservationists) consumptive use of wildlife in Tanzania towards wildlife is quite rough and one- and elsewhere in Africa shows that, the sided. Th e starting point is that the rural rural lifestyles of African communities peoples’objectives and motives of action and their relationship with wildlife are not are almost entirely economical. In reality, truly understood by the argumentative the confl icts of wildlife conservation are Westerners who mainly live in urban very complex and based on social as areas in their home countries. well as economical issues. According to Rannikko (1995: 78) many cultural theorists, such as Th eodor W.Adorno, pay attention to the functional approach to nature of rural people. Th ey regard

89 5.5. Hunting and conservation opposed hunting and tried to restrict it mainly because it was believed to expose Th e changes between human relations certain instincts which might lead to an and wild nature are best epitomized by evolutionistic throwback in humans. our attitudes towards and relationship However, the utilitarian arguments in with hunting. Th is sub-chapter will favour of hunting were very strong. introduce the close relationship between Hunting was not only regarded as a hunting and nature conservation, which pleasurable free-time activity but it also is not so well-known among the general provided food, helped to control wild public. Th e early conservationists animals which damaged crops and killed in colonial Africa were hunters who domesticated animals, and it provided wanted to safeguard the availability of skins, fur and hides for gloves and book game through the establishement of bindings for the monks. Hunting was game reserves. Th ey did not only hunt very popular among the royal, noble and wild animals for status or leisure but also ecclesiastical landowners who practiced to provide trophies for the collections of it in their forests. Th ese powerful groups natural science museums and private of people opposed deforestation and collectors. Hunting is also an activity simultaneously changed the forest which is carried out to maintain order in landscape by building wide roads across domesticated spaces through regulating the forests to make their hunting easier. the number of encroaching and Th e role of hunting in forest conservation proximate wild animals. Hunting is often is emphasized by the historians of carried out in rural areas to prevent crop European forestry (Glacken 1967: 346– damages or to control the number of 347). predators which may prey on livestock. Natural history and hunting were In rural areas, hunting has also provided fashionable preoccupations amongst a source of animal protein to substitute the elite societies of Europe and North bad harvests or lack of livestock. America in the nineteenth century. Th ese Th e relationship between hunting two popular enthusiasms acted as the main and agriculture dates back to Middle motivations for the protection of nature Age Europe when a shift away from the at that time. Th e European exploration preservation of wildlife to the preservation in the tropics, especially in the colonies, of crops and domesticated animals took contributed huge amount of specimens place. Wild animals became a threat to natural history collections in Europe. to farms and their livestock. Hunting Hunting which was a popular sport was a sensitive issue in the Middle among the aristocracy, was believed to Ages because it was closely related to be a source and a test of manly qualities, theology. Th e Christian Church and its such as courage, physical strength and doctrine emphasized friendship with shooting skills. Opening new frontiers animals and requested its members to in North America, Africa and Asia also refrain from cruelty towards animals. provided great opportunities for the Th e biographies of the Christian saints European hunters to hunt big game can be seen as a form of protests against such as buﬀ alos, elephants, rhinoceros killing of wild animals. Th e Church and crocodiles. Charles Darwin’s (1859)

90 revolutionary book Origin of Species the Empire, whose members also were brought new perceptions to the human- in high positions in society. Members of nature relationship and launched the these two organisations participated in formation of a new worldview. Th e idea the Roosevelt-Smithsonian Institution of humans as divine creations, which Expedition to East-Africa in 1909–1910 were lifted to a higher status above all where they hunted 13,000 animal other creatures, was replaced by the specimens for the natural history realisation of kinship with animals. collections. Th e leading zoologists of that Th is new worldview was translated time believed that there was not much into social values and public policy hope left for saving African wildlife goals concerning the establishment of from extinction making it necessary protected areas and wildlife legislation to hunt a large number of animals to by a group of well-educated and complete the collections of the natural politically powerful elites, who were history museums before the animals enthusiast hunters themselves. Cruelty disappeared. It was believed that the to animals and human-induced wildlife rapid human population growth, access extinction were seen as the negative to guns by native African hunters and consequences of the earlier human- rinderpest would be the prime causes of nature relationship, which now had to wildlife extinction in Africa (Jepson and be redirected along a humanitarian path. Whittaker 2002: 131–137). At the same time with the Darwinian Hunting is still an important social worldview, the countryside ideal was and cultural tradition among many rediscovered in European societies. ethnic groups around the world. In Supported by the romantic ideas of many cultures animals and hunting picturesque landscapes and a desire to form an important part of the world escape from the urban decadence of the view. Youngsters have to learn the secrets European cities, rural nature was seen of hunting in order to achieve manhood, as a reﬂ ection of the Garden of Eden gain respect within the community or where pastorals lived in harmony with to win a bride (Bennett and Robinson nature. Th eodore Roosevelt, who was 2000: 2–3). In Africa, hunters are a big game hunter, popular writer and considered brave because they face the President of the United States, was one dangers of forests even during the night of the founders of the ﬁ rst international time (Knappert 1990: 111). Access lobby for the conservation of nature in to wildlife and the right to hunt have the United States, namely the Boone historically been powerful symbols & Crockett Club in 1887. He opposed of class privilege and an important the unnecessary killing of wildlife and source of class identity and status in requested a moral responsibility to colonial Africa (Neumann 1998: 37). preserve threatened species. Th e Boone Th e history of wildlife conservation in & Crockett Club was an elite club for the Africa cannot be understood without its most accomplished hunters, politicians legacy to hunting. Th e hunting of large and businessmen. Th e British equivalent animals is closely tied to the history of of the Boone & Crockett Club was the colonialism (Adams and Hulme 2001: Society for the Preservation of Fauna in 11). Th e thrilling descriptions of colonial

91 hunters in the mid-nineteenth century as worthy opponents, the killing of hunting literature partly shaped the which was a test of bravery and strength popular image of African nature within among the colonial hunters (Carruthers the community of armchair nature- 2005: 185–192). Th e focus of global enthusiasts in Europe and the United conservation concern shifted to Africa States. Th e big white hunters represented in the 1950’s because its fauna consisted imperial masculinity and bravery in of high densities of large and charismatic African colonies as they were slaughtering species which were threatened by the hundreds of animals in hunting safaris, impacts of development and landscape which were often organised like military change. Africa also provided conservation campaigns. Hunting was mainly carried images for the masses, which launched out for pleasure and to collect specimen the global discourse of extinction (Adams and trophies for private and museum and Hulme 2001: 11–12). collections. It was commonly believed In Europe, hunting has been and by the Europeans that eating too much still is an important free-time activity venison was unhealthy and uncivilized for millions of people. Arguments so the colonial hunters did not hunt for for and against hunting have fuelled subsistence like the African communities political debate, as in the United did. By the end of the nineteenth century, Kingdom, where the preparation of a the protectionist ideas started to slowly ban on traditional fox hunting caused infl uence Africa. Compassion towards a clash between public opinion and the animals among the middle-class English proponents of this activity. Th e anti-fox was growing and infl uenced the opinions hunting lobbyists wanted to prohibit in the colonies too. Cruelty towards this traditional activity because the use animals had to be avoided because it of hounds and horses cause an excessive was regarded as uncivilized. Traditional amount of suff ering to the poor fox that African hunting methods had to be is considered inhumane. In this activity, banned because they were considered to the fox is mostly killed by the hounds, be just as brutal but yet the white hunters not shot by the hunters. Th e proponents were allowed to continue to hunt with of fox hunting mostly justifi ed their bullets which were regarded to be more activity on the basis of rural traditions humane! Colonial hunters also got more and resource management point of views. involved in vermin control, where many What was not often emphasized in the undesirable species were killed. At the argument was the important ecological time, the category of vermin species role of hunting. Th e traditional English included wild dogs, lions, leopards, fox hunting with horses and hounds is a cheetahs, crocodiles, jackals and hyenas; relatively ineffi cient way of killing foxes. most of which are rare today compared Th e traditional rural norm that the foxes to the time before and considered as were not hunted with shotguns or rifl es, ecologically important. Some of these had greatly contributed to the survival animals were killed because they had and prosperity of the species. Similarly, an anthropomorphically distasteful the gamekeepers maintained many rural appearance or unacceptable habits. landscape features to sustain the quality Some, such as lions, were considered of the fox hunt while also safeguarding

92 the survival of many other species and on wildlife for meat. Savannah and their habitats (Allison 1991: 119). grassland ecosystems have a higher Bennett and Robinson (2000) productivity per square kilometer and describe that changes in fi ve diff erent thus have a higher carrying capacity. If factors; physical and geographical, social, immigration increases the number of cultural and religious, and economic, people in the hunting areas then the all of which aff ect the sustainability of demand of wildlife products locally hunting. Protected areas, such as national will also increase. Immigrants may be parks and game reserves, can be regarded accustomed to use a narrower range as source areas for wildlife. Th ese source of wildlife species, which places some areas are net producers of wildlife in a species at the risk of depletion. Th ey do certain region. Outside these protected not often follow local traditional custom areas, where most hunting takes place, and taboos concerning hunting, which can be considered as sink areas for causes these control mechanisms to die wildlife, because more animals are killed down. there than are born locally. For a net drain Bennett and Robinson (2000: 11– or sink area, there is a need for annual 16) write that a possible transition of immigration of wildlife from the source a hunter-gatherer lifestyle into swidden area in order to keep the population cultivation or other forms of agriculture stable. Accessibility from the source area can increase human population densities to the sink area is crucial in maintaining and pressure on wildlife. Th ere are the populations through immigration. If certain ecosystems, such as tropical the distance from the source to the sink forests, where domestic animals do not area is increasing, or the connectivity provide enough protein for the farmers within the landscape between these who thus continue to hunt wild animals. areas is degraded, then immigration Agriculturalists are often more involved in will be more diffi cult as populations are market economies and sell wildlife meat not easily replenished. Th ey mention for non-farm incomes. Sedentarization of also that the geographical location of indigenous people may lead to the break a hunting area in relation to nearby down of traditional hunting territories, markets or commercial centres can have decrease hunting zone rotation and an adverse eff ect on the sustainability of concentrate hunting to a smaller wildlife use. Commercial hunting tends area. It may also increase reliance on to increase as the distance of households agricultural practices, integrate societies to these markets decreases. Demand more closely into market economies and for wildlife products is the most increase availability of modern hunting important social factor, which aff ects technology, such as rifl es, ammunition the sustainability of harvest. Population and vehicles. Even small changes in density, immigration and sedentarism all hunting technology, such as batteries increase pressure on wildlife populations. and fl ashlights which allow hunting at Bennett and Robinson (2000) point out night, can lead to an increased harvesting that the tropical forest ecosystems cannot of wildlife. Th e largest ethnic group in support much more than one person per the Liwale district, the Wangindo, began square kilometer if people rely exclusively a forced transition of hunter-gatherer

93 lifestyle into permanent settlements in markets (Hahn and Kaggi 2001: 47). the mid-1940’s. Th is is not more than Th ere are some important two generations ago. In addition to international legal instruments which their cultural tradition as hunters, poor regulate the hunting industry in agricultural harvests and lack of livestock Tanzania and elsewhere in the world. have maintained the need to hunt wild Th e Convention on International Trade animals for protein. Th e hunting laws in Endangered Species (CITES) was have prevented the locals from acquiring approved in 1973. Th e main objective modern fi rearms in the Liwale district of this Convention is to prevent but they still use traditional weapons international trade of endangered species and methods (Fig. 8). and by doing so to ensure their survival Bennett and Robinson (2000: and save these species from extinction. 25–26) mention that traditional Th e government of Tanzania signed the hunting practices are more likely to Convention in 1979 (Majamba 2001: be sustainable than hunting based on 11). Th e CITES instrument, especially modern technologies. Th ese traditional Appendix I, restricts the number of hunting practices are usually supported elephant hunting trophies that can be by diff erent social taboos and religious annually exported from Tanzania to 50. beliefs which set rules against over- Th e number of trophies for leopard is harvesting and hunting of certain 500 and for crocodiles 100 (Baldus and species. Solutions to the problem of Cauldwell 2004: 8). Kenya has made a unsustainable hunting should be area proposal of uplisting the lion into the specifi c, based on detailed knowledge Appendix 1 of the CITES agreement. of hunting patterns, ecology of hunted Uplisting the lion into Appendix 1 would species and local cultural, economic and prohibit all tourist hunting of lions and political conditions. Th e community- prevent the export of lions as trophies. based conservation programmes should Th is would have a detrimental eff ect on be designed in a culturally appropriate lion management in Tanzania, which has way and be understandable for local the largest lion population in the world. communities. In some cases, it is better According to Professor Graig Parker, the to use traditional practices, such as Kenyan listing is irresponsible. It would hunting territories and disperse hunting, stop lion trophy hunting and then the rather than introducing alien systems like species would not have any economic hunting quotas and seasons. Bennett and value and there would be no incentive Robinson (2000: 25–26) also suggest that to conserve lions. Th e opponents of local communities and agencies working trophy hunting have not provided any with them should establish mechanisms alternative mechanism for funding the which would reduce or stop the sales of large-scale conservation eff orts of the wildlife products outside of local hunting lion in Tanzania. In Kenya, lions have areas. Th is is in contrast with the aims of not been legally hunted for 30 years the Selous Conservation Programme in and still the population has decreased Tanzania, where annual hunting quotas markedly. Tanzania has allowed legal of the villages are not harvested fully lion hunting and the lion population because of the lack of local and regional has remained stable. Th is controversy

94 can be explained by the human-lion capacity has been reached in some confl icts which have increased in Kenya areas, including the Selous ecosystem. because the problematic and threatening Elephants are forced to seek for forage lions have not been hunted. Th e angry outside the game reserve where crop Maasai illegally exterminated lions in raiding elephants have become a serious the Amboseli National Park in the early problem in the villages. Th e CITES 1990’s and three-quarters of the lions in quota should be adjusted according to Nairobi National Park were poached in the population increase in Tanzania. 2003 (Baldus 2004: 57–58). In Tanzania Th e wildlife census methods are not some villagers started to systematically always good enough to provide accurate kill chimpanzees in their local forests after data on animal populations for setting a visit of a national park offi cial. Th ey the hunting quota. For example, lions had misinterpreted the offi cial’s visit as and leopards are very diffi cult to count preparations for gazettement of the forest in aerial surveys and this method often for nature protection (Murray 1992 cit. also fails to provide reliable estimates West and Brockington 2006: 614). Th ese of buff alo populations. Th e hunting examples clearly show that, the survival quota for lion may be too high because of certain species cannot be guaranteed on average only 52% of the lion quotas by increasing their conservation status in in Selous Game Reserve (SGR) have international agreements if the opinions been used since 1996. Careful design of and preferences of locals are ignored in trophy size and age limits is essential for the management activities. those few wildlife species, such as lions, Th e key wild animal species for the who are being culled by tourist hunting tourist hunting industry in Tanzania (Baldus and Cauldwell 2004: 21–26). are buff alo, leopards and lions. Th ese species generate 42% of all trophy fees 6. Wildlife conservation for the Wildlife Division with 22.1% of this income being generated by buff alo Th e preceding chapter has set up the trophy hunting alone. Th is makes it venue and context for the actual wildlife the most important wild animal in conservation initiatives that take place the country and places pressure on the around the world. Th e national park wildlife authorities to maintain a healthy model and wilderness ideal are not buff alo population. Elephant hunting often compatible with local inhabitants’ in Tanzania in confi ned to the Selous preferences on land and natural resource ecosystem and generates 7.6% of the uses. In Tanganyika, environmental trophy fees there. Due to the regulations ideologies and policies that lean towards of the CITES agreement, the Wildlife the national park model and wilderness Division has not listed the elephant as a ideal were imported from Europe by species in the hunting quota system. Th e the colonial government. I will next hunters must apply for special elephant provide a brief overview to diff erent hunting permissions, which also include conservation narratives and explain minimum trophy size limits. Th ese existing human-wildlife confl icts as one regulations have allowed elephant form of resistance towards the externally populations to recover and the carrying designed conservation policies.

95 6.1. Narratives of conservation integration of ecological principles into the regulation of all land use activities Th ere are several diff erent narratives and rejects the idea of enforced zoning of within wildlife conservation. Th ese nature. Th e commodity narrative totally narratives are used to standardise rejects the regulatory planning idea of environmental problems. Th e logic the other two narratives and emphasizes of the dominating narrative dictates a the free-market ideology and the market solution which is applied to solve these language in planning. problems. Narratives facilitate decision- Campbell (2000) points out that making in complex and uncertain today we can no longer speak of one situations. Dominant narratives can only conservation narrative. Currently, there be overturned by creating a completely are two conservation narratives. Th e new or altered counter-narrative which traditional conservation narrative or should also be plausible (Campbell crisis narrative emphasizes the need to 2000: 168–169). Whatmore and protect wildlife from human activities Boucher (1993: 169–170) write that by establishing exclusive protected areas the conservation narrative, where nature and prohibiting all human activities is considered as external to society and there. Th is narrative follows a top-down as a source of scientifi c and aesthetic planning approach which promotes the value, has characterized environmental institutional state control of natural planning and practice for most of the resources and conservation initiatives. twentieth century. Th ese values of Th e wildlife conservation narrative nature have been realized through the has been in a transitional stage during establishment of nature reserves for the last two decades. Th e new counter scientifi c purposes and national parks narrative of wildlife conservation, which for aesthetic purposes. Th e conservation highlights the importance of local narrative is based on a regulatory state- participation in the management and a led system of land use zoning and sustainable use of wildlife, has challenged formal blueprint plan-making. Th e the previous exclusive approach. Th e spatial segregation of natural and built new narrative can be regarded as a environments and the designation bottom up approach which builds of protected areas have refl ected an on post-modern values. Brandenburg opposition to development in the and Carroll (1995: 382) state that, conservation narrative. Th is narrative although people have used animals and has been challenged by an ecology other elements of nature to symbolize narrative and a commodity narrative. spiritual values, beliefs and ways of life Both of these narratives question the throughout the history, these emotional, construction of an external nature as symbolic and spiritual values or intrinsic external and aim at reconstructing values of the environment have been nature as a product of socio-economic suppressed by the economic values of processes. Th e ecology narrative shares the natural resources in planning. Th e the conservation narrative’s idea of land current existence of two competitive and development as a potential threat to often overlapping wildlife conservation nature but simultaneously highlights the narratives is evident. Some scholars,

96 such as Wilshusen et al. (2002), argue recreation and gardens are taken away that people-oriented approaches have by ecological destruction. Beck thinks failed to protect biological diversity that the reason behind the ecological and therefore these approaches should, awakening of societies is not based on in certain locations and situations, be the destruction of nature itself but rather replaced by a renewed emphasis on on the fear that the prevailing cultural exclusive and authoritarian protection image of nature is endangered (Beck in national parks and other protected 1990: 85–86). Beck claims that at the areas. end of the twentieth century nature had become society and society had become 6.2. National parks – landscapes of nature. He writes that nature is now so consumption and resistance integrated into culture that people are no longer able to distance or exclude Today wildlife conservation is a global themselves from it (Beck 1992: 81 cit. phenomenon. Endangered wildlife Campbell 2005: 283). species can be found on every continent Th e development of the national and in every country. Habitat loss, over- park concept has been deeply aff ected hunting, competition with introduced by the social history of landscape or newcomer species, diminished gene and its role in social constructions of pools, diseases and environmental nature. National parks have become poisons, among other things, have landscapes of consumption, where the contributed to the extinction of many ideas of culture and nature, and the wild animal species. Th e presence boundary between these two entities of man has had a detrimental eff ect are conceived. In Africa, local resistance on wildlife populations world-wide. has forced conservationists and state Among the conservationists, there has offi cials to reassess existing protected been a voiced concern for more than a areas and wildlife conservation policies century now over the disappearance of (Neumann 1998: 7, 11). National parks large mammals, such as the elephant, and game reserves have often been the lion, the wolf, the rhinoceros and established in areas, which have a low the hippopotamus and this concern is agricultural potential that are unsuitable still a vital force behind the new wildlife for animal husbandry. However, this conservation programmes. Wildlife does not mean that the lands set aside conservation is primarily practiced in for wildlife conservation are worthless landscapes that include forests, savannas for the rural people neighbouring these and swamps, where wildlife habitats are demarcated areas. In some cases, local mainly located. communities were forced to move away Ulrich Beck writes that the ecological from the established conservation areas protest to conserve nature does not rise for the sake of wildlife protection. Th is among those societies which are already was the case in virtually every established poor and exposed to risks. Th e ecological national park in Tanzania. In most cases, protest thrives among the rich who live rural communities were removed from in urban centers and feel that the fruits the designated national parks or they of their hard work, such as leisure time, lost their customary access and rights

97 to those lands and natural resources the deposed authorities may become (Neumann 2000: 130). However, the a central emblem of oppression in the protected areas are not completely construction of nationalism, like in isolated ecological entities, but overlap Ireland where the manors of the landed with the surrounding inhabitated elite became the main target of the countryside. Th e protected wildlife can nationalist movement and were burned freely move in and out of the national down (Graham et al. 2000: 258). Th e parks and game reserves in search for confrontations of humans and wildlife food and water and cause severe damage are imminent in areas surrounding the to the neighbouring farms and villages. protected areas because these are located Th is in turn leads to an increased on the borderline of culture-nature poaching of wildlife and opposition spheres. Wildlife is a fugitive natural towards wildlife conservation among the resource capable of passing the borderline aff ected societies. from the nature sphere into the culture Illegal hunting of wildlife, sphere. Th is makes wildlife conservation encroachment of people and livestock and management very diff erent from and collection of fuel wood in the other natural resources, such as fi rewood, protected areas can be seen as everyday minerals or medical plants, which are forms of resistance by the local stable and local resources. Lincoln Allison communities living in the vicinity of (1991) writes that any recommendation conservation areas. Wildlife conservation of policy involves controversial value- is a political issue and protected area judgements about resources, ethics and violations may be highly politicized acts aesthetics which may be compatible of resistance and protests against nature with utilitarian judgement or might conservation policies. Th e practices not. Ecology cannot cross the logical of wildlife conservation have created gap between facts and values and their own policies which extend far thus it is not so useful for managers. beyond their own sphere. Currently, Ecologically correct actions depend the wildlife conservation programmes on the values we place upon choices have to fi nd new ways to safeguard (Allison 1991: 92). Group consciousness the existing protected areas against and collective identities are established historically hostile communities living through the sharing of confi ned spaces in the neighbourhood (Neumann 2000: in places with defi nitive environmental 118, 131). Jürgen Habermas (1984) conditions, and as a result, common points out in his book Th e Th eory environmental imaginaries may surface of Communicative Action that social among such groups (Peet and Watts movements of resistance emerge when life 1996: 30). Wildlife conservation in worlds are colonized by commodifying Africa today is principally a product systems. Resistance struggles are directed of international conservation agencies as much against dominant rationalities who wish to protect and conserve as they are against institutional control wildlife for its intrinsic, symbolic and (Habermas 1984 cit. Peet and Watts aesthetic values. Rural Africans do 1996: 30). Landscapes with certain not necessarily share these values and modernist symbols and heritage of goals and their conservation ethic is

98 more likely based on instrumental and non-anthropocentric discourse ethic economic values of wildlife (Barrow and builds up on intrinsic or inherent value Murphree 2001: 29). Crowe and Shryer on non-human life. Mason refers to this (1995) write about the juxtaposition approach as ecocentric ethics that was of conservation and preservation and developed originally by Aldo Leopold. mention that the problems of wildlife He enlarged the boundaries of moral conservation in Africa will become severe community to include fl ora, fauna, water as a protectionist and animal rights and soil. Th is environmental ethic placed philosophy infi ltrates international intrinsic value on natural ecosystems conservation organizations. Th is total and the integrity of ecological processes. protection and preservation would It highlighted the right to continued jeopardize long-term conservation of the existence of all species within a biotic region`s wildlife. community. Th us animals were deemed Th e relevance of such environmental to be no less valuable than humans. Each ideologies to the issue of wildlife species is equally valuable even if they do conservation in Africa has been not have any intrinsic value for humans. studied by Rosaleen Duff y (2000). She Mason (1999: 132–135) mentions mentions that wildlife is central to the that the ecocentric ethic was further people-versus-nature debate in Africa. shaped by Arne Naess (1972), who Various interest groups use the rhetoric introduced the term deep ecology. In of conservation to depoliticize a highly deep ecology, self-realization in relation complex set of ethical, political, social and to an expanding identifi cation of the economic dilemmas. As a result, wildlife self with all life forms is the ultimate conservation in Africa continues to be norm. It highlights the integration of an area of heated political debate in the humans with the whole of non-human local, national and international political nature. Naess developed the idea of arenas (Duff y 2000: 2). According to ecological egalitarianism, which is the Mason (1999: 132–135), there are intrinsic value of every life form. Th is currently two competitive discourse means that all things in the biosphere ethics in science which aff ect the policies have an equal right to live, self-unfold and politics of nature preservation and and self-realize. Th e protection of large conservation. Anthropocentrism confers natural areas for their intrinsic value is instrumental value on non-human life supported by deep ecologists. Sibanda according to human ends. In other and Omwega emphasize that the notion words, wildlife is only valuable when it of intrinsic value will not save wildlife can be utilized by humans. For example, in African rural reality where people in strong anthropocentrism the value are poor and threatened by starvation. of non-human species is limited to A more pragmatic and people-oriented consumptive preferences, such as management approach is needed. Th ey market value from adventure tourism point out that wildlife must be seen as in wilderness areas. According to this a resource which can provide food and ethic, large natural areas are conserved income to locals. Th e imposition of as habitats for animals and plants which external values and attitudes has worked are valuable to humans. In contrast, the against the survival of wildlife and

99 continues to threaten its future survival. by selling its elephant products abroad. Sibanda and Omwega also claim that Th is is a good example of increasing international organizations usually treat international control over natural wildlife as a global common property resources on the national and local level. and deny locals an opportunity to own Ramachandra Guha (1997: 84–85, 97) and control the use of wildlife (Sibanda notes that nature conservation in the and Omwega 1996). Mick Smith tropics is big business which is run by fi ve (2001: 112–114) makes an interesting large interest groups: the city dwellers contribution to the discussion on and foreign tourists, national elites, instrumental and intrinsic values of international conservation organizations, nature. He mentions that our conceptions conservation offi cials and biologists. of nature are highly dependent on the Guha thinks that all fi ve groups share cultural circumstances, which means hostility against the farmers. Guha also that nature acquires its meanings and writes that wildlife conservationists value through local cultures. For the want to preserve the tiger for the future social constructivists, nature is socially generations but expect others to sacrifi ce constructed and there is no such thing for that cause. as intrinsic values in nature. Some authors have accused Experience from previous wildlife the prevailing wildlife and nature conservation have elucidated that the conservation programmes of eco- exclusion of local communities and colonialism (Crowe and Shryer 1995) or a denial of their traditional rights deep colonization (Howitt and Suchet- to use wildlife have not been very Pearson 2006). Howitt and Suchet- successful in the long run. Th e physical Pearson (2006: 323–325) point out damages caused by large mammals to that the continuous deep colonization agriculture and domestic animals can by Eurocentric ideas takes place in both be compensated with money but there material and discursive spaces, especially are also deeper perceptions and cultural in the development of new wildlife and values involved in these issues. natural resource management systems Th e governments have diffi culties in indigenous lands. Th e Eurocentric to react when certain species, such as ideas marginalize and trivialize local elephants or rhinoceros, cause damage perspectives and relationships between to rural people under the cover of people and between people and their international treaties. Hunting quotas surroundings through the processes are not increased as a result of damages in which these dualistic ideas operate even though a few problem animals in the guise of co-management, may be eliminated. Th ese species are collaboration and participation. Locally globally endangered, although in some situated knowledge is silenced, ignored, countries, such as Zimbabwe, Botswana, undermined and replaced by dominant Zambia and Tanzania there are still Eurocentric discourses, concepts and locally viable populations. Th e CITES practices of wildlife and natural resource Convention prohibits the international management which are assumed to be trade of endangered species and does not universally applicable and legitimate. allow Tanzania to earn foreign income

100 During the colonial times, the rather than real improvements of Europeans wanted to protect the African relationships on the ground. He adds nature, especially wildlife, which they that community-friendly biodiversity saw as an image of the Garden of Eden. agendas can still impose nature-society Th ey wanted to protect African nature dualism in the target societies. Campbell for the purpose of the European psyche, suggests that Tim Ingold’s (1990) rather than as a complex environment dwelling perspective of human-ecological in which people live. Th e Europeans saw engagement could be used as an the activities of the locals as the biggest alternative to dualistic objectifi cations of threat to this Eden (Anderson and Grove nature-culture. Th e dwelling perspective 1987: 5–6). Th e idea of a picturesque emphasizes that “people understand landscape in national parks and other environments primarily through engaged protected areas in sub-Saharan Africa is practices of dwelling rather than through implicated in an historical struggle over mediations of concepts”. Local resistance land and natural resources. Poaching, to conservation can no longer merely be livestock trespassing and illegal logging explained by the economic consequences are all part of local resistance against for livelihoods, which can be substituted protected area policies which have with the gains from the conservation colonial roots. European colonialism programmes. Resistance evolves from and European ideals of the scenic the radical ontological confl ict where African landscape have given birth to this an objective material environment is decades-long rural confl ict (Neumann separated from human involvement. 1998: 2–3). According to Peet and Watts Th e regulation of natural resource use (1996: 13–15), post-structural theory as a management of the externalized views truth as “statements within socially and controllable environment involves produced discourses rather than objective cultural transformations in the facts about reality”. Th is notion of truth ontological contexts. Th e spatial and was evident in the European’s images and zonal regulation in the protected areas descriptions of African people and their has not acknowledged the lived-in relationship with nature in the colonies. experience of place which is central to Th ese images were mainly based on peoples’ sense of their relationship with the European’s own nostalgia, not the environment. primarily on descriptions of real African people. Arturo Escobar points out that 6.3. Evolvement of community- in modernity there is a progressive based wildlife conservation semiotic conquest of social life by expert discourses and economic conceptions. Criticism of modernization theory and Today, the symbolic and semiotic the growth of environmentalism in conquest has been extended to nature the rich industrialized countries since and local communities, including local the mid- 1960’s has contributed to knowledge (Escobar 1996: 56–57). the emergence of new approaches in Campbell (2005: 281–293) considers nature conservation. Criticism include the changes and new ideas in nature poaching, encroachment of livestock protection policy as rhetorical movements and illegal wood-cutting within the

101 borders of protected areas among are usually restricted to sustainable uses other setbacks of the previous fences of natural resources, such as collection and fi nes approach to natural resources of wild fruits, honey and fallen timber, conservation and management. Th is limited hunting and seasonal grazing of resulted in the adoption of a more livestock. Buff er zones have expanded revolutionary approach focusing on both areas under total or partial protection natural resource conservation and rural and by doing so these demarcated areas development. Experience from diff erent have pushed the negative impacts of protected areas around the world has human activities further away from the shown that nature conservation is not core protected areas (MacKinnon et al. successful without the collaboration 1986, cit. Wells et al. 1992: 25–27). and participation of local communities. Buff er zones are one dimension of the Th ey should benefi t from these activities zoning approach which tries to reduce in order to promote conservation in the spatial overlap between wildlife and the long term. Th e Man and Biosphere human activities (Linnell et al. 2005: Programme of UNESCO which 165). Krishna Ghimire (1994: 225) highlights the ecological, social and criticizes the establishment of buff er economic dimensions of biodiversity zones because these areas do not provide loss adopted these principles in 1979. a sustainable means of livelihood to the Th e programme promoted and funded local inhabitants but only threaten to the creation of specially designed buff er reduce the opposition to the expansion zones between protected areas and rural of protected areas. He claims that rural villages. Local inhabitants were able to development in buff er zones still follows use these transitional buff er zones to the top-down planning approach where meet their livelihood needs. Th e Man the participation of locals in designing and Biosphere Programme was the fi rst and making decisions about these zones global initiative to include the social and is limited. economic dimensions of development in Buff er zones are an interesting nature conservation (Wells et al. 1992: feature of community-based wildlife 1–3; Ghimire 1994: 198–199; Adams conservation for this study because they and Hulme 2001: 13). It was a fi rst step add a new category of space situated on towards integrated conservation and the nature-culture borderline. In theory, development programmes. the buff er zones will make this bordeline MacKinnon et al. defi ne buff er zones to loose clarity as they allow both human as “areas adjacent to protected areas, on activities and nature conservation to which land use is partially restricted to give take place on these zones. Buff er zones an added layer of protection to the protected are usually established along the major area itself while providing valued benefi ts nature-culture borderline (Fig. 12.), to neighbouring rural communities”. such as the frontier between game or According to this defi nition priority is forest reserves and agricultural areas. given to nature conservation in buff er In practice, the prioritizing of activities zones where human livelihoods are in the buff er zones largely determines considered as a secondary function. how the stakeholders perceive the order, Human activities inside the buff er zones norms, content and value in these spaces.

102 In the worst case, some stakeholders, of genuine participation of locals and such as the villagers, may regard buff er the commitment of political decision- zones mainly as an extension of the game makers were among the most important reserve if most of the traditional human obstacles in the programmes. West and activities are forbidden there. Such Brechin (1991) point out that local prohibitions may also be interpreted participation and cooperation in the as external actions to move the nature- integrated conservation and development culture borderline towards the village, programmes should not only be formal which would all the more reduce the without real decentralization of decision- livelihood options for the villagers. making. Th ere was a need to involve David Sibley’s (1995) Geographies of locals in the decision-making process Exclusion: Society and Diff erence in in order to build confi dence between the West discusses the forms of socio- the stakeholders and strengthen their spatial exclusion which are implicit in collaboration (West and Brechin 1991, the design of spaces. Referring to his cit. Munasinghe 1994: 27–29). Th is fi ndings, it is possible to interpret that kind of criticism led to the development the villagers who are excluded from the of a new concept in nature conservation, buff er zones may experience oppressive namely community-based conservation realities where the dominant culture or community conservation. Adams defi nes the boundaries and determines and Hulme (2001: 9–10) defi ned which social groups are allowed to enter community conservation as “those these spaces. principles and practices that argue that Communities were eventually conservation goals should be pursued by regarded as major actors in natural strategies that emphasize the role of local resource management as the World residents in decision-making about natural Conservation Strategy of 1980 emphasized resources”. Community conservation the importance of linking conservation is a counter-narrative in development with development. Th is idea was policy which has replaced the narrative further adopted by conservationists and of fortress conservation based on isolated protected area managers at the 1982 World protected areas and the exclusion of Congress on National Parks and Protected local residents. Th is counter-narrative Areas in Bali. Since the mid-1980’s emphasizes the need to involve locals in hundreds of integrated conservation and the conservation eff orts. Institutionally, development programmes have been the community conservation concept established all over the world. Most of was developed in the two World these programmes are implemented in Congresses on National Parks and developing countries (Wells et al. 1992: Protected Areas held in 1982 and 1992. 2–3; Munasinghe 1994: 27; Barrow and Th e aims of community conservation Murphree 2001: 25). include increased participation of Th e shortcomings of integrated locals in the management of conserved conservation and development resources and strengthened linkages programmes created a need to take between conservation objectives and the idea of local participation to new local development needs (Adams and levels in nature conservation. Th e lack Hulme 2001: 9–10, 13).

103 Th e community-based natural institutions, which include cultural and resource management approach has symbolic contests and everyday resistance its origins in the nature conservation within the household, community and and development discourse of the civil society. 1970’s, which then began to question Fikret Berkes (2004: 622–628) the contemporary models and ideas argues that conservation has become implemented in the Th ird World. Prior participatory because the proliferation of to that criticism, nature conservation stakeholders and civil society throughout was usually based on the principle of the world. Participatory approaches have isolated protected areas where fl ora also made a breakthrough in natural and fauna were protected from human resource management and conservation action. In the worst cases, residents because the nature of the emerging were even relocated from their homes environmental problems has required an and pasturelands to make room for the approach which is diff erent from earlier established protected areas. Th e residents exclusionary conservation approaches. lost their rights to use land and the Community-based conservation natural resources inside the demarcated emerged at a time when three conceptual protected areas. In many parts of the shifts took place in ecology. Th ese were world, rural people’s subsistence relied a shift from reductionism to a systems on the natural resources such as water, view on the environment, a shift to fi rewood, herbs, spices, medical plants, incorporate the dynamic interactions honey or bush meat, which were taken between societies and natural systems, out of their disposal during the process of and a shift from expert-based approach nature conservation. Community-based to participatory approach. Since the approaches received theoretical support mid-1980´s, as a result of community- from political ecology, which currently is based conservation programmes in one of the most infl uential development Africa, locals have been allowed to discourses. Political ecology also started participate in wildlife conservation in to evolve in the 1970’s when there was their own villages and even profi t from a theoretical need to integrate land use conservation. practice and ecological concerns from At the same time, local wildlife within local-global political economy. resources have become a global heritage Political ecology developed in two which is managed far from the rural areas main ways, as a reaction to the growing where these animals live. Community- politicization of the environment based conservation programmes have and; as a critical alternative to cultural provided international environmental and human ecology. Th is focuses on NGOs with an opportunity to move away market integration, commercialization from strictly protectionist approaches to and dislocation of traditional forms of more human-centered approaches and resource management in Th ird World respond to charges of eco-imperialism societies (Peet and Watts 1996: 4–5). (Hulme and Murphree 2001a: 284). Walker (2003: 10) writes that the focus Literature analysis clearly points out of political ecology has typically been on that local inhabitants in the peripheries local political contestations of informal of rural areas often have no authority to

104 make the most fundamental decision on among diff erent stakeholders and conservation, which is: “should there be their struggles over land and resources. large mammals in the areas surrounding Th e European takeover of the African their village, in the fi rst place?” Th is landscape for aesthetic consumption decision is usually made in the capital goes hand in hand with its takeover for cities by more powerful interest groups. material production (Neumann 1998: By the late 1990`s, the active 8–9). Confl icts over natural resource participation of local communities use and access often arise from diverging in natural resource management has goals and interests of local communities practically become a prerequisite for and those of state authorities. From the any donor support to natural resources local communities’ point of view, the management projects. State-centered goal is usually to secure the basis of their strategies have been partially replaced economic, social and cultural survival by decentralized management strategies and, as a result, to preserve their identity. in Tanzania (Nummelin and Virtanen Th rough establishing protected areas the 2000: 220–221). However, most CBC government’s interest is purported to be programs are dependent upon outside the long-term conservation of natural funding that requires technical, fi nancial resources for society. Economic interests and political support from central may be hidden under the charade of governments. So far, these programs nature conservation (Wanitzek and have rather been co-managemental in Sippel 1998: 114) like in the case character rather than community-based of South Africa where wildlife laws wildlife management programs (Hassler prevented Africans from hunting and 1996). forced them to sell their labour under Community-based conservation the pretext of protecting wildlife. (CBC) programmes emphasize the Granting hunting licences to African principles of local participation and people was considered an obstacle to benefi t sharing but some programmes the much-needed labour in the country have actually enhanced increased state (Ramutsindela 2003: 43). control over land and natural resources. Th e main objective of the CBC Studies on protected area confl icts, such programmes is to create conditions as the IUCN survey in 1991, seldom from the bottom-up, participatory take the political, socioeconomic or approach where local communities historical contexts of these areas into benefi t from a sustainable management account. Th e standard explanations and use of wildlife. Th e aim is to change of protected area and human-wildlife rural residents’ current behaviour and confl icts accuse population growth (for practices (Gibson and Marks 1995 cit. example, Quigley and Herrero 2005: Songorwa 1999: 2061). However, the 47) and local residents’ ignorance of critics of the CBC approach suspect conservation values for the emergence that these programmes established in of such confl icts. Alternatively, the the buff er zones of the protected areas underlying causes of these confl icts may are not designed to provide sustainable be grounded in the confl uence of political livelihood alternatives to locals but to struggles over landscape meanings reduce their opposition to the protected

105 areas. Th e community-based wildlife conservation activities. As a result, many management approach relies on altruism international conservation organizations, and voluntary participation (Songorwa such as the World Wide Fund For Nature, 1999: 2061, 2076). now support a more comprehensive Some geographers, such as Matless et approach to conservation, namely eco- al. (2005), use the term animal landscapes region or large landscape conservation in their studies on human-wildlife (Igoe 2006: 80). relations. Matless et al. studied the lives and deaths of otters and wildfowl in two diff erent animal landscapes. Th e 7. Community-based wildlife divergence of the two animal landscapes was described through the diff erent conservation in Africa practices performed in these landscapes and through the impact of local Th e previous chapter pointed out that geographies and narratives of history community-based wildlife conservation which have shaped the present actions is a counter-narrative in development and practices. Dickman (2005: 7) writes policy dealing with nature conservation. that 21st century conservation will be Community-based conservation is carried out in an arena of increasingly not a panacea to all the problems in fragmented wild places within a matrix wildlife conservation, but it provides of human-dominated land. It is therefore an approach which tries to address the crucial to develop strategies where both most critical question in the recent people and wildlife can coexist in the same conservation narrative; namely the landscape. Th e paradigm of hierarchical participation of local stakeholders. patch dynamics within non-equilibrium Th is chapter does not aim to provide ecology has challenged the ecological a comprehensive description of the foundations of the fortress conservation community-based natural resource which is based on isolated protected management or community-based areas, especially in savanna ecosystems. conservation concepts or examples of Th is paradigm emphasizes that patchiness diff erent projects around the world. is an inherent characteristic of savanna Th ere is a vast literature available on the ecosystems. Th e ecology of each patch topic and recent publications such as, within the ecosystem depends on its Hulme and Murphree (2001b), provide relationship to other patches and larger- a detailed introduction to the topic. scale ecological processes. Th is paradigm Th ere are also several scientifi c articles points out that the long-term ecological presenting diff erent case studies, such viability of parks and protected areas as, Brosius, Tsing and Zerner (1998), are directly dependent on ecological Dzingirai (2003), Schafer and Bell processes beyond the boundaries of these (2002). areas. Community-based conservation has often been justifi ed by the ecological limitations of the protected areas and it is thus of importance to incorporate the neighboring communities into

106 7.1. Overview of the approach in to manhood in some African societies. Africa Current community-based conservation projects have not fully addressed this Wildlife conservation is associated with human dimension and have thus faced cultural and sociological obligations problems. For example, some culturally in many African societies. Taboos and valued animal species, which are used myths have served as guiding principles in traditional rituals and ceremonies, in traditional wildlife conservation cannot be found inside the established within these societies. Th e classic Wildlife Management Areas so therefore approach to wildlife conservation locals will trespass into the wildlife ignored these dimensions and was based conservation areas to fi nd them. Th is on a protectionist philosophy which ethnological aspect is often ignored only focused on the ecological aspect of in community-based conservation in conservation. Th e colonial era and about Tanzania (Maganga 2002: 5–10). three decade-long post-independence Community-based conservation conservation approaches were based on is today a concept and an approach, the 3Ps system which means protect, which is very often considered to be prohibit and punish. Locals were denied convergent with sound and sustainable access to wildlife conservation areas, ways to manage renewable natural which had previously been common resources around the world. Th is lands where they had collected building participatory approach to natural materials, medical plants, and grazed resource management was incorporated livestock and established cultural sites. into the global discourse of conservation As a result, local communities reacted by and development during the 1980s and poaching wildlife to revenge the denial since then it has been widely approved of access to these natural resources. A by diff erent development agencies stable, viable and sustainable natural and natural resource management resource system must include the human institutions. Africa is a continent where dimension as well. Such a system must most of the forerunners of the modern not only be ecologically possible, but also CBC approach were implemented and economically gainful and ethnologically reformed. As a result, there are dozens adoptable. People do not adopt a natural of larger CBC programmes involving resource management system which several districts and many more small- is not convergent with their beliefs, scale CBC initiatives in Tanzania techniques and system of activities, no alone. Most of these projects have been matter how superior it may be by other protected area outreach initiatives in criteria. For example, the prohibition East Africa. Th e projects have been built of hunting may not be accepted by the up in and around existing protected locals because hunting and the killing areas and reserves to educate and benefi t of animals has been an activity which local communities. Th e establishment helped individuals to gain a certain of buff er zones around the protected status in the society through enhancing areas and reserves is an integral part of social bonds. Hunting has also been an protected area outreach programmes important component of training boys (Barrow and Murphree 2001: 30). Th ese

107 programmes diff er from each other by people are sedentary, primarily rely on their level of community involvement, arable agriculture and where population property rights regimes and control and mobility and migration are low. Th ey access to natural resources. Similarly, defi ne a community as “an entity socially the community-based natural resources bound by common cultural identity, management concept comprises a wide living within a defi ned spatial boundary variety of diff erent programmes and and having a common economic interest small projects around the world, which in the resources of this area”. One must, problematizes defi nitions of the concept. however, understand that communities Th e framework and actors of a CBC are are much more internally diff erentiated often very case specifi c and one working and dynamic than it is assumed model cannot be easily transferred and by the model. Benedict Andersson implemented elsewhere with guaranteed (1983) introduced a concept imagined success. Before going into the details communities. He argues that nations are of community-based conservation in imagined communities because they Tanzania, it is necessary to make a brief are too large for one member to have review of the scientifi c literature on CBC contact with most of other members to clarify the concept itself and to detail but still everyone shares an illusion of a the larger framework for contextual community there. Th e concept community purposes. may also mean an entity of people who do not share a spatially defi ned boundary, 7.2. Community as an operational such as diff erent on-line communities unit in the Internet. However, in this study I understand a community more in Community-based conservation (CBC) accordance with a shared place-based usually operates on the local level spatiality than with shared cyberspace. and aims at involving locals in the Adams and Hulme (2001: 16) mention management of the natural resources that idealistic notions of organic human available in the areas where they have communities in Africa will continue to legal rights to utilize these resources. support the neo-populist ideas about Th e smallest operational unit is the development. Nature and traditional community. Th e romantic notion of livelihoods seem to be threatened by a community is a homogenous and modernization and development. Th us, harmonious group of people closely following the romanticized idea of a interacting with its environment, sharing community it is easy to assume that if common values and culture and striving indigenous communities are empowered toward a commonly agreed goal with they would automatically support shared interests. Th is is hard to apply conservation in rural areas. in reality because it lacks the dynamics Communities are rarely homogenous of the communities, for instance in because of diff erences based on gender, contemporary rural Africa. Barrow and ethnic background, religion; means Murphree (2001: 25–26) argue that of livelihood, wealth and political such a defi nition of a community can power (Mäkelä 1999: 32; Barrow and only be identifi ed in areas where rural Murphree 2001: 26; Berkes 2004:

108 623). Jean-Philippe Platteau (2000) that “community means an assemblage of challenges the idea that small and Tanzanian citizens, ordinarily residing homogenous communities would be in a defi ned geographical area”. Th e the ideal vehicle of collective action in same document defi nes community- natural resource management. Platteau based organization as “an organization writes that the current evidence does whose primary objective is to conserve not confi rm that community-based resources in a manner that facilitates the development projects are any more sustainable utilisation of the resources by effi cient in equity or sustainability than and for the benefi ts of local community conventional approaches. He points out members ordinarily resident in the resource that community-based development area” (Th e United Republic of Tanzania projects are vulnerable to elite capture 2002a: 7). Th is spatial defi nition of at local level (Platteau 2004). As a the community is also present in the result of the complexity of the concept Forest Act of Tanzania of 2002. Th e of community, Berkes (2004: 623– Act defi nes a group as the operational 624) suggests that the focus should unit in community forest reserves. A preferably be on institutions rather than community forest management group on communities and added that place- may be formed by any group of persons based models are required to understand who are the members of the village or the dynamic interaction between nature spatially located in or near a forest. An and society. interesting addition to this defi nition of A case study carried out in the Liwale a group is that other cohorts of people district in Tanzania revealed that even in who are managing the forest or forest the most remote and poorest villages reserve are connected with its communal of the country, the communities are ownership, and they may also form a rather heterogeneous and consist of community forest management group many diff erent ethnic groups. Th ere (Th e United Republic of Tanzania was also some in- and out-migration 2002b: 1220–1221). Th is extends in the studied villages which aff ected the defi nition of a community to the natural resource management there socio-cultural and economic terms in (Mwamfupe 1990:17–20). In addition, Tanzania and reveals how the legislation diff erent religious backgrounds also on diff erent natural resources aff ects the impacted on the use of natural resources defi nition of the community in CBC. A within the communities in Liwale. person does not necessarily have to live Th e concept of community is often in a certain area to be able to join its approached in spatial, socio-cultural and associated natural resource management economic terms. Spatial or geographical unit. Th e socio-cultural and economic defi nitions of a community are often used approaches become more clearly visible for administrative purposes as groups of in the text describing the principles of people living in the same place (Mäkelä a community forest management group. 1999: 32; Barrow and Murphree 2001: It states that “all persons within the 25). Th e Government of Tanzania in the neighbourhood or living in close proximity Wildlife Conservation Regulations 2002 to or deriving their livelihood from or adopts this spatial approach by defi ning otherwise having strong traditional ties to

109 the forest in respect of which it is proposed concept community. Th ey highlight to apply to manage as a community forest the importance of governance level and reserve shall be given an opportunity to civic organization, which the concept of join the group” (Th e United Republic of community addresses. Th is is currently a Tanzania 2002b: 1221). Forest as a means very critical issue in Tanzania and other of livelihood is related to economics and African countries as the decentralization strong traditional ties focuses on the process of natural resources management socio-cultural importance of the forest is extended to the sub-regional and sub- to the person in question. However, it district levels. Barrow and Murphree is important to notice that the spatial also point out that communities approach is always present in all of are small-scale organizations, which the defi nitions of community or, the cannot endlessly be extended in size, community group in the contemporary because their operations are primarily natural resource legislation of Tanzania. based on inter-personal and mutual Furthermore, the membership of a certain reciprocity rather than on bureaucratic village does not automatically mean that prescription. According to Barrow and a person is a member of a community- Murphree (2001: 26–27), the collective based conservation group. Th erefore action of communities for eff ective the concepts of the community and natural resources management requires the village are best kept apart. Barrow four characteristics, which are cohesion, and Murphree (2001: 26) criticize the demarcation, legitimacy and resilience. above-mentioned communities of place Cohesion means a sense of common -model because, inter alia, it ignores identity and interest, which supports and the population dynamics and changing persuades the collective action of people agricultural practices. Th e community towards a mutual interest. Demarcation boundaries will also change in the means the setting of spatial or social course of development as governments boundaries on the basis of mutually impose new units of local regulations on agreed criteria for certain areas and their rural areas. Th is model may not be easily natural resources to defi ne jurisdiction applied to the pastoral communities of and authority. Legitimacy focuses on semi-arid or arid areas. Th e seasonally the internal and external power and changing pastoral way of life in Maasai authority to legitimise the processes communities is completely diff erent and leadership within the community. from that of the Wangindo and Internal legitimacy arises from socio- Wandonde people of Liwale, who are cultural and socio-economic criteria and shifting cultivators, beekeepers and is considered to be more important than hunters. Th erefore the spatially defi ned external legitimacy. concept of a community may not be Resilience is the organizational successful when applied to all cases and capacity of a community to adapt in communities in Tanzania, although it content and structure to the external is so defi ned in the legislation. Barrow and internal changes in uncertain and Murphree suggest instead using environments and livelihood systems. an actor-oriented and functional Resilience is a crucial concept in both approach to the defi nition of the ecosystems and social systems. Resilience

110 means the capacity of a system to absorb inside the protected areas including disturbance. Loss of resilience will move National Parks, Nature Reserves, Game the system closer to the thresholds of Reserves and Game Controlled Areas. carrying capacities and fi nally cause Wildlife living outside the protected areas the system to collapse (Holling et al. was also state property and its use was 1998: 353). Th e above characteristics regulated by bureaucratic organizations of social organization provide more based on hunting licenses and fees. depth to the understanding of the Poaching and encroachment by people concept of community than the spatial and their cattle into the protected areas approach does. Th eoretically speaking was continuous and costly staff resources it would be ideal to adopt a holistic were required by the governments and approach to the concept of community conservation organizations to sustain and apply all the above characteristics the conservation strategies and natural to a given community. However, the resources. In the end, it was recognized communities often lack one or more of that conservation and sustainable these characteristics which may be an natural resource management are not obstacle to a successful implementation possible without the participation of the of a CBC project. people who live in the resourceful areas and whose livelihood partly depends on 7.3. Natural resource management those resources. Participation is the key and participation in CBC word in community-based conservation (CBC) but Barrow and Murphree (2001: Th e impasse of the previously 28) emphasize that not all projects and predominating strategy to conserve programmes that speak of participation natural resources by establishing are communal in nature. In fact, there designated protected areas with is a range of community participation various levels of human activity approaches, which integrate nature has led to the adoption of a more conservation and sustainable natural participatory approach in contemporary resource management. Th e diff erent natural resource management. Th e levels of community participation and implementation of the previous strategy, natural resource ownership are described often called the fences and fi nes approach in Fig. 16. or fortress conservation usually results in Community service and protected the creation of large protected areas in area outreach programmes are often the less fertile lands and the exclusion of established between the protected area locals from these demarcated areas. Th e management and the surrounding rural protected natural resources are excluded communities to resolve confl icts by from the consumptive use of local creating revenues for the communities residents and all kinds of traditional near these protected areas. Tanzania human activities become illegal inside National Parks Community Service and most of the protected areas. Th e colonial Udzungwa Mountains Agro-forestry governments and later the independent Programme (TANAPA 1999: 16) are governments in Africa were the owners of examples of this type of programme. the wildlife and other natural resources Integrated Conservation and Development

111 Figure 16. Community involvement in diﬀ erent types of community conservation approaches. Adapted from (Williams et al. 1998:4; Barrow and Murphree 2001: 32).

Projects also emphasize the maintenance the sustainable use of these resources of biodiversity through trying to solve (Williams et al. 1998: 4). According confl icts between conservation and to Marshall Murphree (1991: 2), there development. In these projects, the level are two main reasons why people seek of community involvement in planning to manage the environment. Th e fi rst and decision-making is higher than in reason is that the management of natural protected area outreach programmes. Th e resources improves their livelihood. socio-economic aspect is also emphasized Th e second reason is that they want more in the conservation eff orts. In to avoid environmental degradation, Tanzania, Integrated Conservation and which is threatening life-sustaining Development Projects are found in the processes and peoples’ aesthetic values. East Usambara Forest. Community- He also proposes that “people seek to based conservation programmes focus manage environment when the benefi ts of on high levels of resource ownership by management are perceived to exceed the the local communities. Th ese projects costs”. try to empower communities to manage Th e basic principle of the CBC is their own natural resources as means that local rural communities should for development and conservation. Th e benefi t from the conservation and participating communities receive rights management of natural resources. to control and manage their natural Other approaches focus more on nature resources and earn revenue through conservation wherein community

112 participation is often more passive than based wildlife management programmes. in the CBC approach. Quite often the Th e fi rst category contains programmes communities remain passive recipients which are based on the existing protected of instructions and handouts from the areas and implemented inside the management agencies. In community- National Parks and Game Reserves or based conservation projects the main outside these areas by establishing buff er focus is on improving the livelihoods zones in the surrounding areas. Th e of local communities through the second category contains programmes sustainable use of natural resources. which are not associated with protected Local communities are given a role areas and implemented in, for example, of active participants involved in all communal areas far away from National stages of the projects from planning Parks and Game Reserves. Unlike in to evaluation. According to Zerner the two pioneering southern African (2000), community-based natural countries in CBC, in Zimbabwe and resource management programmes, Zambia where the projects are carried which link markets and income out on communally owned land, the streams to collective property rights, projects in East-Africa are mainly are impressive experiments in economic implemented in buff er zones bordering justice, environmental governance and protected areas. All community-based democratisation. He highlights that wildlife management programmes in markets, commodities and natural Tanzania are buff er zone programmes. resources are cultural conceptions which Th e projects in East-Africa like their are invented, validated and circulated counterparts in southern Africa mainly at specifi c historical situations in focus on wildlife and forest management, particular cultural-political contexts. proving that these two initiatives are Th e nature, cultural meaning and value currently the most critical and confl ict- of commodities changes when they are prone fi elds in natural resources moved from one place to another through management. Th e economic value of diff erent cultural regimes of valuation wildlife is a threat to its conservation and interpretation. Th e wide variety if that value only benefi ts people who of images and ideologies which form do not have suffi cient responsibility the basis of conservation and natural for it (Songorwa 1999: 2063–2064; resource management programmes International Resources Group Ltd. should be examined through culture 2000: 49). Th e underlying principle and politics. Popular images of nature of the CBC is that if communities are and local communities in the media and given legal rights to control their own nature conservation brochures are often natural resources, then they will have policy directives in disguise (Zerner a stronger incentive to sustainably 2000: 3, 6–7, 10). manage these resources as the main East-Africa was among the fi rst benefi ciaries (Schafer and Bell 2002: regions in the world to introduce 402). Community-based conservation is community-based natural resources and based on collective management and the wildlife management systems. Th ere use and control of local common pool are two main categories of community- natural resources. Th is also includes

113 the distribution and sharing of benefi ts units through privileged knowledge and which result from such collective use. exclusive control of state and non-state Th ese local collaborative regimes of conservation agencies (Goldman 2003: natural resource management defi ne 834). Th is process has been interpreted membership and jurisdiction (Murphree as a de-concentration of central power, 2001: 8). One of the basic problems, where the devolution of power to the which the integration of wildlife communities is only administrative i.e. management with rural development giving the communities the power to tries to address, is the poor ability of rural administer rules without giving them people to fi nd non-farm alternatives the power to create and refute these to diminishing farm opportunities. rules (Agrawal and Ribot 1999 cit. Diversifi cation of livelihood options Goldman 2003: 834). CBC is basically with wildlife management could about devolution of responsibility, help households to spread their risks rights and authority of natural over multiple choices and cope with resource management from the central bad times (Maganga et al. 2003: 5). government to local communities. Th e Community-based wildlife management stage of this transition can be assessed does not assume that it will solve Africa’s by the level of local control over socio- food problem. However, wildlife economic benefi ts and revenue fl ows management does have the potential to from natural resource management. make a contribution to the subsistence Th e concept CBC has been globally production in rural areas. Wildlife has a applied to various stages along the special, though limited, role in extensive transitional axis from full state control agricultural development (Baldus 1991: to full community control (Fig. 16.). 9). Community-based conservation Tanzania is in the middle of transitional is based on an approach where the axis, where the central government has concept of nature is transformed from the decision-making authority but the protected land units with exclusive state service and administration functions control, into conserved land units with fall under the regional and district inclusive participatory and community- level government. Co-management of based endeavours. Community-based natural resources provides some revenue conservation in its modern form has to local communities. Th ere are many been implemented in Africa for over two milestones, which countries have to decades now. However, an examination of cross in order to reach a more democratic various community-based conservation and participatory natural resources processes across Africa reveals that, management. Th e fi rst milestone even though communities have been includes a national political will to move included into the politics and policies of towards CBC and national support to wildlife management and conservation, enable policy, legal and institutional they have not yet been given the power frameworks to develop support for the to actively defi ne the ways in which process. Th e second milestone includes conservation is perceived and nature clear, simple and transparent procedures managed. Nature is still partitioned for mutual accountability between the into protected and unprotected land local, district, regional and national

114 levels. Th e transition from a state-based including fl ora and fauna. Most projects natural resource management to a CBC in Africa focus on wildlife and forest takes a lot of time and Tanzania has resources management. Community just passed the fi rst milestone (Alcorn forest reserves are an important source et al. 2002: 7–9). Th e diff erence of of fi rewood, timber and other wood the two concepts decentralization and products. Forests are a fi xed resource devolution has to be taken into account available in certain locations and their here. Decentralization means the demarcation for communal use is much delegation of responsibility and limited easier than the wildlife resource which authority to subordinate units, such as is a fugitive or constantly moving from district offi ces which have accountability one area and community reserve to toward their superiors, namely the another if no fences are built around the regional offi ces further up the hierarchy. reserves. Moreover, it is very common in However, devolution creates relatively Tanzania that wild animals living inside autonomous realms of authority, the protected areas migrate into the farms responsibility and entitlement, which and pastures of the villages to feed and mainly are accountable to their own search for water. Th e wildlife resource members. In the latter case, decision- is a valuable source of meat, hides making is shifted from the state down to and trophies but it also kills domestic localized jurisdictions. Th e devolutionist animals, people and it destroys crops. approach to natural resource management Th ese are important considerations faces strong opposition because the state when implementing a community-based and private sector stakeholders have conservation projects. their own confl icting interests in local natural resources and they do not want 7.4. Property right regimes in CBC to loose decision-making power or their ability to claim the benefi ts generated One of the most important characteristics from these resources (Murphree 2001: of the community-based conservation 8). Community-based conservation has (CBC) is the concept of property rights been criticized for being a government regime. Generally, natural resources are and donor driven and not developed located and managed in four property from within the communities. Generally rights regimes. Th ese are Open-Access, speaking, the modern community-based Communal Property, Private Property, and conservation schemes are not rooted in State Property. Property rights regimes, in African traditions. Th e history of the principle, determine who the managers social and institutional change in Africa of the area and natural resources are and has shown that the implementation of who have the right to exclude outsiders new concepts has not failed because from using the resources. Th e use of they are foreign but rather because they natural resources usually overlaps these are ill-conceived or contradict existing four property rights regimes. Private social structures, cultures and beliefs property is the most straightforward (Siege 2001a: 21). type of regime. Privatisation of land to Natural resources managed in CBC individuals or companies clearly excludes generally consist of renewable resources, all other users from that area.

115 In the context of CBC, the Open- while others are marginalized. Drawing Access and Communal Property types up conceptual, topographic and are often mistakenly confused. Open- normative boundaries for protected Access types of regime occur when the areas usually includes the implication resources are no-one’s property and of a regime of rules with restrictions of available to everyone. In fact, the Open- access, which clearly manifests projects Access is not a property or management to govern. In the modern world, we regime at all. An Open-Access situation are situated in a landscape of shifting may develop, for example, when a confi gurations of nature/culture (Zerner previously communally managed 2000: 16–17). resource regime is taken over by the state. Due to the breakdown of the 7.5. Values of wildlife in CBC traditional management system and the poor law enforcement by the state, Although the focus of this study is not the resource users may consider the on the economic dimensions of wildlife state property as an open access for all conservation, the benefi ts and costs of which is then uncontrolled and quickly living with wildlife must be taken into depleted. In this kind of situation account. Th ese are crucial elements in the people opportunistically use the sustainability of any conservation project existing resources but do not manage and local livelihoods. Community-based them. Communal Property regimes conservation projects do not only aim to have resources, which are controlled conserve existing wildlife populations in and managed by an identifi able group the target areas but also, aim to improve of people (Murphree 1991: 3; Mäkelä the welfare of local communities in 1999: 33–34). socio-economic terms. Th e economic CBC programmes are usually rationale behind the community-cased implemented in communal property conservation initiatives is that in order rights regimes but they can also take to get communities to support wildlife place in state-owned areas, such as the conservation in the long run they must buff er zones of protected areas. Generally, benefi t from it. In many community- natural resource useage overlaps with based conservation projects, local all four property regimes above and residents have benefi ted from wildlife creates a need for the CBC approach through indirect revenue sharing. In such to clarify the property rights in areas processes, the state returns a proportion where the resources are depleted or used of the revenues earned from wildlife back in an unsustainable way. Th is is because to the local level administration through these rights are unclear to the resource grass-root development activities, such users or not enforced by the rights as provisions for social infrastructure owner. According to Zerner (2000), like schools and wells. According to all nature conservation and natural Lucy Emerton (1999: 8, 17; 2001: resource management programmes are 208–209), the one-dimensional inevitably political projects. In these benefi t-based arrangements which programmes, certain species, landscapes have been the guiding principle for and environmental images are privileged many community-based conservation

116 projects in East Africa, have often failed If the wildlife meat was to be replaced to provide economic incentives for by domestic meat, the cost would be locals to conserve wildlife because these signifi cantly higher for the users. Th e models are based on an incomplete hunters can earn substantial income by understanding of community economics, selling wildlife meat. For example, in conservation and wildlife benefi ts. Th ese the Arabuko-Sokone Forest, hunters can benefi t-based approaches neglect the annually earn up to 275 USD by selling local economic forces that motivate wildlife meat, while the average annual communities to contribute to the loss of income in the area is 38 USD per capita wildlife. Th e economic and community (Bennett and Robinson 2000: 1–2). incentives to conserve wildlife vary Th e total economic benefi t of at diff erent times to diff erent people. wildlife does not only consist of tangible Benefi t distribution is a necessary tool to use values, such as meat, hides and support the engagement of communities trophies and activities like education with wildlife conservation but in itself it and wildlife-based tourism (hunting and may not be a suffi cient means to achieve wildlife-viewing), although these direct this. values have been the main focus in most In post-modern capitalist societies, economic analyses (Fig. 17). Wildlife animals are equally as crucial as they also provides many indirect use values in were to hunter-gatherer societies. Th e the form of ecological and environmental big fi erce animals, such as bears, wolves services, such as pollination of crops by and lions at the top of the food chain are bees and dispersal of seeds by birds, bats especially crucial targets for extinction and mammals. Th ese ecosystem services prevention eff orts (Wolch and Emel provided by wildlife are nowadays 1995: 633). Today, the importance of widely recognized in economical wildlife as a resource i.e. instrumental analyses of nature conservation. Option value is made tangible through hunting, values include use values, which are game ranching and non-consumptive being developed or have not even tourism based on wildlife. In been discovered yet. Discoveries in industrialized countries and urban areas pharmaceutical research may lead to people no longer rely on wildlife meat as a use of products obtained from a their main source of protein. However, previously untouched wildlife species. the nutritional value of wildlife is very Th e non-use values of wildlife have not important to the rural people in many received much emphasis in economical developing countries. Currently, wildlife analyses but their importance has been and fi sh contribute at least 20% of the growing during the last two decades. animal protein in rural diets in more Th e total economic benefi t of wildlife than 62 countries around the world. In is the sum of all those values discussed West Africa, wildlife meat provides 25% above (Emerton 1999: 3–4; Emerton of animal protein requirements. For 2001: 209–210). example, in Liberia 75% of the meat used Many rural livelihoods are based on originates from wildlife. Th e nutritional mixed strategies where wage employment value of wild animal meat is refl ected is combined with local natural resource by its economic value to the hunters. use, so access to these resources is

117 Figure 17. Th e total economic beneﬁ t of wildlife which is operational at global, national and local levels. Adapted from (Emerton 2001: 210).

essential. Th e conservationists’ ideas that wildlife causes to local inhabitants. of community benefi ts associated Wildlife damage to agriculture can make with community-based conservation insecure livelihoods even more marginal do not often match with the local in economic terms. Th e total economic stakeholders’ ideas on benefi ts from these cost of wildlife is made up of three programmes, which can lead to problems costs in management, other activities (Berkes 2004: 627). Broad development and opportunity costs. Management benefi ts, such as dispensaries and costs mainly occur at the level which is schools, do not suffi ciently address the responsible for implementing national local economic forces and reasons why wildlife conservation programmes. people participate in activities which Th eir costs include staffi ng, equipment negatively aff ect wildlife in the area. and the infrastructural costs of wildlife Successful economic approaches to management. Costs generated by other community conservation must take activities are mainly absorbed by local into account the nature of livelihood communities. Th ese costs include systems in areas where people coexist livestock losses, crop destruction and with wildlife. Th e forms of revenues and human injuries and deaths. Opportunity benefi ts must be consistent with these costs include money, time, land and other livelihoods and substitute the costs which local resources which are forgone or not wildlife imposes on livelihoods (see also utilized because of wildlife conservation. Walpole and Th ouless 2005: 124). Th e Economic approaches should also development of social infrastructure include the broader policy factors which does not sustain daily needs for income, regulate and facilitate local land use and consumption goods and employment. economic activities. Macroeconomic, or Wildlife benefi ts can function as sectoral policies, may favour agriculture incentives for wildlife conservation if by imposing price distortions which they are assessed in relation to the costs make it impossible for wildlife to compete

118 with agriculture as an economically benefi ts. Currently, these communities viable land use option (Emerson are in a state of transition where 2001: 215–222). In many cases, the traditional values and institutions are additional economic benefi ts generated weakening, and social diversifi cation by community-based conservation have and heterogeneity are increasing. Th is been too small to compensate the direct leaves the communities in a situation costs and opportunity costs caused by where the focus of the people will turn to conservation (Hulme and Murphree immediate personal benefi ts rather than 2001a: 281). For example, a case study to long-term communal and societal of wildlife predation on livestock in welfare. Gokwe communal land in Zimbabwe East-Africa is the home of the most showed that the average annual loss per well known national parks and game livestock-owning household was 12% of reserves in the whole world, such the average household net annual income as Serengeti National Park, Amboseli (Butler 2000: 29). Th e vulnerability of National Park, Ngorongoro Conservation rural households to wildlife damage is Area and Selous Game Reserve. Th e not equally distributed. Each household World Wide Fund for Nature document and individual may have diff erent from 1990 describes Tanzania as one capabilities to absorb risks and insurance of the most important countries in the mechanisms towards crop loss by wild world for conservation and highlights animals. Individual self-insurance and the outstanding universal value of its social reciprocity between households major national parks (Neumann 1998: are important strategies to cope with 7). In Tanzania, approximately 99% vulnerability. Wealth and political of the tourism industry is based on infl uence of the households improve their wildlife. Tourism is the third largest capabilities to absorb risks. In Kenya, sector in the national economy after land availability is also an important minerals and agriculture (Severre 2000: predictor of farmers’ capability to deal 10). Ecotourism is often considered with crop losses (Naughton-Treves and as a potential source of revenues for Treves 2005: 256–257). the community-based conservation Walpole and Th ouless (2005: programmes. Community-based 134–135) criticize the adoption of ecotourism is regarded by its proponents communal approaches which are solely as a locally benefi cial way to utilise rural based on socialist economic principles landscapes and cultures in order to in the community-based conservation support local economic development and programmes. Th ey mention that the conservation of habitats and wildlife. In neo-liberal development policies, such theory, ecotourism provides economic as global market-liberalism and free benefi ts to those people who bear the trade policies, have failed to integrate costs of living with wildlife in the rural rural communities into the free market areas. Unfortunately, this is not always economy. Th erefore community-based the case as was shown by Jill Belsky conservation in Africa has mostly been (2000) in her case study of community- based on the principles of collective based ecotourism in Gales Point Manatee ownership and equitable division of Community Conservation Project in Belize.

119 Th ere community-based ecotourism is a unlikely to deliver income or net benefi ts top-down invention and intervention to the local communities in Tanzania. of conservationists, governmental He also quotes Barret & Arcese (1995: ministries, non-governmental 1007–1080) who write that few wildlife organisations, and rural elites, which areas in Africa attract so large a number reinforce historic political struggles of tourists that the incomes would cover and intensifi ed human injustice in the the costs in these areas. Examples from process. Separation and construction Tanzania and Kenya during the last ten of boundaries between rural and urban, years show that the tourism industry managed and wild, and human activities is very vulnerable to the disturbances and natural processes, remains the basis caused by political turmoil, terrorist for most of these development projects. activities and global economic recession. Th is kind of categorisation makes the Th e bombings of the American daily lives of rural people very diffi cult embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam because their activities have not been in 1998 as well as violence after the based on such separations or their recent presidential elections in Kenya understanding of these categories may in 2008 clearly decreased the number not be parallel to the people in power. of tourists travelling to Kenya and Th e conserved landscapes have mainly Tanzania. Th erefore community-based been shaped by human activities, such conservation programmes should not be as logging, farming, hunting and an solely based on tourism income in order unsentimental approach to wild animals. to be sustainable but on a diversity of Wildlife has been hunted for meat and incentives for rural communities which skins or eradicated as pests. Locals have can be secured on a long term basis even not categorically regarded wildlife as without the reliance on foreign income. symbols of wilderness or as endangered A study carried out in the two species (Belsky 2000: 285–289, 297). buff er zones of the Selous Game Th ere is little empirical evidence that Reserve, in the Morogoro District and benefi ts from wildlife-based ecotourism the Songea District reveals that the has improved community tolerance two most common expectations in the towards wildlife. Th e assumption that communities from the community- tourism-induced poverty alleviation based wildlife management programme reduces human-wildlife confl icts is also were meat and increased income. Th e almost entirely untested. Community- rural people interviewed were more based tourism remains a niche market, interested in getting meat and revenues which rarely produces benefi ts that from wildlife than conserving them. outweigh the costs of living with wildlife. Local communities expected to get Th e commercialization of wildlife legal access to game meat by joining the through tourism may also undermine the community-based wildlife management traditional cultural and spiritual values programme. Th is study also points out which have helped to manage wildlife in that formal education in rural areas does the past (Walpole and Th ouless 2005: not necessarily improve the attitudes 124, 131–133). Alexander Songorwa toward wildlife. People with more formal (2002: 63) points out that tourism is education tend to oppose community-

120 based wildlife management programmes within the communities (Mvungi et al. when compared with people with less 2002: 76–77). education. Th e studied communities were generally not interested in joining 8. Community-based wildlife the programme. Th ere are three main conservation in Tanzania factors for this lack of interest. First, the expectations which were raised Th e development of community-based among the communities were not met. conservation in Tanzania has not surfaced Second, the costs of living with wildlife independently but partially refl ects the were much higher than the benefi ts objectives and contents of other national associated with the programme. Th ird, strategies. Th e Poverty Reduction Strategy there existed a lack of trust between Paper replaced the structural adjustment the communities and the organising framework in Tanzania in 2000. partners of the community-based wildlife Decentralization of local government is management programmes. All in all, the one outcome of this replacement. Th is decision of communities to accept and Strategy Paper was a donor-led initiative join the programme was infl uenced by concerning government, transparency the promised socioeconomic benefi ts for and accountability and it represents some them (Songorwa 1999: 2065–2074). of the underlying principles in donor In Tanzania, many communities still thinking. Rule over public strategies has have superstitions and magical beliefs created tensions between the Tanzanian concerning the relationship between government and foreign donors, as the humanity and nature. Th ese dimensions government has the desire to have a of life have not been widely studied but total command of its policy agendas. may have a strong eff ect on the success Th ese macro-level strategies should, of community-based conservation instead of wish lists and consultations, programmes in the country. According to contain understanding of the micro- the study carried out in Kilombero and level circumstances of the rural poor. Ulanga districts of Morogoro Region, Rural poverty is strongly associated which is located north of Selous Game with lack of land and livestock, and Reserve, superstitions, magical beliefs the inability of rural people to secure and practices were still common in the non-farm livelihoods to substitute for villages in year 2000. Th e researchers diminishing farm opportunities in describe the people in the studied villages Tanzania. Institutional obstacles prevent as having a pre-Newtonian outlook. Th is or hinder rural families from building outlook together with the presence of the sustainable livelihoods. Th e Poverty magical institutions as part of the culture Reduction Strategy Paper highlights the and society is considered as a constraint rising of productivity within agriculture to development there. Th e researchers as a primary rural development goal. observed a culture of passivity and However, a more broad starting point, helplessness vis-a-vis development issues which facilitates diversity in rural in the villages. However, this could have livelihoods, has to be adopted in order also resulted from the weak institutional to reduce rural poverty (Ellis and Mdoe set up in social and economical structures 2003: 1367–1368, 1381).

121 Institutional contexts of livelihoods instability in neighbouring countries are also emphasized in the Sustainable and drought as problems, which aff ect Livelihoods Approaches (SLA), which wildlife conservation in Tanzania. are based on multidimensional Human and livestock population understanding of the living-conditions growth have increased the competition among the people. Th e SLAs recognize for farmland and rangeland between the diff erent assets and entitlements people, livestock and wildlife. Poverty has that people have in relation to various steered the rural population to shifting institutions, regulations and cultural cultivation supplemented by the use of norms. Th e original concept of SLA bush meat and forest resources which operating on a global level, which was in turn has led to an encroachment by derived from the work of Chambers people of the protected areas. Th e infl ux and Conway (1992) was later brought of refugees and automatic weapons from to the individual household level by the politically unstable neighbouring Carney (1998) and Scoones (1998). countries has increased human pressure Th ey adapted the SLA to focus on the on wildlife in some protected areas idea of how people constructed their and provided the poachers with more livelihoods on the basis of various assets effi cient tools. Tanzanian droughts in and entitlements. Th e Department for 1974, 1984, 1993 and 2000 caused International Development Framework crop failures and loss of livestock in for Sustainable Livelihood identifi ed fi ve rural areas and forced farmers to depend types of capital assets: fi nancial, physical, upon natural resources, such as wildlife, natural, social and human. Th ese assets for subsistence. Th ere are also problems are mediated through transforming within the current wildlife management organisational structures and processes. system which are threatening the (Toner 2003: 771–773). Th is defi nition conservation of wildlife. Th ese problems of single assets may fail to capture the include marginalization of locals through linkages and trade-off s between diff erent wildlife laws, insuffi cient numbers of assets. For example, access of individuals staff to manage the protected areas, and to natural resources may be defi ned inadequate funding and benefi t sharing. through social relationships (Pretty 1999 Prohibitive wildlife laws have alienated cit. Toner 2003: 773). people from the use of wildlife since the colonial period. Th e ideal staff area 8.1. Protected areas and threats to ratio for the protected areas is 1:25 km², while the present staff area ratio is 1:28 wildlife conservation in Tanzania km² in the National Parks managed by Traditional hunters have not, according the Tanzania National Parks, and 1:125 to the Director of Wildlife, Mr. E. L. km² in Game Reserves managed by the M. Severre (2000: 6), been a serious Wildlife Division in Tanzania. Th is low threat to wildlife in Tanzania. Wildlife staff ratio is caused by lack of funding populations are threatened mainly by and resources. Economic benefi ts from commercial poaching and shrinkage wildlife tourism have not accrued to the of habitats. Severre (2000) also lists villages which pay the cost of living with population growth, poverty, political wildlife. Th is has increased the negative

122 attitudes of people towards conservation prohibited. Licensed hunting can be (Severre 2000: 6–9). practiced in Game Reserves, Game In 1996 Tanzanian Protected Area Controlled Areas and Open Areas, but Network consisted of 12 National Parks, Tanzanian residents are only allowed to 23 Game Reserves, 43 Game Controlled hunt in the latter two areas. Th e hunting Areas and the Ngorongoro Conservation licence is exceptionally not needed in Area. All protected area categories include these areas for hunting down problem diff erent levels of protective measures animals who threaten human life or and limitations of human activities damage property (Ndolanga 1996: 13). (Table 3.). Th e National Parks and Game Th ese limitations in wildlife utilization Reserves cover approximately 15% of have an eff ect on the development of the surface area of Tanzania. In addition community-based conservation projects to the above mentioned protected areas, across the country in Tanzania. Certain there are some 520 Forest Reserves, protected area categories only allow which cover about 12% of the total area wildlife viewing which does not support of the country. Th is means that around any consumptive uses of wildlife by the 27% of the surface area of Tanzania is local communities. covered by a network of protected areas Th e community-based conservation where human settlement is prohibited project around the Tarangire National (Leader-Williams and Kayera 1996: vii). Park in northern Tanzania provides National Parks and Game Reserves do not evidence that the people who live in the allow human settlements, cultivation or neighbourhood of the park have cultural grazing of livestock. In Game Controlled values which aff ect their willingness to Areas and Ngorongoro Conservation see wildlife in their future surroundings. Area, these human activities are not Th ey consider wildlife valuable beyond Table 3. Diff erent categories of protected areas and open areas, and their characteristics in Tanzania. Adapted from (Department of Wildlife 1996: 170).

Category of the area Human Settlements Administration Legal uses of Wildlife National Park No Tanzania National Parks Game viewing (TANAPA) Conservation Area Yes Ngorongoro Game viewing Conservation Area (Game cropping) Authority Game Reserve No Wildlife Division Tourist hunting National projects, such (Game viewing) as SCP (Traditional use) Region and others Game Controlled Area Yes Region Tourist hunting (Resident hunting) (Game viewing) (Game cropping) (Live capture) (Crop protection) Open Area Yes Region Resident hunting (Tourist hunting) (Game cropping) (Live capture) (Crop protection) 123 the simple economic costs and benefi ts. rural areas, which creates a permanent Th e main problem there, however, is the competition of habitat between wildlife destruction of crops by wildlife and the and local communities (Hahn and Kaggi danger some species pose to humans 2001: 55). and livestock. New eff orts to prevent Th e discontent and opposition of wildlife damage were a prime concern rural people towards the established for the locals in 1992 (Kangwana and protected areas in their neighbourhood Ole Mako 2001: 158–159). has been most clearly manifest in Th e relations between the local Africa. Centralized control over natural population and wildlife are often resources had detrimental eff ects on complex, controversial, and diffi cult to both the economic development of the understand for outsiders. Wildlife has rural communities and the sustainability not only been a major source of meat in of the natural resource base (Schafer and the remote rural areas but also a liability Bell 2002: 402). Th e poor governments which competes for the scarce land lacked staff and funds to protect the resources with people and causes damage natural resources in the vast protected to agriculture. Dislocation of people areas, where poaching of wildlife and from the established game reserves and encroachment of people and their cattle national parks with scientifi c natural was common. Th e poachers were not resource management severely disrupted only local hunters looking for meat the livelihood strategies of rural African but also foreign professional hunters households. Th rough the legislation looking for trophies, tusks and horns for of wildlife conservation, land inside the black market. Many internationally the game reserves was shifted away popular species, such as elephants and from local property rights and control rhinos, became endangered in certain to state control. Traditionally wildlife African countries. Th e fears of extinction conservation focused on safeguarding of African wildlife received international the existence of wildlife by prohibiting media coverage and also caused anxiety human activities, such as hunting and among the African governments, which livestock-raising in certain ecosystems. received large amounts of foreign Colonial administration made traditional exchange earnings through wildlife hunting an illegal activity while allowing tourism. While Kenya, for example, sport hunters to utilise the same animals banned wildlife hunting in 1975, the legally. Locals and local hunters did not government of Tanzania continued to profi t from these activities at all. Th is support the consumptive utilization of conservation against the people -approach its huge wildlife resources by encouraging still dominates European conservationist resident and tourist hunting. However, thinking to some extent (Baldus 1991: it soon became obvious that the 6, Neumann 1998: 34–35). In Tanzania, contemporary approach to natural protected areas are not fenced off and resource management and wildlife wild animals are free to move in and out conservation was not sustainable and a from these areas all year round. Outside new approach had to be developed. the protected areas wildlife populations Th e new approach to natural resource are relatively big in sparsely populated management was not separated from

124 development issues like the previous one. for the international development Th e development discourse of the 1970’s community to implement community- and 1980’s emphasized basic needs, based conservation programmes and grassroots level participatory processes their focus shifted from conservation and decentralisation as development and management activities towards local goals. Environmental concern was also a participation, and supporting education part of the new international development and entrepreneurship. Th e neo- agenda. Th is led to the integration of liberal development agenda provides conservation and development in the a new emphasis on privatisation in new approaches to development in Africa conservation programmes. Th e neo- and also elsewhere since the mid-1980’s. liberal agenda simultaneously channels According to Marshall Murphree (2001: the idea of making conservation pay 5), this new bottom-up philosophy for itself to the grass-root level through of rural development and concern for the NGOs. Today, the environmental African nature conservation provided strategies of international development the basis for major aid allocations by agencies and those of major conservation international donors and gave them NGOs operating in Tanzania are very a role in the conservation strategies. much alike (Levine 2002: 1044–1050). Similar views have also been presented by Conceptually, community-based Adams and Hulme (2001: 17–18). Th ey conservation is not a new approach show that the community conservation because it has been practised in Europe narrative is very strong in those African since the eighteenth century. Revolutions countries which rely heavily on foreign displaced natural resources from the assistance. In Tanzania, foreign assistance control of the nobility and allowed as a percentage of Gross National landowners and communities to manage Product was 48% in 1990. Th us the their natural resources according to the infl uence of multilateral and bilateral principles and structures of community development agencies on the domestic conservation (Baldus et al. 1994 cit. policies of recipient countries is strong. Siege 2001a: 17). Th e community conservation narrative is often supported by donor experts and 8.2. Local government structure in domestic authorities who are attached Tanzania to them (Adams and Hulme 2001: 17–18). Th e merging of conservation It is very important for the sustainability and development goals coincided with of community-based conservation the emerging role of non-governmental programmes that all the stakeholders organisations as alternative recipients participate in the decision-making of development aid. Th e NGOs were process and its implementation. In considered as effi cient institutional Tanzania, the implementation of natural representatives of the civil society and resource management and community- their involvement in the World Bank- based conservation programmes takes funded environmental sector projects place through existing governmental increased from 67% in 1990 to 100% structures. Administratively, many in 1997. Th e NGOs were instruments diff erent national level authorities

125 have legal responsibility over wildlife- Local government structures are related matters in Tanzania. Th e wildlife formed by four diff erent administrative sector contains a number of competing levels in Tanzania. Th e lowest level of management agencies in Tanzania local government is the Village Council. (Bergin 2001: 93). Th e establishment It is elected by the Village Assembly of a functional relationship and trust representing all constituent households between the local communities and in the village. All residents of a village higher authorities responsible for natural who are over the age of eighteen can resources has been diffi cult. Th ere participate in the Village Assembly, has been uncertainty within regional who meet four times per year. Th e governments to devolve real responsibility Village Council is an independent and natural resource management legal entity composed of between 15 power to local communities. Th e to 25 members, and formed by the concepts of local government and local Village Chairpersons, Village Executive administration in this chapter are used Secretaries and Chairpersons from all in accordance with the defi nition of the sub-villages, Extension Offi cers and concepts by Pekka Seppälä (1998). Th e Heads of other institutions. Th e Village concept local administration refers to Executive Offi cers work as Secretaries the administrative set-up from village to the Village Council without voting to district level and highlights certain rights. At least 25% of the members of variations in these administrative the Council must be women. Th e Village practices. Th e administrators at these Council forms diff erent committees, levels are answerable to both the central such as economic aff airs and planning government and the semi-independent committee, and village natural resource district and village councils. Th e committee. Every local government concept local government refers to an body has some representatives at the administrative body with a defi nitive next administrative level (Fig. 18.). Th e decision-making power and economic Village Councils have representatives means to use this power. According to at the Ward Development Council, Seppälä, the use of the concept local which is the second level of local government in a Tanzanian case study government in Tanzania. Th e Ward can only be used concerning certain Development Council is formed by periods of time and even then its use the Ward Councillor, Ward Executive must be limited to certain formal Offi cer, Village Chairpersons, Executive and legal structures. For example, the Secretaries and the Extension Offi cers. independence of the district councils has Th e wards constitute a Division, which been curtailed many times in Tanzania is the next administrative unit up since their existence as separate elected the local government structure. Th e administrative bodies after 1984. Th e fourth level of local government is the central government holds tight control District Council. It is formed by the over the economical resources and uses Members of Parliament, the District fi scal policy as a mechanism to implement Executive Director, and the Ward control on the local administration. Councillors, the District Commissioner, the District Council Chairperson,

126 the District Administrative Secretary, push aside the regional administration the District Heads of departments, in 1997. Th e aim of this reform was to Ward Development Offi cers and one increase the independent executive power representative from each village. Finally, at the district level. However, this local some members of the District Council government reform was delayed until participate in the Regional Consultative May 1998 (Seppälä 1998). Th e goal of Committee, which is the highest the reform was to improve the delivery administrative unit in the region. Th e of services to the public. Sustainable Regional Consultative Committee development or natural resource aspects comprises the Regional Commissioner, were of no concern to this reform. Th e Regional Administrative Secretary, Local Government Reform aimed at Members of the Regional Secretariat, the political, fi nancial and administrative District Executive Directors, Members decentralisation, which would ultimately of Parliament, District Council change central-local relations. Th is Chairpersons, District Councillors kind of a reform is rare elsewhere in and District Administrative Secretaries Africa (Lipp 1999: 3–4). Th e impacts (Sandi 1996: 46; International Resources of the Local Government Reform in Group Ltd. 2000: 25–27). Tanzania on governance, fi nance and In the Local Government Reform service delivery was studied by Fjeldstad of 1996–2000, the fi rst step was to et al. (2006). Th ey found that citizen’s

Figure 18. Th e structure of local government in Tanzania. Adapted from (International Resources Group Ltd 2000: 25–27).

127 participation in decision-making and community conservation programme planning was substantially increased in is called Ujirani Mwema which means urban councils while this was seldom Good Neighbourliness in English. Th e the case with the rural councils during basic principle of that programme is that 2002–2005. Many village plans could parks should have a good and mutually not be implemented due to fi nancial and benefi cial relationship with local other constraints. In some districts, the communities and land owners. TANAPA bottom-up, community-based planning has included community conservation was in practice an ad hoc exercise, where staff in all planning and policy decisions the actual planning was carried out by since year 1994 (Melamari 1996: 8; the council management team. Th ey Bergin 2001: 90–92, 97). also found out that ordinary people had no eff ective instruments or procedures 8.3. Legislative guidelines for to make council offi cials accountable. community-based conservation in Th e fi scal autonomy of rural councils Tanzania was limited and this aff ected the local government bodies’ autonomy (Fjeldstad Next, I will turn my attention to the laws et al. 2006: 1–2). and regulations that aff ect community- In addition to the Local Government based wildlife conservation in Tanzania. Reform, a Land Law reform also took Th e legislative environment lays the place in Tanzania at the turn of the foundation for the establishment of millennium. Th is reform had strong community-based initiatives which aim impacts on the organization and the to reduce human-wildlife confl icts in the implementation of natural resource country. I will make a brief introduction management at the village level. of the national policies in connection Appropriate land tenure systems are as with community-based conservation fundamental as natural resource tenure in order to describe how these policies systems for the community-based have shaped the circumstances for conservation strategies. Th e Tanzania implementing buff er zones or to be more National Parks (TANAPA) authorities, specifi c, Wildlife Management Areas, in who had previous experience in the Liwale district. working with locals in the protected area outreach projects, noticed that 8.3.1. Forest Policy despite the allocation of title deeds, the villagers had no real control over land, Community-based conservation in which limited their dedication to the Tanzania has been limited because initiatives. A community conservation there have not been enabling policy programme was institutionalized within mechanisms or clear legislative guidelines TANAPA by the creation of a community to support its implementation. Th e conservation steering committee for all Tanzanian National Forest Policy of 1998 national parks in Tanzania. In 1991, it and Forest Bill of 2000 introduced the developed the fi rst set of national policies concepts of Village and Community for park management which were based Based Forest Reserve and Village Land on community conservation. TANAPA’s Forest Reserve. Th ese legislative changes

128 allowed the communities to start a and resident hunting form the basis of the process which would give them the right country’s wildlife utilisation industry. It to manage forests independently or in encourages private investments in both partnership with government authorities consumptive and non-consumptive (Mustalahti and Kinyero 2001: 3). uses of wildlife resources. Th e role of Th is policy focuses primarily on forest local community members and their resources management and addresses the indigenous knowledge of hunting are problem of forest degradation. Th e Forest also recognized in the policy. It must be Policy contributes to the establishment recognized that the Wildlife Conservation of community-based forest management Act of 1974 is the principal law regulating in the country by supporting the wildlife use in Tanzania. Th is act places development of local institutions and tremendous unchecked powers in the joint ventures in forestry. hands of three main authorities. Th ese are the Director of Wildlife, the Minister 8.3.2. Wildlife Policy of Natural Resources and Tourism and the President of the United Republic of At the same time, the new Wildlife Tanzania. A study of the provisions of Policy of 1998 was introduced in this Wildlife Conservation Act revealed Tanzania. Th e new Wildlife Policy of that the nature and extent of these vested Tanzania provides a strategy to ensure powers do not provide a stable operational that local communities living adjacent ground for an eff ective hunting industry. to the protected areas will participate According to the law, these authorities in the conservation and management of can do practically anything in the name wildlife in and outside of the protected of public interest (Majamba 2000a: 1; area network. About two-thirds of the Majamba 2001b: 13, 16). According strategies in Wildlife Policy concern to the Wildlife Conservation Act, the community-based conservation. Th e Director of Wildlife has the power objective is to give a mandate to the local to oversee the overall management communities to operate as custodians of wildlife in Tanzania. Legally the of wildlife and its habitats outside the Minister of Natural Resources and protected areas and to get tangible Tourism is the only person who has the benefi ts from this resource. Integrating authority to make regulations on wildlife wildlife resources with rural development management. Th e Wildlife Division is one of the main challenges for the new leases hunting concessions on a fi ve-year Wildlife Policy in Tanzania. It would do contract to private companies, which well to remove the antagonism between fulfi l the requirements. Th ese hunting local communities and wildlife enforcing concessions are not allocated according to agents in Tanzania. Th e new policy a transparent market-driven system. Th e transfers the management responsibility absence of checks and balances in wildlife to local communities, with obligations to management has resulted in nepotism, take care of wildlife corridors, migratory abuse of authority and allegations of routes and buff er zones (Severre 2000: corruption. Th e income from hunting 11–12; Maganga et al. 2003: 1). Th e tourism could be signifi cantly higher Wildlife Policy recognizes that tourist in Tanzania if a real market value was

129 achieved in leasing the concessions to total animal population in a particular companies. Currently there is no true hunting block. In fact the number of the market-based competition between hunting blocks has been increasing while the companies because the hunting the country’s wildlife population has concessions are leased at a fi xed rate to a decreased. In 1965, there were only 47 group of previously selected companies. hunting blocks in Tanzania. By 1997 the Many of the companies which have made number of hunting blocks had increased leasing concessions with the Wildlife to over 140. Th ese hunting concessions Division oppose the new concept of cover an area of over 250,000 km². Many Wildlife Management Area because of the original vast concession areas were they are afraid that their secure leasing subdivided during the 1990’s and the concessions might change (Nshala 1999: original hunting quotas were applied to 1–2; Baldus and Cauldwell 2004: 6, 19, each new subdivision. Th ere were only 34, 42). Th e Wildlife Conservation Act nine commercial hunting companies states that hunting of any wild animal when the government allowed them to is generally prohibited unless authorized start operating in the hunting blocks in by the law. A person has to be above 1984. By 1996, the number of companies the age of fourteen and possess a valid had increased to 33. Th e hunting fi rearm for hunting in order to be able quotas have remained unchanged in to apply for a hunting license. Licences the hunting blocks while the number for certain species are only available to of commercial hunting companies has the citizens or to persons who have lived increased there. Th is development has at least 12 months in the country before lead to depletion of animal populations the date of license application. Th e at alarming rates. Th e Director of Act prohibits hunting in game reserves Wildlife received complaints about his and game controlled areas without a allocation of these hunting blocks to the written permission from the Director hunting companies. He was accused of of Wildlife. Th e Minister of Natural allocating the hunting blocks according Resources and Tourism has the right to to his personal opinion rather than prohibit hunting of any animal in any according to the existing guidelines. As a area during a specifi ed closed season. result of these complaints the Minister of Normally the hunting period lasts for Natural Resources and Tourism and the about six months, starting from July to Director of Wildlife made a Consensus December every year. Agreement with the Tanzania Hunters Th ere are some weaknesses in the Association (TAHOA), which laid out hunting quota system, which aff ect the the criteria for the allocation of hunting sustainability of the hunting industry. blocks in 1994. Th e locals have criticized One of these weaknesses is the lack of the laws and the institutional framework an overall trophy monitoring system in for favouring a particular class, namely Tanzania. Th e annual quota is basically tourist hunters. Local communities were set on the basis of anecdotal reports unable to practice traditional wildlife- from the game offi cers and from the related rituals due to the restrictions hunting companies. In some cases the placed on areas reserved for hunting. issued quotas have been larger than the Th ey do not understand the logic of the

130 Wildlife Conservation Act which allows but in reality these funds have never the foreigners to hunt wild animals while reached the target communities because local residents are not allowed to do the the money has been kept by the district same. Th e Wildlife Policy tries to address councils (Nshala 1999: 5, 12–13; Baldus this major concern and recognises the and Cauldwell 2004: 6). intrinsic value of wildlife to rural people. Th e Policy also tries to enhance the use 8.3.3. Wildlife Management Area of indigenous knowledge and traditional hunting methods by special rural In the Wildlife Policy, participation communities, but these initiatives are yet of local communities in wildlife to be translated into legislation (Nshala conservation and management is 1999: 5, 10–11; Majamba 2001: 13–20; achieved through the establishment of a Baldus and Cauldwell 2004: 3–4). new category of protected area, namely Th e Consensus Agreement of 1994 Wildlife Management Area (WMA). made with TAHOA described six Th e fi rst drafts of WMA appeared in conditions stating the guidelines that the Tanzanian Wildlife Policy in 1996. every hunting company would have to Th e Wildlife Policy defi nes WMA as meet in order to be allocated hunting an area declared by the Minister of blocks. Th e companies must utilise Natural resources and Tourism, which is wildlife on the leased hunting block in set aside by the village government for such a way to generate at least 40% of purposes of biological natural resources the value of the total allocated wildlife conservation. However, there are legal quota. If the companies fail to do so, problems with this new category within they are required to pay the missing the existing Wildlife Conservation Act, value to the Wildlife Division to meet which is still in force, and the new wildlife the 40% minimum. One condition is policy’s related developments do not that the hunting companies are required render it ineff ective. Th is Act recognises to contribute to anti-poaching activities only three categories of protected areas, by opening up roads and airstrips for game reserves, game controlled areas the anti-poaching squads during the and partial game reserves and human- off -season, and off er assistance to the wildlife interaction is not envisaged in communities which are located adjacent any of these categories. Th ese categories to hunting areas. In theory, this requires of protected areas do not address the that the hunting companies make a plan future needs of community-based to integrate its conservation activities conservation. Th e underlying objective with the activities of local communities. of the Wildlife Conservation Act is the Actually, this criterion is poorly observed segregation of people from wildlife. Th is because there is no provision for its problem could be solved by revising the implementation and the present system current Act to provide a more solid legal only requires the delivery of handouts foundation for WMAs. In an early draft to neighbouring villages. Since 1993 of National Wildlife Policy, the WMAs the government has agreed to transfer would replace Game Conservation 25% of the hunting revenue to the areas Areas or Open Areas if these areas have where the hunting activities take place, signifi cant wildlife populations and

131 villagers wish to manage their land to It is estimated that in the future the support wildlife there. Th ere is also a need livelihoods of over 3.5 million people to harmonize the Wildlife Conservation will partially depend on the WMAs. Act with all other legislative provisions Currently, no laws support wildlife regulating activities on the village lands, corridors and dispersal areas in Tanzania such as the Mining Act, the Tanzania so the establishment of WMAs will Investment Act, the Village Land Act help to secure these important habitats and the Local Government Act. Th e (Severre 2000: 12, 20). management of WMAs established on Mara Goldman (2003: 837–838) the lands belonging to villages will be brings up some criticism towards the governed by the provisions of legislation defi nition of the WMA. She states that which relates to the administration of in the Wildlife Policy, the WMA system village lands. Th us the Village Land is principally defi ned as a tool to conserve Act gives the legal framework for the biodiversity in village areas. Th e system is management of these new wildlife based on the demarcation of village lands management areas (Ndolanga 1996: 14; into additional protected areas around the Majamba 2000a: 1–3; Majamba 2000b: game reserves and other protected areas. 9–13). According to Jim Igoe (2006: 80) Th us they constitute an extension of the the designation of the WMAs in Tanzania protected area system, not an alternative refl ects the adoption of a large landscape to it, and refl ect a colonial conservation conservation approach through the attitude. Local communities remain African Wildlife Foundation’s African passive benefi ciaries whose appearance Heartlands Programme. Th e paradigm of in the conservation objectives depends hierarchical patch dynamics in savanna solely on the geographical location ecosystems required the enlargement of these communities. Ownership of of the conservation focus outside the wildlife is another critical issue. Locals isolated protected areas and enrolling do not have the capacity nor the desire stakeholder groups throughout the to create wildlife migration corridors on larger landscape in the conservation of their land. Th ere is a danger that local natural resources. communities will use the authority Th e management responsibility over natural resources to promote of these WMAs will be devolved to activities which do not promote wildlife rural communities and to the private conservation. In the worst case, the sector. Also the user rights of wildlife Wildlife Management Areas will become will be conferred to the villages and institutions of decentralized despotism private landholders. Community-based where district offi cials and wildlife conservation and the establishment of authorities enforce control over village WMAs follow and support national land and locals’ activities. Ndolanga macro policies, such as Tanzania (1996: 15) points out that if the villagers Development Vision 2025. Th e new do not own the wildlife, they do not Wildlife Policy contributes to the goals feel responsible for it. Currently the of this vision by supporting equity in government owns all wildlife in Tanzania natural resource use, reducing poverty and the villagers are issued limited quotas and providing employment possibilities. for hunting. Th is supports the top-down

132 management of natural resources and according to the existing Societies does not enhance community-based Ordinance (Th e United Republic of management. Ndolanga suggests that Tanzania 2002c: 6, 12). Th e partners in villager’s use rights of wildlife should WMAs include village governments, the be linked with ownership of land titles. advisory body to the WMI, the District Igoe (2006: 83, 91) writes that Western Council, wildlife authorities, such as conservationists have been very active in Wildlife Division or Ministry of Natural rewriting national conservation policy Resources and Tourism, the private and promoting WMAs in Tanzania. sector and NGOs and community- Th ose village governments who have based organisations. Th e private sector resisted the designation of WMAs in partners will enter into concessions or their areas have been strongly pressured joint venture contracts with the WMI by higher authorities to complete the and agree on resource utilisation and process. Unfortunately, the Wildlife investment in the WMA. Th e private Management Areas appear to undermine sector will also have responsibility of local control rather that strengthening marketing and promoting the Wildlife it. Th e establishment of WMAs has Management Area resources. Th ere already created community-level is a need to carry out environmental confl icts between the WMA villages impact assessments before investing in and the farmers with farms located on the WMAs. Th e Wildlife Conservation the boundaries of the wildlife migration Regulations of 2002 state that all corridors. Severre (2000) mentions Land Use Plans for the WMAs shall that the communities who manage the be subjected to environmental impact WMAs as production units need inputs assessment (Th e United Republic of like capital and human resources with Tanzania 2002c: 19). Financing of appropriate skills. Th e communities WMAs may be problematic and hinder would therefore need many partners to the implementation of the community- help them to manage these areas and based conservation concept in Tanzania provide them with money and investment (Severre 2000: 15–18). opportunities. Th e communities need to Th e costs of managing a WMA establish an authorized association, such include capital and operating costs as a Wildlife Management Institution of the Authorized Association or the (WMI), which will fi nally have the WMI itself, and contributions to management responsibility of the the government, districts and local WMA. Th e Wildlife Conservation villages. Th e hunting block, game and Regulations of 2002 defi ned Authorized conservation fees have been previously Associations as villages, individual collected by the government, but groups and designated organisations in a Wildlife Management Area a which have been given the authority proportion of these net revenues to manage wildlife outside National generated by hunting are taken by the Parks, Ngorongoro Conservation Area WMI. Th erefore, additional economic and Game Reserves. Every village which opportunities must be developed to intends to establish a WMA must form substitute or exceed the loss of these a Community-Based Organisation revenues for all stakeholders in WMAs.

133 However, there is an estimated revenue utilisation of natural resources. All shortfall of four to ﬁ ve years during which trophies hunted in the WMAs remain the revenues collected with WMAs fall the property of the government, so the short of the revenues collected without Authorized Associations only have the the WMA from the same areas. Th is gap right to utilise the meat obtained from is caused by the capacity limitations, wildlife management and problem poorly developed markets, poor quality animal control (Th e United Republic of products and inadequate infrastructure Tanzania 2002c: 14–16, 21, 25). (Christophersen et al. 2000: vi–x). Fishing, lumbering, hunting, tourism, Th e Village Governments are boating and beekeeping are compatible responsible for the management of land uses promoted on the WMAs. Wildlife Management Areas. Th ey will Farming and construction of buildings coordinate the use and conservation are prohibited as incompatible forms of of natural resources at village level and land use there. Th e land use plans aim prepare the Land Use Plans for their to reduce the amount of land under WMA. Th e Village Governments also agriculture and fallows in the WMAs enter into agreements with Authorized to discourage shifting cultivation there. Associations on the management of Th e land use plans will require villagers Wildlife Management Areas. Th e to adapt themselves to settled farming Authorized Associations acquire a WMA and imply a need to develop intensive status for the area on village land which farming methods (Baldus 1992: 7–8). is set aside for wildlife conservation Th e EPIQ team studied the economic and management. Th e Authorized opportunities of Wildlife Management Associations also recruit Village Game Areas in 2000. Th ey identify four major Scouts from the villages and coordinate opportunities out of a list of 14. Th e major their activities. Th e Authorized economic opportunities are tourism and Associations negotiate and enter into resident hunting, photographic tourism, contractual agreements on the utilisation improved beekeeping and collection of natural resources in WMAs. Th ey centers for its by-products, and natural also carry out problem animal control, forest management. Th e broader base protect natural resources and conserve of economic opportunities allows the biodiversity in the designated areas. government to collect more revenues Financial management and collection from the WMA than was possible from and payment of required fees and taxes a single income-generating activity. is also their responsibility. Village Game Th e sale of hunting rights to tourist Scouts are employed by the Authorized hunting companies and resident Associations and their duties include hunters groups is the main economic the protection of lives and properties of opportunity for most of the WMAs. villagers from problem animals, wildlife Photographic tourism can also be a clear monitoring, guarding the borders of economic opportunity for some WMAs WMAs against encroachment and but it can only be practiced on a very carrying out anti-poaching activities. limited scale. Th ese non-consumptive Th ey also guide the visitors and collect tourism activities are based on the good trophies as well as ensure the sustainable visibility of wildlife and presence of

134 other attractions, such as scenic vistas, local communities who own the land which is not often the case in the thick where most of this hunting takes place. bush of miombo forests. Photographic Th e Wildlife Conservation (Wildlife tourism can be viable in locations of Management Areas) Regulations for good accessibility and proximity to other the establishment and management major tourist attractions. Photographic of WMAs were released at the end of tourism cannot co-exist with tourist 2002. Th ese new regulations state that hunting because the hunting companies Wildlife Management Areas may be and the existing law do not support established in areas outside protected this. However, in the new Wildlife areas, in village land and in areas used Conservation Regulations of 2002, it by local community members. Th e is written that non-consumptive and WMAs can also be established in areas consumptive tourism can be conducted that are parts of a Game Controlled within the same zone of a WMA if they are Area. Th e designated areas must have operated by the same company in such a accessible resources, both biological and manner that activities do not come into non-biological, which are of signifi cant confl ict. Photographic tourism can take economic value. Th ese areas must also be place in the same WMA with hunting ecologically viable or form a part of an tourism if these activities are both ecologically viable ecosystem. No area will approved in the zoning of the Land Use be designated as Wildlife Management Plans (Th e United Republic of Tanzania Area if these criteria are not met (Th e 2002c: 22). Traditional beekeeping is United Republic of Tanzania 2002c: 10). widely practiced in Tanzania and it is a Th e regulations list 16 pilot areas where viable economic opportunity for WMAs the WMA approach will be tested over if certain circumstances are present. a three-year period. Th e examination Th e processing and markets of honey of the current Wildlife Management and other by-products of beekeeping Area regulations shows that they do not are not yet well developed and most place any real control in the hands of of these products are made for local the communities. Th e Wildlife Division consumption. Th e quality of honey still has full control over the hunting must be improved and beekeeping concessions and quotas on the WMAs. must become more effi cient to make Th ere is evidence of corruption between this a real economic opportunity for local village leaders and tourist hunting WMAs. Natural Forest Management, companies in some pilot WMAs and it which is still in its infancy, presents a big is therefore necessary for the Wildlife economic opportunity for many WMAs Division to retain full control over these located within the present fuel wood and initiatives (Baldus and Cauldwell 2004: charcoal supply zones of urban centers 2, 32–34). General lack of trust in the in Tanzania (Christophersen et al. 2000: capacity of local communities to manage 9–15). natural resources without governmental Th e development of Wildlife supervision, scientifi c training and Management Areas has been delayed guidelines is another reason for the and there is no schedule for sharing communities to be kept on the sidelines. the tourist hunting revenues with the Rural communities have very low

135 capacities for planning and managing related land use plans will force the business enterprises. Moreover, there is communities to get rid of the practices a legacy of failed communal enterprise of shifting cultivation and establish initiatives in Tanzania (Christophersen permanent settlements and permanent et al 2000: ix). Th e Wildlife Policy farms (Severre 2000: 20). According to suggests that indigenous knowledges Bennett and Robinson (2000: 13–15), should be enhanced in natural resource these changes in the social environment management and conservation but may have a detrimental eff ect on generally little has been achieved through wildlife populations. Sedentarism is very WMAs. In order to recognize the intrinsic often associated with denied access of value of wildlife to rural communities, local residents to the broader resource the conservation authorities should landscape. Increased sedentarism, where fi rst accept the value and legitimacy people do not move across the landscape of local indigenous knowledges about anymore in search of natural resources wildlife and allow these knowledges but instead settle in permanent locations to be incorporated into scientifi c and rely on agriculture, reduces hunting conservation planning. However, sustainability and leads to increased indigenous knowledges are often population densities and market disregarded and presented as opposed to involvement in human communities. Western scientifi c knowledge due to the Permanent settlements also tend to constraints of the conservationist culture increase immigration to those areas, and institutions. Local indigenous which may change wildlife harvests and knowledges are not usually very precise, put more pressure on the existing natural exact nor do they follow the same resources. Many traditional societies will logic as Western scientifi c knowledge. become more deeply integrated into Local indigenous knowledges, such as market economies as their material needs locals’ geographical understanding of increase along with their reliance on the the landscape including the notions sale of wildlife products to generate cash of boundaries, ecological knowledge to buy consumer goods. and resource-management processes, Th e revision of the wildlife are considered to be more responsive management and conservation in to the spatial and temporal dynamics Tanzania does not take place in a and heterogeneity at the local scale. vacuum. Th ere are many internal and Th ese knowledges do not easily fi t into external forces which infl uence the the conservation model where clearly process. Th ere is a growing demand and defi ned stable boundaries and land-use political pressure from the communities zones make the landscape like in the and their representatives in the WMA. Th ese landscapes are much less Parliament to distribute more power responsive to the uncertain and complex down to the village level. Th e external local scale ecological and social processes forces include international agreements, to which local indigenous knowledges such as the additional regulations of have adapted for centuries (Goldman CITES, which constrains the utilisation 2003: 841–845, 856). Th e establishment of wildlife resources. Also the revised US of Wildlife Management Areas and Endangered Species Act and the negative

136 infl uences of the anti-hunting lobbies noticed that farming land boundaries have an eff ect on the wildlife conservation between diff erent villages were clear to and management in Tanzania, which the most village governments but forest is built up on consumptive uses of boundaries were unclear. Marking the resources. It is mainly the external forces village boundaries in the forests was which are destructive and dangerous to considered dangerous because of wild the Tanzanian economy (Baldus and animals (Mustalahti and Kinyero 2001: Cauldwell 2004: 43). 7). Th e Village Councils may also establish joint land use management 8.3.4. Land Act and Village Land Act agreements with neighbouring villages and share common resources accordingly Th e new Land Act and the Village Land (National Land Use Planning Act were approved by the Tanzanian Commission 1998: 14–15). In addition, Parliament in 1999. Th e Land Act the Village Land Act allows the Village became a law in 2001 and it divided Councils to declare some of their land the land in Tanzania into three as common land. Th e Act also supports major categories for administrative the designation of some village land as purposes. Th e categories are general a Wildlife Management Area. Part of land, reserved land and village land. the success of community-based wildlife Th ere is a Commissioner of Lands who management in the villages surrounding administers general land and reserved the Selous Game Reserve (SGR) land, while village land is administered depends on Village Land Use Plans. Th e by the Village Assemblies and Village process of creating these plans demands Councils under the Local Government a lot of labour and is very expensive. Th e Act (International Resources Group Selous Conservation Programme (SCP) Ltd. 2000: 36, 49). Th e new land laws assisted many villages in the buff er zone decreased the State’s administrative of the SGR to obtain certifi cates of land control over access to land by the boundaries. Finally, the Land Use Plans citizens and facilitated the increasing were offi cially approved for villages in role of local government structures in the districts of Songea, Tunduru, Liwale land designation within the villages. Th e and Rufi ji. However, the Land Use Plans Village Land Act of 1999 recognized were not complete because beacons were traditional customary land rights by not set up on the village borders as is granting each village a certifi cate of requested by the new Land Act. Th e Land village boundary and empowering the Use Plans of the villages participating in Village Councils to issue certifi cates the SCP contain information on areas granting customary right of occupancy for roads and settlements, agriculture, to villagers or groups of people to land fuel wood, forest reserves, wood lots, within the village. Th e Village Councils bee keeping, swamps, livestock grazing, are requested to produce a Village Land areas for future expansion and areas for Use Plan as a management tool for the wildlife management. In these plans, the designation process (Ojalammi 2006: areas designated for agriculture, livestock 33–34). In the Angai Forest Reserve grazing and wildlife management are boundary demarcation process, it was usually zoned far apart from each other

137 to avoid confl icts. Wildlife management course of the CBC project, the natural areas are typically located in the buff er resource management in Liwale has zone of the Selous Game Reserve. undergone signifi cant changes, as the Land Use Plans also consider seasonal established Wildlife Management Areas climatic occurrences which may have have created an extensive buff er zone eff ects on community-based wildlife between the Selous Game Reserve and the management. During the wet season, nine villages located in the neighbouring seasonal fl oods may destroy crops and areas. I will discuss the sustainability of increase the demand for meat, which the project on the basis of the interviews may foster poaching. Bad weather also and the questionnaire study carried makes law enforcement diffi cult as road out across six villages. Th is discussion networks may be cut off by fl oods and does not follow the conventional path storms (International Resources Group of stakeholder relations or cost-benefi t Ltd. 2000: 36, 38–39). Th e Land Use analysis but uses the framework of Plan will also take immigration and critical cultural geography to reveal the population growth through nativity broader nature-society problematics into consideration as they both have an within the Liwale CBC setting. Th e impact on the success of the programme. chapter begins with a brief history of the Th e plan aims to control and stop Selous Game Reserve, the core protected unnecessary immigration which may area which hosts the Selous Conservation take place due to the attractiveness Programme in its buff er zones. Th ese of improved living standards in the buff er zones are the areas where the villages through the SCP (Baldus 1992: WMAs are designated. Th e history of the 8). According to a study of Songorwa Selous Game Reserve has greatly aff ected (1999: 2075), villagers often perceive livelihoods in the area and shaped the that zoning of village lands reduces the attitudes of local communities towards amount of lands available for them. wildlife and wildlife conservation. Th e successes and failures of the current 9. Selous Conservation community-based conservation cannot be studied without fi rst understanding Programme – a CBC in the the historical processes of nature Liwale District conservation in Liwale. Th e extentions of the game reserve broke down the Th e aim of this chapter is to present a case previously perceived norms, structures study of a community-based conservation and contents of the spaces which were (CBC) project and its implementation affi liated into the protected area. Th e in the Liwale district of the Lindi region extension of the Selous Game Reserve in southern Tanzania. I will describe the also led to the redefi nition of the nature- background of the Selous Conservation culture borderlands by outsiders who Programme, which is a regional CBC did not live in the affi liated areas. Th e programme in Tanzania, and explain scattered households of local hunter- some of the fi ndings of the fi eld study gatherer groups were assigned to wildlife that I conducted in the Liwale district conservation. Moreover, the wildlife laws between June and August 2002. In the did not allow the evicted people to hunt

138 wild animals in their traditional hunting 9.1.1. Early years of Selous Game grounds anymore. In this chapter, I Reserve will explain how diff erent ordinances and laws have connived at human- Germany declared a Protectorate on the wildlife confl icts in the Liwale district. East African coast in 1885 where slave Th is chapter will also describe how trade and ivory hunting had already been conservation narratives and wilderness taking place for a long time before the ideals exported from outside during the arrival of German colonial government. colonial era became dominant among Commercial hunters from diff erent the political elite after the independence countries had hunted there for ivory and in Tanzania. other valuable wildlife products and sold meat to the local villages. Th ey had also 9.1. History of Selous Game Reserve contracted local hunters to shoot wild animals on their behalf (Baldus 2000: Th is chapter will describe the shifts in 1). Following the arrival of the European wildlife conservation narratives and colonial administration and nature show how these have aff ected wildlife conservation ideologies, modern wildlife management in Tanganyika, especially legislation was brought to German East- in the area of the present-day Lindi Africa just before the end of the 19th district. Th e establisment of game century. Th e fi rst legislative regulations reserves, including the Selous Game to control hunting were introduced there Reserve, and prescription of wildlife by the German colonial administration laws by the colonial administration with in 1891. Th e Imperial Crown Land the support of infl uential preservation Ordinance Kronlandverordnung of 1895 and hunter organizations redefi ned the granted exclusive rights to the colonial actual and perceived location of existing government to occupy so called ownerless spatial hierarchies in the area. Th ese lands in German East-Africa. Th e goal initiatives and regulations were exported of the Wildlife Preservation Ordinance from outside and aff ected the daily lives Wildschutzverordnung of 1896 was to of many ethnic groups in Tanganyika. control the hunting of certain wildlife Many hunter-gatherer groups lost their species and preserve endangered wildlife traditional hunting grounds and were for scientifi c purposes, and to support evicted from the established game the developing European-lead hunting reserves. Th e following sub-chapters industry. Th is Ordinance also allowed will show that the Selous Game Reserve the exclusive creation of Game Reserves did not reach its current land area at in German East-Africa. Most of the once but expanded to the surrounding German legislative provisions to control areas in stages. A detailed description hunting were generally segmented and of the areal extent of the Selous Game uncoordinated. Th e Wildlife Preservation Reserve through its evolvement over a Ordinance was the only statutory 70-year period out of several small and instrument which was established to previously individual game reserves is govern the wildlife sector during their given by Matzke (1976), so I will not 35-year rule (Wanitzek and Sippel 1998: repeat it here. 114; Baldus 2000: 2; Severre 2000: 4; Baldus 2001: 1; Majamba 2001: 5). 139 Th e British and the Germans adopted by locals only when it was considered as diff erent approaches to deal with the commercial. Th e Colonial Government ivory hunting problem. Th e British stopped all commercial culling by wanted to combat the cruelty and over- issuing the Hunting Act of 1911. Th is exploitation of ivory hunting through Act regulated all hunting in the German game laws which would introduce East-Africa. Landowners had legal scheduled licence-based hunting across rights to shoot wildlife on their land all colonies. Th e Germans favoured the to protect life and property but they establishment of game reserves in certain had to submit all trophies, horns and parts of the colony, where hunting was skins of hunted problem animals to prohibited or limited year round (Jepson the government. Harmful species like and Whittaker 2002: 138). According lions, leopards, wild dogs and crocodiles to Kjekshus (1978), the notorious could be hunted freely or for a reward. caravan routes which run through the However, this categorisation of useful Selous area during the 1860’s had driven and harmful animals was criticized most wildlife out of there. Th e pressure by some people. One of the critics of the caravans on wildlife decreased was Carl Georg Schillings, who was a when Kilwa lost its importance in Arab– hunter and naturalist working on the Zanzibar trade (Kjekshus 1978: 72–73 development of the wildlife legislation cit. Baldus 1990: 14). for the Protectorate. His ideas were Th e Game Preservation Ordinance quite revolutionary in the early 1900’s. Jagdschutzverordnung of 1903 made Schillings understood the value of the establishment of hunting reserves wildlife as a natural heritage for future possible in German East-Africa. Th is generations and as an economic resource Ordinance prohibited all hunting in which could be utilised in a sustainable these closed hunting areas, which had way for the benefi t of the colony. He preservation of wildlife as their main also developed an idea to channel and goal. In 1908, the Hunting Ordinance re-invest hunting revenues back into Jagdverordnung replaced the Game wildlife conservation. (Baldus 2000: 2– Preservation Ordinance. Th is new 4). Colonial administrators understood Ordinance regulated hunting of game quite well the importance of free access inside and outside of the protected areas. to natural resources for rural people. At the same time, the name of the areas Th e administrators feared that rebellion with hunting restrictions changed from might take place if the laws threatened Hunting Reserves to Game Reserves livelihoods. German military offi cers, for (Wanitzek and Sippel 1998: 114–115). example, speculated that the Maji Maji Th e German Colonial Governor, von Rebellion of 1905 was partly triggered Wissmann, felt that the biggest threat to by opposition to the game laws in the African wildlife came from the European colony (Koponen 1995, cit. Neumann hunters. Th e most famous hunters of 1998: 105). that time, such as Selous and Schillings Th e enormous Selous Game Reserve, among others, did not agree with his view which in 1922 was named after the and said that the colonial government British hunter and explorer Frederick restricted traditional hunting carried out Courteney Selous (1851–1917), was

140 originally established by the German Colonial Government, the elephant colonial administration in 1905. Th e populations recovered. Th e records Reserve itself evolved over a 70-year from 1914 and the 1920’s show that period out of several small and previously confl icts between wildlife and people individual game reserves. At fi rst, the area were already present in south-eastern only presented a small nucleus of today’s Tanganyika. Th ere were deserted villages Selous Game Reserve. Th e German between Kisaki and Mahenge, which Emperor Wilhelm II gave that area to now form a part of the Selous Game his wife as a wedding anniversary gift Reserve, from which the inhabitants in 1907. Th e south-eastern parts of the had moved away because elephants had German East-Africa had four individual destroyed their farms (Baldus 2000: 3). game reserves in 1912. Th ese were Elephants entered the scattered small among the earliest wildlife sanctuaries holding cultivations and destroyed in Africa. Th e Mtetesi Game Reserve crops. Th e Mahenge-Ulanga district was the southernmost reserve located in bordered the early Selous Game Reserve the present day Tunduru district. Th e and it was recorded as an area of severe Matandu Game Reserve was located crop destruction by elephants. In year along the Matandu river, northeast of 1920, vermin, such as elephants, hippos Liwale. Th e Mahenge and Mohoro Game and buff alos, caused much damage to Reserves were situated inside the modern native crops there. At that time, Liwale SGR along the rivers Rufi ji and Ulanga. was a part of the Southern Province of Th e Mahenge Game Reserve formed the Tanganyika where the heaviest activity nucleus of the modern Selous and was in elephant damage and control took later combined with the Mohoro Game place. According to the records of the Reserve (Matzke 1976: 37–43; Baldus early 1920’s, the ivory exploitations had et al. 1988: 5–6). Th e German colonial driven the elephants far away from their administration had established 15 game original settlement areas. Elephants reserves, which covered about fi ve were only found in remote areas within percent of German East-Africa before the province. Th e movement of people the World War I (Baldus 2001: 1). towards agriculturally fertile areas from Th e Germans realized the value of Songea and Njombe to Liwale, Kilwa the natural beauty and large wildlife and Rufi ji together with intensifi ed populations of the Rufi ji River drainage agricultural development caused the area and this view was inherited by elephants to move again and created the British Colonial Administration new confl icts with humans. In year after the First World War. Th e British 1923, it was recorded that elephants, Government’s Game Preservation pigs, baboons and hippos caused much Department expanded and combined damage to crops in Lindi (Rodgers and the Mahenge and Mohoro Game Lobo 1978: 38–40). Reserves in 1922 and named the reserve In the early 1920’s, the degrading after F.C. Selous. Th e size of the reserve eff ects of the sport and trade hunting was then 2,590 km² (Matzke 1976: 37; industry in Africa started to raise Baldus et al. 1988: 5). As a result of the international concern. Th e people hunting restrictions set by the German responsible for the merciless slaughtering

141 of thousands of animals were mostly eff ect of game laws on rural areas German and British colonial settlers and (Neumann 1998: 102). Th e European foreign sport hunters. Th e international Nature Conservation Committees and community put pressure on colonial the Boone & Crockett Club worked governments to stop this massacre together to establish the fi rst national of Africa’s wildlife. Partly due to this park in Africa in the 1920’s. King Albert pressure, the colonial government of Belgium who had toured the national of Tanganyika enacted the Game parks in the United States of America Preservation Ordinance and established received information from the Belgian the Game Department in 1921. Th e Ambassador in America on the need Game Department had three mandates to establish a gorilla sanctuary in the directing its activities in Tanganyika. Belgian Congo. Th e King was inspired It was established as an authority to by the national park concept and 1) enforce hunting regulations and commissioned the establishment of the 2) preserve wildlife values through King Albert Park in the Belgian Congo administering the Game Reserves. Its in 1925. Th e second national park to be third mandate was to protect people established in Africa was Kruger national and crops from wild animals (Severre park in 1926 (Jepson and Whittaker 2000: 5; Majamba 2001: 5). New laws 2002: 140). to prevent the depletion of wildlife through poaching and habitat loss 9.1.2. Selous Game Reserve as a were established in the early part of the battleground of human-wildlife 1920’s in Tanganyika. Th e Collective confl icts Punishment Ordinance of 1921 provided tools for the British colonial government Between 1928 and 1931 the British to punish entire communities with extended the area of the Selous Game fi nes if any of their members were Reserve to 6,500 km² doubling its involved in helping poachers. Th e 1923 previous size. Th e reserve was extended Land Ordinance allowed the colonial toward the north and it contained some government to claim all of the natural local settlements and a few fi shing resources in the territory as the property villages. Th is extension was carried out of the Crown. Th is Ordinance also gave because the game staff reported that the government the power to designate there was heavy hunting pressure on the game reserves and forest reserves on the elephant population along the northern lands occupied by African population and eastern borders of the reserve and (Neumann 2000: 120–122). In the that elephants had been found only early 1920’s, the opposition of pro- inside the reserve. Th e new areas included African offi cials to the game laws were in the reserve were regarded unsuitable noticed by the colonial governor, who for cultivation and uninhabited and then emphasized the interests of local a proposal to extend the game reserve communities in conservation. Also boundaries became law in 1931 (Matzke agricultural and veterinary offi cers of 1976: 37). the colonial government had started to Th e colonial government tried to raise concerns about the impoverishing carry out game control schemes in

142 order to reduce the human-wildlife of social necessity. Th e reserves created a confl icts in the area. In 1928, a hippo legal barrier that prevented people from eradication scheme was carried out to moving out of their large settlements to protect cultivation on the south side of return to their scattered homesteads in the Rufi ji River. Th e confl ict of wildlife the thickets (Rodgers and Lobo 1978: and agricultural values was unavoidable 27). Th e British colonial conservation and it continued to plague the Selous ideology was not univocal but had Game Reserve for many years to come. opposition to its preservationist ideas Th e main purpose of the SGR was within the administration. For example, to protect the endangered elephant forest and wildlife conservation proposals population, which was then considered which ignored the customary rights to be disappearing fast. Th e Selous Game of local communities were critizised. Reserve was included in a proposal to Many of the arguments were based on establish National Parks in Tanganyika confl icting and contradictory ideas in 1931 but this proposal was never about locals’ relationship to nature. accepted. Th e confl ict between the One ideological current established a elephant conservation and agricultural romanticized image of the pre-colonial development increased each year and the African society which included a respect number of elephants shot for cultivation for local survival skills in diffi cult protection in the Southern Province environments and a notion of the noble increased simultaneously from 350 in savage. Th e other ideological current was 1931 to 1,796 in 1935. Th e elephant based on a modernising mission where problem also resulted in the elimination African people would be freed from their of the Mtetesi Game Reserve in 1935 savage way of life and become effi cient and a policy of selective protection producers in the colonial economy of priority villages. Th is meant that (Neumann 2000: 119). the villages inside the game reserves Th e power struggle between received no assistance from the colonial wildlife conservation and agricultural government to protect their fi elds from development was imminent in Tanganyika crop-raiding elephants. In the following during the British colonial period. year, the Matandu Game Reserve was Th e early colonial conservationists, expanded and a new Liwale Game who were mostly hunters, wanted to Reserve was established between Selous set aside land for hunting and wildlife and the previously eliminated Mtetesi preservation. Th is conservation Game Reserve (Matzke 1976: 38–39). policy had to be carried out under Th e British administration realised the circumstances where the colonial in the 1930’s that the existing game administration also wanted to promote reserves were not large enough for the the export of agricultural products, country’s extensive elephant populations the basis of Tanganyika’s colonial and therefore these reserves had to economy. Th e colonial conservationists be enlarged and new game reserves received considerable support from the established. Many of the game reserves international agreements to establish were not only created for the sake of new protected areas. Th e establishment wildlife conservation but also because of national parks in Tanganyika, for

143 example, was supported by the 1933 for the Preservation of the Fauna of the Convention for the Protection of the Flora Empire was leading the conservation and Fauna of Africa in London. Th is movement in the British colonies. Th e convention resulted in an international society believed that it was England’s agreement to investigate the possibilities duty to protect the natural Africa. Th e of creating a system of national parks Serengeti National Park (est. 1937) in the country, which was the primary was the fi rst national park established interest of the Society for the Preservation in British Colonial Africa. In the of the Fauna of the Empire and other beginning, human use of the national European preservationists (Neumann park was not prohibited, but the Society 2000: 121; Levine 2002: 1045). In the for the Preservation of the Fauna of the same year, Constantine J. Philip Ionides, Empire advocated that human activity who is considered to be the father of within the park should be strongly the Selous Game Reserve, joined the limited (Levine 2002: 1045). Th e Tanganyika Game Department as a presence of African people within the game ranger and started to protect the parks was only tolerated if these societies area from colonial cultivation schemes. lived in a state of harmony with nature Ionides worked as a game ranger in and according to the European images Liwale from 1933 to 1957. He was of a noble savage placed upon them. responsible for reducing the excessive Th eir activities were controlled by park elephant population and organizing authorities and any behaviour which anti-poaching activities in Selous and in did not fi t into the concept of primitive the Southern Province of Tanganyika. man resulted in eviction from the park Evictions of tribal settlements from (Neumann 2000: 121). Selous were also completed during his era Th e Game Ordinance of 1940 replaced in the Game Department of Tanganyika the old Game Preservation Ordinance, (Rodgers and Lobo 1978: 39; Baldus et which was enacted in Tanganyika in the al. 1988: 6–7). early 1920’s. Th ese colonial hunting laws mainly refl ected the colonial government’s 9.1.3. Wildlife conservation, the compliance with the obligations of settlement program and removal of the international wildlife conservation people from the reserve community, not with the interests of the local population. However, the laws Since the 1935, wildlife values started permitted local community members to to prevail more than before in the game hunt animals with traditional weapons reserve administration. Th e outcome for the provision of food but they needed was a policy to remove people from the special permits to hunt certain wildlife most troubled areas. However, up to species. Th e laws did not acknowledge three thousand crop-raiding elephants the needs of some local hunting were shot every year outside the game communities to hunt specifi c species for reserve. Th e conservation policy aimed cultural and traditional rituals. Only the at protecting wildlife within the reserve tribes of Tindiga, Bahi and Wanderobo but to shoot problem animals outside it received legal rights to hunt any animals (Baldus and Siege 2002: 42). Th e Society without the licences. Th is inequality and

144 selectivity in the legal provisions refl ected areas were incorporated in the Selous the application of the divide and rule Game Reserve and the evacuated people concept in Tanganyika (Majamba 2001: were not allowed to return. It was 5–7). Th e Game Ordinance of 1940 did easier to administer them in the closer not totally prohibit human settlements villages and the areas evacuated were in the National Parks. Persons whose now shifted to the administration of place of birth or ordinary residence was the Game Department. Th e provincial inside the park were allowed to enter and administration requested the Game live in the National Parks. Also people Department to ensure that the evacuated who had any rights over immovable areas did not become no man’s lands property in the National Parks as well as (Open-Access regimes) and that there their children and servants had the same was no infi ltration of people back into rights to reside there (Wanitzek and these areas. Th is duty was not backed up Sippel 1998: 116). by any clear legal authority which caused At the end of the 1930’s, the Wangindo severe misunderstandings between the were the last ethnic group who still game staff , colonial administration lived in the Selous Game Reserve area and local communities (Matzke 1976: (Baldus et al. 1988: 6). In the 1940’s, as 39–40; Baldus et al 1988: 6; Swai 1996: a result of the selective protection policy, 51). Th e settlement policy carried out most local communities voluntarily during the sleeping sickness eradication abandoned their villages, which were programme in the game reserves and left inside the Selous Game Reserve and neighbouring areas was more about the consolidated Liwale Game Reserve. increasing the administrative power of Th e reason for this was that their crops the colonial government over the remote were repeatedly and severely damaged and sparsely settled areas. by elephants. People were also forced Th e next important stage in to constantly evacuate the reserve in the regional policy in southeastern the mid-1930’s and in the 1940’s. Th e Tanganyika took place in 1945 when the evacuations were partly incorporated Matandu Game Reserve was opened up in the sleeping sickness eradication to human settlement and its game reserve programme where people were evacuated status was cancelled. People were allowed from infected areas. Tsetse fl ies, which to move there from the evacuated areas spread the sleeping sickness, are found inside the new borders of Selous Game in most parts of Tanzania, especially Reserve and they were thus located closer in miombo woodland habitats. Th e to the administrative centres of Kilwa British colonial government adopted and Lindi. Th ere were also plans to a concentration policy to move people extend the southeastern border of Selous away from woodland areas and resettle Game Reserve towards Liwale town, them in villages without habitats suitable which was to be abandoned. However, for the tsetse fl y. Th is resettlement took the large-scale groundnut scheme of place in Liwale in 1936 and it left large the Overseas Food Corporation near areas of miombo woodland unoccupied, Nachingwea proved that these soils which thus were made available for previously regarded as unproductive wildlife conservation. Th e evacuated could be put under cultivation. Th is

145 scheme included the clearing of traditionally lived inside the National thousands of acres of woodland and the Parks but it prohibited hunting and eradication of elephants in the nearby other disruptions of nature there areas (Rodgers and Lobo 1978: 34). (Wanitzek and Sippel 1998: 116–117). Th ere were also other more successful Hunting, which had been an important plans to extend the area of the reserve way for local communities in rural areas ever more. Large areas of miombo to substitute bad harvests with animal woodlands were incorporated into the protein, was permitted in the areas reserve west of Mbarangandu River as outside protected areas until 1954. Th e were huge areas to the east, including Fauna Conservation Ordinance then the land between Matandu, Lung’onya restricted subsistence hunting to a few and Ulanga Rivers. Th ese additions traditional communities in Tanganyika almost extended the area of the reserve and permitted only controlled and to its modern size (Matzke 1976: 40– licensed hunting outside the game 46). Th e expansion of protected areas reserves in so called Controlled Areas and establishment of new national (Majamba 2001: 7; Siege 2001b: parks did not take place unanimously 38). According to this ordinance, in Tanganyika. Colonial offi cers resisted there were only fi ve tribes, namely the establishment of additional parks the Hadzabe, Wabahi, Wandorobo, because they feared that the policy of the Wasianzu and Wakimbu, which were Society for the Preservation of the Fauna allowed to hunt wild animals for food of the Empire would exclude people without hunting licences (Th e United from the protected areas and create Republic of Tanzania 1994: 130). Th is confl ictive instabilities in the colony. legislative change prevented most rural Th e Tanganyika National Union leaders communities from hunting legally and used the anti-conservationist ideas in alienated them from wildlife use and rural areas to get support in opposing management. However, at the end of the colonial rule (Levine 2002: 1045). the 1950’s, there was one exceptional Tanganyika’s policy of allowing the protected area in northern Tanzania, subsistence hunting of rural Africans where the interests of local residents were was attacked in a regional conference on taken into consideration. Th is exception the protection of wildlife in Nairobi in was the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, 1947. Conference participants judged which was established in 1959. Th is new the unsportsmanlike African hunting area had the dual mandate of protecting methods in moralistic terms and blamed the livelihoods of resident Maasai them for the extermination of game pastoralists and conserving the natural animals in the colony. African hunting heritage (Leader-Williams and Kayera methods involved cultural values and 1996: vii). Th e National Park Ordinance practices which were incompatible with of 1959 ended the residential rights of European values and myths concerning local communities inside the National wildlife (Neumann 1998: 107–108). Parks in Tanganyika. Entry to these Th e National Park Ordinance of 1948 protected areas was now restricted mainly brought no changes to the residential to game-viewing tourists (Wanitzek and rights of local communities which had Sippel 1998: 117).

146 9.1.4. Selous Game Reserve after these tasks of wildlife conservation. His independence speech is often cited in the documents of international conservation organisations After independence, the rights of as a positive example of African communities to access natural resources governmental interest in protecting were partially regulated by the land wildlife. However, it was the members of laws shaped by the two former colonial a Western conservation organisation who powers. Th e Land Law in Tanzania actually wrote these parts of Nyerere’s adopted the English common law speech (Bonner 1993: 65 cit. Neumann tradition and was strongly infl uenced by 1998: 140). Fear of rising tribalism English concepts of land law (Wanitzek was one of the reasons why centralized and Sippel 1998: 113). Th is law was policies were encouraged and traditional designed to facilitate land alienation local structures discouraged in the and created a policy environment where young independent state of Tanzania. customary tenure, such as pastoral land Th e power of traditional chiefs and local tenure, was considered insignifi cant in governments were purposefully decreased comparison to statutory land tenure and the central government posted its (Igoe and Brockington 1999: 10). Th e representatives in the villages to handle independent government of Tanzania administration and services (Siege also inherited the colonial wildlife 2001a: 17). Th e Game Reserve status laws and institutional structures. In in Selous did not mean that wildlife was adopting the colonial wildlife policies, not hunted inside the reserve. Tourist- the independent government continued hunters and colonial administrators had a policy which aimed at alienating practiced hunting continuously inside and marginalizing local communities the reserve since its establishment. from the hunting industry. Th is meant Hunting-tourism as a source of foreign that the hunting industry continued exchange earnings motivated the to run for the benefi t and interests of development-oriented government of the international trophy market. It Tanzania to expand the game reserve also revived the hostility between the into the surrounding areas. By 1961, governmental wildlife authorities and the tsetse fl ies and sleeping sickness were local communities (Majamba 2001: 7). largely eliminated in the southern parts Th e Arusha Manifesto speech given of the country so there was no more by the Tanganyika’s fi rst Prime Minister need to evacuate villages from disease- Julius Nyerere in 1961 encouraged prone areas. However, the elimination of international conservation organisations isolated and scattered villages suited the to participate in establishing, planning Ujamaa villagisation programme of the and managing the country’s protected Tanzanian government. Th e villagisation areas. A lot of emphasis in the speech programme contributed to the absence was also given to awakening the African of people in some areas surrounding public opinion to the economic and the game reserve. Several new areas cultural value of wildlife. Nyerere were added to the reserve during 1960 called for specialist knowledge, trained and 1974 (Matzke 1976: 41). Th e last manpower and money for carrying out addition was the southern bank of Rufi ji

147 River. Th e population was resettled and 56 Game Controlled Areas. Since along the main road and was repelled 1964, many Game Controlled Areas from fertile farms and well-stocked have been upgraded to National fi shing waters. As a result, poaching has Parks or Game Reserves (Table 4.). ever since posed a challenge to the game Th is upgrading followed the various administrators (Baldus and Siege 2002: policies of re-settlement in Tanzania 43). According to Matzke (1976: 41), the and the categories of protected areas game reserve was seen as a very eff ective which allowed human settlements were method of preventing human settlements upgraded to categories which prohibited extending into undesirable parts of human settlements (Swai 1996: 52). the governed territory. Th e colonial Currently, the Game Controlled Areas administration had banned all human have a low conservation status because settlements inside Serengeti National in addition to wildlife utilisation many Park and all future park boundaries in other forms of land use are practiced 1959. Th e Tanganyika National Union there. Th e District Authorities are leaders who had previously opposed the responsible for controlling land use in conservation eff orts and the excluding Game Controlled Areas. Many of these of people from the reserves rapidly areas do not have wildlife anymore due reversed their views after independence. to the expansion of settlements and Th ey now enthusiastically supported agriculture (Severre 2000: 10). the establishment of new parks and Th e Tanzanian game administrators protected areas (Levine 2002: 1045). also inherited the problem animal Th e Tanganyika Game Department control policy from the British Colonial lacked administrative power and government. Large numbers of elephants resources to eff ectively control illegal and other animals were killed outside the activities inside the Selous Game protected areas. Th e scheme of 1962– Reserve during the two decades before 1963 in Kilombero aimed at eradicating independence. It was not until 1961 the elephants from the areas designated when the idea of a carefully controlled for intensive agricultural development. Game Reserve was adopted by the Another, but unsuccessful scheme in the politicians. Th e evolvement of tourism early 1960’s attempted to drive elephants during the 1960’s shifted the focus on out from the coastal areas of Lindi to the value of natural resources in the towards the unsettled areas of the Selous protected areas in Tanganyika. However, Game Reserve. Th e average number of there was still not much fi nancial elephants killed outside the protected support to the game reserves from the areas in Liwale between 1971 and 1975 government of Tanzania because these was 473 per year, while between 1930 protected areas were regarded as natural and 1940 this fi gure was 350 per year zoos or paradises which were sacrifi ced (Rodgers and Lobo 1978: 32–52). Th e at the expense of industrialisation and national economy was worsening from agricultural development (Baldus et al. the early 1970’s onwards, which enticed 1988: 8). At the time of independence, people to poach rhinoceroses and the protected area network consisted of elephants as highly valued trophies on four National Parks, six Game Reserves the black market. Villagers in the buff er

148 Table 4. Th e number of protected areas in Tanzania from 1964 to 1994. Adapted from (Swai 1996: 52).

Protected area status Year 1964 Year 1974 Year 1994 Game Controlled Area 56 50 36 Game Reserve 6 8 20 National Park 4 8 12 Total number of protected areas 66 66 68 zones of Selous Game Reserve poached increasing human populations (Levine wildlife for meat and even assisted 2002: 1045–1053). poachers from outside their villages Th e villagisation programme partially (Baldus 1992: 1). reversed the trend of isolating game From 1967 onwards, the Tanzanian reserves from human inhabitants. New government regarded wildlife as an settlements were established within the important national resource, which borders of the Selous Game Reserve. could be used to bring foreign currency Th e villagisation programme reduced through tourism to support and fund the the agricultural land area of the social programmes within the Ujamaa villages and by resettling people within policy of socialism and self-reliance. the catchment area of the Matandu International conservation NGOs were River (Fig 7.) it actually encouraged eager to provide help to the impoverished the poaching and encroachment of country to protect its wildlife. Th e role agricultural activities in the reserve of national parks and game reserves, in (Baldus et al. 1988: x). At the beginning addition to wildlife conservation, was to of the 1970’s, the establishment of new earn foreign exchange and the expansion Ujamaa settlements into areas were of these protected areas was regarded elephants were still widely present, as an additional means to encourage increased problem animal control economic growth. Tourist operations activities. Some villages, such as Ndapata and infrastructure within the protected in the Liwale district, were established areas were mostly established by foreign in areas previously abandoned by people companies, and as a result, very little and now inhabited by elephants. Th e tourist revenue was left for the country. elephants were especially attracted by International conservation NGOs the large cashew nut plantations, which were funding and providing technical could be destroyed within a year after and management expertise for the the resettlement of people. Th ese new protected areas of Tanzania. Th e major or upgraded villages located close to conservation NGOs in Tanzania received elephant habitats continued to suﬀ er funding mainly from upper-middle class crop damages in the future too. Spatial Europeans and North Americans, who rearrangements of village concentrations wanted to educate African countries or changes in village location oﬀ er about the importance of conservation one solution to the elephant problem. and save African wildlife from poaching Another solution would be the adoption and encroachment caused by rapidly of large and excessive scale elephant

149 control schemes similar to the ones carried law introduced new preconditions for out in the 1930’s and extermination of subsistence hunting, a hunting license fee elephant populations in the inhabited and a licensed gun, and cancelled the last areas of south-east Tanzania. Elephants elements of traditional wildlife use in the could be pushed back to the Selous legislation. Th e Wildlife Conservation Game Reserve boundary with these Act of 1974 did not extinguish customary control operations (Rodgers and Lobo hunting tenures. Th e government aimed 1978: 41–42). at improving the life styles of the hunter- Th e villagisation programme based gatherer tribes and started to settle on forced resettlement and exclusion of them into permanent locations with rural communities from their natural better agricultural facilities and services. resources resulted in a breakdown of Denying their customary hunting rights previously existing natural resources was part of this process. Th ere was also management systems. Th e property a need to take precautions against the right regimes, such as communal misuse of customary hunting privileges property and state property were turned which could result in increased poaching into Open-Access in the turmoil of if certain groups were allowed to hunt these structural changes. Th e Tanzanian without a licence (Th e United Republic government lacked staff and funds to of Tanzania 1994: 130–131). Th e enforce game laws in the protected concept community is not found in the areas and commercial poaching was vocabulary of the Wildlife Conservation rampant. One of the main international Act of 1974. Th is legislation also denied legal instruments focusing on wildlife the villagers’ rights to benefi t from conservation which most African wildlife resources. Th e emphasis of the governments have ratifi ed, is the African Wildlife Conservation Act of 1974 was Convention on the Conservation of Nature on excluding rather than integrating and Natural Resources approved in 1968. local villagers around the SGR with Th is African Convention was ratifi ed conservation (Baldus 1992: 4). in Tanzania in 1974, which is the same However, the wildlife conservation year when the Wildlife Conservation system did not function in the way that Act was promulgated. Th is Act inherited the government of Tanzania had hoped. many of its contents from the African Economic recession in the early 1970’s Convention. It is interesting to note that had major infl uences on the tourism article XI of the African Convention industry, which also trickled down to prompts the governments to reconcile hunting as most of the hunting safaris the hunting laws with customary rights moved out to Kenya where hunting of local communities living in the bans had not yet been set up by the vicinity of the protected areas (Majamba government. At the same time, poaching 2001: 10). along the Kenyan–Tanzanian border According to Siege (2001b: 38), increased and caused a huge decline in the Wildlife Conservation Act of 1974 wildlife populations, especially elephant. prevented even more legal hunting Wildlife inside the protected areas also carried out by the villagers than the declined due to poaching and as a result 1954 Fauna Conservation Act. Th is new of that foreign concessionaires exploited

150 the hunting license system there. Th e the 1980’s between 1,000 and 3,000 state therefore took control of the tourism elephants were killed for crop protection industry and introduced a hunting purposes annually in southern Tanzania ban in 1973 for a fi ve-year period. (Siege and Baldus 1998b: 3). Th e Income from safari tourism ceased and controlling of crop-raiding animals was professional hunters moved away from the only form of wildlife use which has the Selous Game Reserve (Majamba provided rural villagers with any legal 2001: 8; Levine 2002: 1047; Baldus and benefi ts during the centralized control Siege 2002: 43). Wildlife populations, of wildlife in Tanzania (Leader-Williams especially elephant and rhinoceros, and Kayera 1996: vii). declined rapidly in the Selous ecosystem Th ere were also some disastrous during 1976–1986. Poaching was the development programmes inside the main cause of this decline along with Selous Game Reserve in the 1970’s the problem animal control and habitat and 1980s, in a dam and hydroelectric destruction. Th e rhinoceros population scheme at Stiegler’s Gorge, which had fell by 98%, down to a level of near huge declining eff ects on the rhinoceros extinction and the elephant population population. An oil search programme was halved in ten years between 1976 also opened up vast tracts of previously and 1986. Th e populations of many impenetrable land to poachers in the other mammals, such as zebra, eland, game reserve (Baldus and Siege 2002: hartebeest, warthog, wild dog and 43). Th e hunting ban led to a huge waterbuck were also reduced by more increase in poaching since 1973 and than 50% during the same period. the government was forced to permit Only the number of buff alos and legal hunting again. Th e Tanzanian giraff es increased substantially during government re-established tourist this period (Baldus et al. 1988: 3, 9; hunting and lifted the hunting ban in Ndunguru 1989: 19). Woodroff e et al. 1978 and it also opened up the tourist (2005: 7–10) also show that problem industry to foreign investment in animal control may be as serious a cause 1980. Tanzania Wildlife Corporation in wildlife mortality as poaching. Th ey (TAWICO) now took responsibility of mention that in Kenya 467 elephants the overall management of the hunting were killed in problem animal control industry (Nshala 1999: 4; Majamba activities compared to 355 killed by 2001: 8; Levine 2002: 1048). Selous the poachers during 1993–1998. Some Game Reserve was designated a World species, such as savanna elephants Heritage Site by the United Nations in and lions, seem to have behavioural 1982. Th is nomination was based on responses to lethal control as they avoid the unique ecological importance of areas with high mortality risks. Th e the reserve (Baldus and Siege 2002: 2). savanna elephants also have a tendency Th is did not solve the poaching problem to quickly recolonize the formerly and new ways were needed to conserve dangerous areas when they become safe the wildlife both inside and outside the again. Th is recolonization takes place protected areas. especially in areas where the habitat According to Igoe and Brockington connectivity has been preserved. Up to (1999: 11), there was increasing pressure

151 to alienate land since the mid-1980’s these middlemen had eff ectively utilized when the liberalisation of the economy the local administration machinery started to encourage foreign investors (Baldus 1992: 16). Operation Uhai also to apply for land in Tanzania. Th ey disrupted the beekeeping business in the noticed two important similarities neighbouring villages. Th e collection of between conservation laws and land honey was prohibited inside the game laws in Tanzania. Both laws were reserve and was only possible in areas motivated by the economical interests close to the settlements (Mwamfupe of the government and its total control 1990: 21). Operation Uhai aimed over land titles and natural resource at reducing wildlife poaching but it licences. Th e Wildlife Census of 1989 also had an indirect adverse eff ect on in Selous revealed considerable changes human-wildlife relations. Th e removal in the elephant distribution between of the warn-off eff ect of ivory poaching 1986 and 1989. In 1986 the elephant has tended to encourage elephants to population was widespread across the move freely into the settled areas and whole reserve. Th e census results of 1989 loose their fear of humans (Siege and show reduction in the overall range and Baldus 1998b: 53). Elephants no longer a concentration within the remaining consider humans as a threat and do range. Th e areas with low densities of not fl ee so easily when sighted as they elephant skeletons in 1986 had the did earlier when hunted intensively in highest densities in 1989. Most poaching Tanzania. of elephants occurred in the southeast At the same year when Operation and southwest of Selous between 1986 Uhai was enforced in the protected and 1989 (TWCM 1989: 24). Th e last areas of Tanzania, new strategies to cope big anti-poaching operation based on with poaching and encroachment were the fortress conservation approach was developed within the central government. carried out in the Selous Game Reserve A draft on Policy on Wildlife Conservation in 1989. At that time, the government and Utilisation was prepared in 1989. of Tanzania carried out Operation Community-based conservation was one Uhai, a nationwide anti-poaching of the main aims of this policy, which in programme, in conjunction with the the end, never progressed beyond a fi nal Wildlife Department, the Army and the draft. Th e next step was to implement Police Force. Many people were arrested the Planning and Assessment for Wildlife inside the protected areas and sentenced Management project in 1990. Th e main to prison as poachers. Th e tension goal of this project was to conserve between the wildlife personnel and rural wildlife by promoting the sustainable villagers increased to the highest levels economic development of the wildlife and every villager found inside the game sector (Leader-Williams and Kayera reserve was considered to be a potential 1996: viii). poacher (Hahn and Kaggi 2001: 44). In 1946 the British colonial regime One of the aims of the Operation Uhai introduced tourist hunting on a formal was to neutralise the middlemen and basis in Tanganyika and established the facilitators, who were the leading forces fi rst Game Controlled Areas divided behind commercial poaching. Some of into hunting blocks. Tourist hunting

152 has developed over a long period and Th e Selous Game Reserve is remains an important source of foreign characterized by a high degree of seasonal exchange to Tanzania. According to the movement of wildlife, especially of some Department of Wildlife, tourist hunting large mammal species, such as elephants has some advantages over other forms and buff aloes. Th e wildlife in Selous of wildlife utilisation. Tourist hunting ecosystem is not confi ned to the Game is a relatively stable and evenly growing Reserve area but is abundant also in the market while the game viewing market is areas outside the reserve boundaries. more unstable and sensitive to recessions Crop raiding elephants sometimes also and civil disturbances. Tourist hunting kill people and are thus one source of is also better in contributing to the human-wildlife confl icts in the villages economies of areas not suitable for game around the SGR. It has been stated that viewing tourism (Ndolanga 1996: 14). about 25% of food crops produced in In the early 1950’s there were 90 the buff er zones of the Selous Game Game Controlled Areas in Tanganyika. Reserve are annually destroyed by wild After independence in 1961, the Game animals. Also an average of ten people is Department opened these important killed by these animals in this same area wildlife areas to regular hunting to each year. Th e confrontations of people increase the income from wildlife. and wildlife have mainly increased due Tourist hunting was permitted inside the to the human population growth and game reserves in 1965. Th is activity was the expansion of agricultural activities also started in the Selous Game Reserve, into wildlife habitats. Crop damage was which was divided into 47 hunting among the problems the community blocks. Th e political changes in Tanzania members identifi ed in village meetings resulted in a complete ban on sport organized by the SCP (International hunting in 1973 (Baldus and Cauldwell Resources Group Ltd. 2000: 24, 2004: 3–4). After the lifting of the 1978 29). In a project planning workshop, hunting ban, a government parastatal organized by the GTZ in November TAWICO managed the hunting 1989, the participants from diff erent industry in Tanzania until the 1988. key stakeholder groups identifi ed the At that time, TAWICO’s representative following key issues, which were facing role in the hunting industry was the Selous ecosystem: removed due to the revised economic - natural resources in protected areas policies of the government. Th e new were not managed eff ectively economic development plans aimed at - natural resources were exploited encouraging private investments into illegally in the ecosystem Tanzania through the liberalisation of - there was uncontrolled burning of trade. Th e private sector then became vegetation very important to the development - encroachment of people and of tourism and the hunting industry livestock into the ecosystem in the country. Th e Tanzania Hunters - introduction of diseases to wildlife Association (TAHOA) was registered by livestock as a body to represent private sector - threat of the negative interests in Tanzania’s hunting industry environmental impacts on the (Majamba 2001: 7, 9, 12). ecosystem through the proposed 153 stock- route; and the 1990’s in Tanzania. In 1988 the - poorly managed natural resources gross income from the industry was 4.6 in unprotected areas (International million USD and during the next four Resources Group Ltd. 2000: 29– years this gross income had grown to 13.9 30). million USD. In 1996 the gross income Th ese key issues were clearly from the tourist hunting industry was conservation-oriented and one may already 19.4 million USD in Tanzania wonder if local communities living and it increased to an enormous 27.6 outside the Selous Game Reserve had a million USD in 2001. In the same year, say in this list of key issues. approximately 20,500 hunting days were Tourism in the Selous Game Reserve sold to tourist hunters to generate this has never been a large-scale industry. In gross income. Th e tourist hunters pay 1986 the game reserve received 1,580 signifi cantly higher hunting fees than tourists, including residents and non- resident hunters. Th e tourist hunters have residents of Tanzania. Th ere were 1,435 a much wider range of trophy animals tourists in the following year and 109 out available than the resident hunters. Th ey of these registered tourists were hunters can hunt 70 diff erent animals while the who killed 1,061 animals in 1987. Th is resident hunters can only have a licence was less than one third of the available for 22 diff erent species. Average income quota for tourist hunters. Th e number of to the Wildlife Division per tourist hunters in the buff er zones was annually hunting client is about 7,000 USD. In much higher, namely about 1,500. Th e the Selous Game Reserve, the income trophy fees for tourist hunters in the generation from hunting tourism has Selous Game Reserve varied for each grown on average by 13.7% per annum mammal species and were lowest for during 1988 to 2001. Th e number the African hare (35 USD) and highest of tourist hunters visiting the Selous for the African elephant (2,500 USD), Game Reserve has grown by almost followed by the licence fees for lion 400% during the same period. Income and leopard (1,400 USD) during the per unit area for the game reserve is 1988 season (Baldus et al. 1988: 12, about 70 USD per km². If this hunting 17–18). By 1995 the development of income per unit area is compared with the tourism industry in the Selous Game the income from photographic tourism, Reserve was still in its infancy. Tourism which is approximately 130 USD km² was concentrated in the northern sector in the Selous Game Reserve, one can of the reserve so much of its potential easily notice that the latter is almost remained intact. Th e game reserve twice as profi table. However, the costs earned approximately 72,000 USD in of photographic tourism are over fi fty conservation fees and 124,000 USD in times higher per unit area. Th e ecological entry fees from tourism. With a variety impacts of photographic tourism are of other smaller fees, the total income also much higher for the game reserve of the Selous Game Reserve in 1995 and its wildlife than those of hunting from tourism was 205,000 USD (Siege tourism (Department of Wildlife 1996: 1996: 5). Th e tourist hunting industry 177–178; Baldus and Cauldwell 2004: experienced a tremendous growth during 10–12). Game viewing tourism is

154 operating in at least 13 protected areas in Th e estimated potential total revenue Tanzania and has a potential economic earnings for Liwale Open Area were over value of 20 million USD per year. About 558,000 USD from 1988 and 1992– 36% of this income will accrue to the 1993 hunting seasons (Department of wildlife authorities and 64% is earned Wildlife 1996: 184–185; International by the lodge owners who accommodate Resources Group Ltd. 2000: 24–25). the tourists in game viewing areas. Th us the private sector gets greater economic 9.2. Selous Conservation benefi ts from the wildlife tourism Programme in the Liwale distric industry than the wildlife authorities do. Game viewing tourism is concentrated to Selous Game Reserve is an important the north of Tanzania, in the Ngorongoro protected area, not only because it is Conservation Area and with the most one of the largest protected areas in famous national parks. Th e national Africa but also because it provides a parks in the southern parts of the refuge to some of the largest and most country and the Selous Game Reserve important elephant populations on the received about 10% of the total visitor continent. With approximately 70% of nights and earnings from game viewing Tanzania’s elephants the Selous Game tourism in 1991–1992. Th ere were Reserve is home to large populations over 5,100 visitor nights out of which of black rhino, buff aloes, crocodile and about 2,800 were foreign visitors. Game wild dog. Selous is also one of the largest viewing tourism currently gives little forest areas under protection in Africa economic benefi ts for the communities (International Resources Group Ltd. around the protected areas in southern 2000: 13; GTZ Wildlife Programme in Tanzania. Income from tourist Tanzania 2007). hunting is more evenly spread across Th e Government of Tanzania did the country (Department of Wildlife not have enough resources to safeguard 1996: 173–178). Th e importance of these globally valuable wildlife resources, photographic wildlife tourism in the which were rapidly declining due to the Selous Game Reserve is small for the heavy and disastrous levels of poaching local communities even though it is for ivory and rhino horns in the 1980’s. practiced in parts of the northern sector Th e Government then approached the along the Rufi ji river. According to the international community for assistance study carried out by Price Waterhouse and got a response from the Government during 1995–1998, the long term of the Federal Republic of Germany economic potential of the Selous Game to write and implement a bilateral Reserve buff er zone is high once the cooperation agreement on the Selous villages are allowed to be partners in Conservation Programme (SCP) (GTZ safari hunting through the community Wildlife Programme in Tanzania 2007). wildlife management programmes. Th e Poaching was not the only reason for the Department of Wildlife also suggested decline of wildlife populations in the that there is potential for community- Selous Game Reserve and its buff er zones. based conservation, which involves Th ere were several incompatible land tourist hunting on the Liwale Open Area. use practices which increased human-

155 wildlife confl icts in the area. Wildlife al. 1996: 75; International Resources competed with livestock for water and Group Ltd. 2000: 14, 20; GTZ Wildlife grazing land and spread diseases to the Programme in Tanzania 2007). In 1996 cattle. Wildlife also caused crop damage the Program Progress Review carried out on the farms, which made agriculture in Songea shows that locals consider an incompatible form of land use in game meat as the most valued benefi t for the buff er zones (Krischke et al. 1996: the households from the SCP. However, 75; International Resources Group Ltd. on average, there were very small 2000: 14). Th e programme started in amounts of game meat delivered to the 1988 and ended in 2003. SCP was a households through the programme. community-based resource management Some interviewed villagers want to hunt programme, which involved the villagers more animals for meat and said that in buff er zones to conserve, manage and the communities are interested in and use wildlife resources outside the Selous expect increased access to game even Game Reserve in a sustainable way. if the hunting quota is deemed to be It was understood by the SCP that all unsustainable (Songorwa 1999: 2069). conservation eff orts inside the Selous It is essential to understand the Game Reserve would be useless without social, economic, culture, religion the cooperation of communities living and traditional values and attitudes of along the boundaries of the reserve. the people towards wildlife in order Instead of short-term answers and to facilitate the integration of rural tangible benefi ts, there was a need communities in wildlife conservation to provide pragmatic and long-term and management. In the SCP, regular solutions to the problems of poaching visits were made to the villages to sell and habitat loss. It was the fi rst pilot the idea of community-based resource initiative in Tanzania to involve rural management and to win the confi dence people as participants in wildlife and trust of the people. In some places conservation. SCP was initiated in the meetings had to be postponed because Liwale district in 1995. Th e SCP aimed villagers ran away when they heard that to reduce confl icts between the reserve Regional Game Offi cer was coming for and the local population by developing a visit (Baldus 1992: 22). Community- mechanisms of wildlife conservation based conservation challenges the which would simultaneously sustain culture and institutions of traditional rural development in the surrounding nature conservation because these areas. Th e main strategy of SCP was to initiatives bring complex indigenous give more responsibility and rights to knowledge systems and unbounded the villages to protect their wildlife. Th e ecological processes into the setting. Th e villages were requested to appoint village imagined landscape of conservation is game scouts to halt poaching in their area. challenged and partially replaced during Th e SCP also tried to help the villages to the emergence of community-based earn income through the marketing of conservation (Goldman 2003: 835). wildlife tourism and by selling wildlife Th e SCP was managed and meat for local consumption from the implemented by the Wildlife Division quota (Baldus 1992: 1; Krischke et in the Ministry of Natural Resources and

156 Tourism of the Government of Tanzania. Kimambi, Mirui, Naujombo and It was in charge of the activities together Ndapata. In total, there were over with some of the staff of District and 2,000 households and 10,700 people Regional Administration. Th e activities participating in the SCP in the had two main components, namely Liwale district in 1998 (International assistance to the Selous Game Reserve, Resources Group Ltd. 2000: 15, 20). and the introduction of mechanisms of Th ere has been some fl uctuation in the community-based conservation in the number of participating villages in the villages around the reserve. Th e SCP Selous Conservation Programme as supported the administration of the the cooperation with nine villages in game reserve by providing equipment, the Liwale district was suspended and advisory services and training, improved their bank accounts were frozen by the communication for stations and patrols, District authorities between 1998 and and rehabilitation of the basic road 2000 (Hahn and Kaggi 2001: 50, 52) system in the reserve. Th e establishment due to management problems. Th e of the mechanisms for community- Selous Conservation Programme was based conservation included equipping internationally regarded as a success and training of village game scouts, because poaching in the village lands had supporting the formation of village natural decreased signifi cantly due to improved resources management committees anti-poaching activities. Wildlife has and wildlife management associations now returned to areas where it has been and assisting the communities in the absent for many years. However, it is administration of their wildlife areas. diffi cult to assess how much the changed Th e German GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft attitudes of local communities towards für Technische Zusammearbeit GmbH) poaching have contributed to this advised and monitored the programme. development (Siege 2001a: 19). Th e SCP also cooperated with several Th e decentralization of natural non-governmental organisations, such resources management in the Selous as the Frankfurt Zoological Society, the Conservation Programme was African Wildlife Foundation and World partially implemented through new Wide Fund for Nature (GTZ Wildlife administrative and executive units, Programme in Tanzania 2007). After which were established at the village a decade since its establishment, the and district levels (Fig. 19.). A new post SCP covered 46 villages in fi ve diff erent of Community Wildlife Management districts surrounding the Selous Game Offi cer (CWMO) was established Reserve. Th e total number of population under the supervision of the District involved into the programme was about Game Offi cer. It refl ected a change in 75,500 people. In addition to the Liwale conservation philosophy away from the district, the SCP was implemented in job contents of traditional game offi cers. the Morogoro, Songea, Tunduru and Th is new post aimed at creating links Rufi ji districts. Th e nine villages which between the village committees, District participated in the SCP from the Liwale Game offi cer and Selous Conservation district were Mpigamiti, Barikiwa, Programme. Th e CWMO provided Chimbuko, Mlembwe, Kikulyungu, advice and training for community

157 Figure 19. Th e organisational structure of community-based wildlife management in the Selous Conservation Programme. Adapted from (Krishke et al. 1996: 77).

development, presented the Village Land must be two elected members from each Use Plan for approval, prepared plans for of the following groups of people in training of Village Game Scouts (VGS), the committee, namely elders, women, and helped in border demarcation, youth, the governmental sector in the realization of income shares, self-help village and experienced local hunters. promotion and range management. Th e Gender often deﬁ nes the access to and CWMO worked with Village Natural control over natural resources. Wildlife Resource Committees (VNRC) and VGS utilization may enhance economic to prevent poaching, limit agricultural diﬀ erentiation and widen the gender expansion into the Game Reserve gap in access to resources if gender issues and prosecute poachers. Th e VNRC are not taken into consideration. Th e were also new units facilitated by the Selous Conservation Programme tried to Programme in each participating village. enforce that one-fourth of the members In smaller villages, this committee can of VNRC be women. Although this consist of elected members from two rule was not followed by the Village or more villages, which combine forces Assemblies, there are at least two women to form one mutual committee. Th e in more than half of the VNRC in the VNRC is formed by 10 to 12 members programme. VNRC is the responsible elected by the Village Assembly. Th ere unit, which prepares Village Land Use

158 Plans and delivers the fi nalized plans Protected Areas within the district. Th e to the CWMO. Th ey supervise and District Natural Resource Committee is coordinate the anti-poaching patrols in a unit responsible for settling disputes the buff er zone and crop protection in and confl icts in the natural resource the farms. Th e VNRC also supervises management, developing guidelines for communal hunting and distribution wildlife management and proposing of meat from the culled wildlife within quotas for hunting (International the village. Th eir tasks also include Resources Group Ltd. 2000: 46; Hahn community education on sustainable and Kaggi 2001: 45). In the New use of natural resources, formulation Wildlife Conservation Regulations of of by-laws and keeping records of the 2002, the name of this unit was revised profi ts earned from wildlife-related as District Natural Resources Advisory enterprises. Female members usually Body. It will not only provide a forum for take responsibility of managing the confl ict resolution but also technical and fi nances and meat sales (Krischke et legal advice to the Wildlife Management al. 1996: 76; International Resources Areas and facilitate the setting of wildlife Group Ltd. 2000: 45, 64–65). quotas (Th e United Republic of Tanzania Th e Village Assembly selects six village 2002c: 17). game scouts (VGS) to carry out anti- poaching activities, wildlife inventories 9.2.1. Establishment of Selous Game and game counts. Th e VGS work Reserve buff er zones voluntarily and receive small allowances from the village. Th ey often collaborate Th e establishment of buff er zones with the District Game Scouts and between the Selous Game Reserve and the SGR staff in these tasks. Th e VGS the neighbouring villages in Liwale, is patrol at least 10 days a month, when regarded as an important step towards they monitor game populations, report the objectives of the Selous Conservation on conservation activities and arrest and Programme. Th e recommendations of apprehend poachers. Th e scouts also shifting the boundary of the game reserve supervise resident and tourism hunting, closer to the proposed headquarters of conduct problem animal control, hunt the South-Eastern sector in Barikiwa, meat for the villages and carry out fi re refl ects the need to secure that area management. A new advisory unit at for wildlife conservation. Th e south- the district level is the District Technical eastern boundary of the SGR follows Advisory Committee. Th is unit operates the Matandu river which bends around as a Natural Resources Management Liwale town in the west and forms an Advisory Body and serves the villages arch around it. Th ere were so called which have established Wildlife empty lands, namely areas free of human Management Areas in the district. Th e inhabitants, in Liwale, which provided Committee is formed by the District an opportunity for the extension of the Game Offi cer, Fisheries Offi cer, Forestry protected area towards southeast. If offi cer, Agriculture and Livestock the buff er zones were established there, Offi cer, the District Councillor, elected they would help to curb unchecked counselors and representatives of the settlements, poaching and unlicensed

159 logging. Th e buff er zones could also open gradually changes into a closed forest up opportunities for the neighbouring towards the west (Baldus 1990: 8, 13). villages to participate in wildlife It is believed that proper management management and in other sustainable of natural resources in the buff er zone activities within the area. Procedures to area recreates the link between people convert 3,630 km² of land into a buff er and wildlife in such a way which restores zone in Liwale were set out in 1989. Th e the cultural values and attitudes of local area is subdivided into three blocks. Th e communities towards wildlife (Baldus largest block covers about 1,500 km² and 1990: 97). provides a buff er zone to Kikulyungu. Th e key principle in community- Th e second block covers no less than based conservation projects in the SCP 1,130 km² and provides a buff er zone to has been the devolution of use-rights of Barikiwa and other nearby villages. Th e wildlife to communities accompanied by third block is about 1,000 km² and can a responsibility to manage the resource be used as a buff er zone for Mpigamiti in sustainable ways. Legally wildlife and Ndapata villages (Baldus 1990: 6–7, remains as a property of the State, and 93). Buff er zones may have the potential this natural resource is administered by to prevent land use and boundary the Ministry of Natural Resources and disputes between local villagers and Tourism. Th e decentralization process Selous Game Reserve. of natural resource management in Kikulyungu, Barikiwa and Mpigamiti Tanzania has only focused on the right villages were among the villages which to manage and exploit wildlife, not on negotiated and allowed the buff er zone to ownership. Th e Minister of Natural be established on the land designated as Resources and Tourism can withdraw the open area. Th e land within the proposed user rights from any community, which buff er zone is administrated by the was not following the objectives and District Council. Available livelihood conditions of the SCP. Th e programme opportunities for each participating tried to establish linkages between village in the buff er zone vary according private sector, government and non- to the ecological conditions of the area. governmental organizations to foster Th e open area in Kikulyungu is mainly the development of business enterprises closed forest and has an excessive drainage and community development in the system with many permanent rivers. In wildlife management areas. Tourist Barikiwa village the vegetation of the operators have had an important role open area is less dense. Open forests in creating markets for wildlife-based and wooded grasslands dominate and tourism with the local communities. gradually change into bushed grasslands Hunting is ideally suited to the remote towards the Selous Game Reserve. Th e locations, where a mass-tourism market dense thickets and forests to the north cannot be introduced. Th ere should of Barikiwa contain large numbers of be a wide variety of wildlife products elephants. Th ere are only few permanent available for the market if wildlife is rivers, mainly tributaries of the expected to contribute substantially to Matandu. Th e open land of Mpigamiti community development (International is characterized by open forest which Resources Group Ltd. 2000: 31–32).

160 Th ese products may be material but District Councils of the districts which also non-material, in aesthetic beauty have part of their areas designated as and the experience of wildlife-viewing protected areas. If a protected area falls tourism or skins and trophies from within many districts, the 25% is divided the hunting-tourism, or meat for local equally among the represented district markets and consumption. Rodgers and councils. In the end, the district councils Lobo (1978: 42) question the eff ects of allocate a certain percentage of this hunting in the buff er zones to reduce revenue to communities neighbouring the amount of crop raiding animals in the protected areas. During the Selous the neighbouring farms. Th ey do not Conservation programme, the actual believe that hunting in the edges of a share of safari hunting revenues conservation area could create a distinct channelled back to the communities boundary eff ect, which will keep the was less than 10% because diff erent elephants out. Past experience has retention schemes deducted their share shown that when humans move to live in advance. In Liwale, the available in an area favoured by elephants, these 30,000 USD revenue was shared among animals do not easily move out despite some 20 villages. Revenues from resident the intensity of past control operations hunting are directly administered by the there (Rodgers and Lobo 1978: 42–43). District Councils. Th ere is no data on Th e markets for wildlife products the average benefi t per household from were insuffi cient and inaccessible in these revenues, but wildlife utilization the SCP as a result of existing wildlife can at best only supplement other forms legislation. Villagers cannot practice of agricultural and non-agricultural legal hunting because they cannot aff ord income in some project areas of the to buy fi rearms in accordance with the Selous Conservation Programme. law. Th e full value of wildlife products, However, in some villages the revenues such as game meat has not been realized from wildlife utilization constitute the and utilized outside the producer largest source of income (International communities. As the meat sales only Resources Group Ltd. 2000: 56–57, take place within the villages, there is no 60; Siege 2001a: 22). Th e community- revenue fl ow into the community from based wildlife management schemes the outside. Th e price of the poached meat have been able to improve the protective is much higher than the legally hunted status in buff er zones, especially south quota meat. Th e price structure of the of the Selous Game Reserve. However, game meat is not competitive because poaching still occurs in some areas. It external markets have not been allowed was also noticed that village game scouts to form legally (International Resources were reluctant to arrest relatives and Group Ltd. 2000: 34–35). In Tanzania, friends who were poaching wildlife in all funds which are generated by trophy their patrol area (International Resources hunting are transferred to the Central Group Ltd. 2000: 61). Th e Community Government Treasury. Th e Government Participation and Conservation Offi cer will mainly use these funds to fi nance of the Selous Game Reserve, Mr. Saidi the costs of the Wildlife Division. Of Kabanda mentioned that before the SCP the game fees, 25% are directed to the all households carried out illegal hunting

161 in Liwale, but in 2001 only about 30 to management was not very signifi cant 40% of households were involved in from 1996–1998. Th e importance poaching (Veltheim et al. 2001: 9). of such revenue at the village level is diffi cult to analyse. However, these 9.2.2. Wildlife utilization in the fi gures can be compared for example, Selous Conservation programme with the cross national product per capita, which was 210 USD in Tanzania Wildlife utilization through the Selous in 1997 (UNCTAD 1999). Th ere is no Conservation Programme started in data available on the exact usage of the 1996. Th e participating villages in revenues by households in the villages. Liwale hunted 18 buff aloes, 5 eland Four percent of the total income was used and 4 hartebeest in 1996. Next year the for wildlife management and protection number of hunted animals increased to in Mpigamiti from 1996–1997. In 27 buff aloes, 15 eland and 3 hartebeest Barikiwa, contribution to wildlife hunted in Liwale (International management and protection was 21% Resources Group Ltd. 2000: 78). From and in Kikulyungu this was 12% of the 1996–1997 the annual quota of ten game total income from wildlife management animals was not fulfi lled in Mpigamiti, during the same period. No funds Barikiwa or Kikulyungu. During that were devoted to village development period, 5 animals were hunted in in Mpigamiti and Kikulyungu from Mpigamiti, which represented one half 1996–1997, while in Barikiwa 19% of the annual quota and provided 562 kg of these wildlife management revenues of dried meat for the village. In Barikiwa, were used for village development. From only three animals were hunted and 1997–1998, none of the villages invested provided 422 kg of dried game meat. the generated revenues for wildlife Kikulyungu performed a little better management and protection and only in and was able to hunt 7 animals with 531 Mpigamiti some money, namely eight kg of dried game meat for sale. In the percent of the total revenues, was used 1997–1998 hunting season, Mpigamiti for village development (International village was able to hunt the full quota of Resources Group Ltd. 2000: 97-99). ten animals and produce 385 kg of dried Th e revenues from the SCP increased and 442 kg of fresh meat for the market. gradually towards the end of the In Barikiwa, seven animals were hunted. 1990’s and the Liwale District Council Th ey provided about 490 kg of dried received 29,279 USD from the Central and 100 kg of fresh meat for the village. Government in both 1999 and 2000. In Kikulyungu, the six hunted animals In 1999 each of the participating nine resulted in 240 kg of dried meat for sale villages in Liwale district received 1,126 (International Resources Group Ltd. USD. Th e remaining 19,144 USD was 2000: 84, 86). Th e income generated used by the District Council mainly from wildlife management in these three for paying allowances to the Ward villages in 1996–1998 is shown on Table Councillors. In 2001, the Barikiwa 5. village received a 1,576 USD fund from According to the above fi gures, the District Council (Veltheim et al. the income generated from wildlife 2001: 8).

162 Table 5. Income generated from wildlife management in selected villages in Liwale district in US dollars in 1996-1998. Th e exchange rates used for Tanzanian shillings were 579,98 TSH = 1 USD in 1996 and 597.27 TSH = 1 USD in 1997 (University of Missouri- St. Louis 2007). Adapted from (International Resources Group Ltd. 2000: 90).

Year 1996-1997 Year 1997-1998

Village Meat sale Other sources Total value Meat sale Other sources Total value

Mpigamiti 79,05 431,05 510,10 897,91 418,57 1316,48

Barikiwa 632,63 431,05 1063,68 656,61 439,78 1096,39

Kikulyungu 417,26 431,05 848,31 200,91 691,48 892,39

9.3. Human-wildlife confl icts in the especially in areas outside the reserve. Selous Game Reserve buff erzones In south-eastern Tanganyika, human- wildlife confl icts have taken place long 9.3.1. A brief history of the human- before the start of colonial rule. Local wildlife confl icts in the Lindi region communities developed several ways, such as using fi re and noise, to protect Human-wildlife confl ict is a serious issue their households and crops from raiding in Tanzania. Th ese confl icts include death elephants, monkeys and hippos before and injury to humans and livestock, the era of any government administered and crop losses. Lindi, Arusha, Mbeya, wildlife department. Th e number of Mtwara, Morogoro, Rukwa, Tabora and people was low and they lived in small Dodoma are the most aff ected regions settlements scattered along small valleys of human-wildlife confl ict in Tanzania. in dense bush. Th is settlement pattern Between 1988 and 1996 a total of had not evolved due to the ecological 11,655 problem animals were culled conditions but because of pressures across Tanzania. Most common problem created by the slave trade, Ngoni warfare animal species were baboons, monkeys, and German repression, which followed bush pigs, hippopotami, Cape buff alos the Maji maji uprising. Th e noises and and elephants (Milledge and Barnett eff ects of warfare and free hunting of 2002: 18). By damaging people’s farms elephants for ivory, meat and fat made and cultivations, domestic livestock or many elephant herds split up and leave injuring and killing people themselves, their natural feeding grounds during wildlife creates a powerful social and the turn and the fi rst two decades of the economic justifi cation for its elimination 20th century. As a result, many herds from an area. were forced to move to inhabited areas Th e competition for resources and got used to invading plantations between human populations and wildlife prefering crops instead of grass and has a long history in the Selous ecosystem, leaves for forage. Th e ecological setting

163 in the south-eastern Tanganyika diff erent species populations and tested provided adequate water and forage if these changes were more prominent for the elephant population which was in large-bodied wildlife species, which again increasing after the introduction were considered to be the targets of bush of hunting restrictions in 1900. meat hunters. In addition, they wanted Confl icts between people and to fi nd out if these temporal changes elephants further increased after the were more visible in species which end of warfare and German rule in require large home ranges or habitats, 1918 as people were able to leave their as they are more prone to the eff ects isolated dwellings in the bush and of human encroachment around the move to the more fertile larger river reserves than those species, which live valleys. In late 1919, the British colonial in small home ranges. Th ey examined administration introduced a permanent aerial census data for 25 species and Game Department in Tanganyika. Th e noticed that there was a decline in most main task of this new special force was of the ungulate population densities to protect native crops and life from studied. Th ese declines were occurring dangerous animals (Rodgers and Lobo in particular census zones and species. 1978: 26, 29). In the early 1920’s, the Only very few populations increased intensifi cation of agriculture in Lindi signifi cantly in the eight selected census region, resulted in increased confl icts zones. Th e elephant, the giraff e and the between man and elephants. With hippopotamus were species, which did a licence, it was legal to kill and hunt not experience declines in over half of elephants in Tanganyika from 1920 to the the census zones. Actually, the elephant late 1973. In September 1973, all hunting population increased in six of the eight was forbidden until 1978 (Rodgers and study zones across the country. Stoner et Lobo 1978: 31). Th e removal of human al. detected that in several census zones, settlements from Selous Game Reserve increasing body size correlated with in the 1940’s due to the sleeping sickness positive changes in population, which eradication programme, allowed many was surprising because the bush meat wildlife species, such as elephant and hunters were assumed to prefer larger buff alo, to dominate and increase in the wildlife species for meat. Th ey mentioned ecosystem. that competition for resources inside the Th e recent study by Stoner et al. reserves and food availability might play (2006) on the wildlife population trends an important role in species population in Tanzania shows that the number declines in the studied census zones. of elephants has increased there. Th ey Th ere were more species with generalized carried out a nation-wide study in diets compared to species with more Tanzania, where they compared diff erent selective food preferences. In the Selous- large herbivore census data collected in Mikumi census zone the comparisons approximately 10-year time spans from were made from dry season populations the late 1980’s and early 1990’s to the censuses. Th ey show that the elephant late 1990’s and early 2000’s from eight was the only species which increased diff erent census zone across the country. between the start and fi nish of the 10 Th ey studied the temporal changes in year-time span between 1990 and 2000.

164 Th ere was no change in buff alo, giraff e, large predators, which the European greater kudu, hippopotamus, impala, tourists admire, are a burden to the puku, sable antelope and waterbuck small farmers in Tanzania. Th e farmers populations. Th e species which declined call these animals as Wadudu, which is a in the Selous-Mikumi census zone during term used also for bugs and mosquitoes the same period were bush buck, bush that bite (Baldus 2001: 1). pig, common duiker, eland, hartebeest, Th e reports of the Selous Conservation reedbuck, warthog, wildebeest and zebra Programme staff members and Village (Stoner et al. 2006: 202–214). Game Scouts clearly reveal the worsening situation in the buff er zones of the 9.3.2. Crop damage and killings of Selous Game Reserve between 1994 and domestic animals by wildlife in the 1995. Extensive destruction of crops was Liwale district reported from the Liwale buff er zone in September 1995. In the Morogoro Th e Wangindo agricultural system is buff er zone north of the Game Reserve, characterized by shifting cultivation reports highlighted growing opposition methods, which have led to poor to the programme due to increasing utilization of land in the ecosystem. In crop damage by wildlife. Buff alos, shifting cultivation, patches of forest hippopotami and elephants were mainly and bush are fi rst burned during the responsible for these damages. Wildlife dry season, then chopped down and had even started to invade bedrooms in cleared for agricultural land for typically the Morogoro buff er zone! In the Tunduru three to fi ve years. When the fertility buff er zone, south of the Game Reserve, of the cleared patch decreases, the reports stated that pests had destroyed farmer moves into a new forest patch food crops and caused a dramatic drop and clears a new fi eld for the crops. in harvest. All villages experienced a Shifting cultivation has created isolated shortage of food. Th e elephants were human settlements and isolated fi elds already used to fl ares which were used in the areas bordering the Selous Game to scare them off so they no longer ran Reserve in the east, southeast and south. away from the farms. When the farmers Th is has infl uenced the intensity and complained to the relevant authorities frequency of crop raiding by the wildlife about the elephants, they were told to there. Crop damage has discouraged stop cultivating in river beds and move farmers to expand their fi elds and has to uplands. Th is movement to new had a signifi cant negative impact on areas only changed the types of wildlife rural people’s standard of living (Siege confronted by farms as the elephants and Baldus 1998b: 2–3, 51). In 2000, were replaced by monkeys and baboons. Mvungi et al. (2002: 38) carried out a Ordinary villagers perceived that the socio-economic survey of the northern outsiders valued wildlife more than they Selous Game Reserve buff er zones. valued the communities (Songorwa Th ey found out that over 60% of the 1999: 2069–2070, 2075). respondents considered wild animals In Kikulyungu, which is the poorest and birds to be the most serious problem village in the Liwale district used in farming. Many big mammals and for this study, villagers experienced

165 frequent encroachments of warthogs Th e Head of the Kingupira Wildlife and hippos into their farms in the mid- Institute, Mr. Charles Masunzu, carried 1980’s. Towards the end of the decade, out a fi eld research on crop damage elephants and monkeys started to caused by wildlife. In 1996, he selected destroy cassava and millet farms in the four villages, Ngarambe and Tapika village area. Th e villagers used nets and in the Rufi ji district and Lihenga and snares to scare away the wild animals Namatewa in the Kilwa district. Th ese but after Operation Uhai in 1988, such study areas are located approximately equipment was no longer available and 120 to 150 km northeast of Liwale they had no means with which to cope town. Both areas are part of the Selous with the crop-raiding wildlife. It takes at ecosystem and share the same fauna least fi ve days to visit the district game with the Liwale district. Th erefore offi cer from Kikulyungu and he often many of Masunzu’s fi ndings can also be lacks resources to help the villagers. applied to the Liwale district. Masunzu Th e damages caused by hippopotami studied the crop damages in the four were frequently observed in Kikulyungu villages from January to December during the fi eld study in 2002 (Fig. 20.). 1996. He categorized the wildlife In Mpigamiti, wildlife has caused severe species responsible for crop damages crop destruction and killed livestock into three categories according to the and people. Monkeys, baboons, time of the day when the damages warthogs, elephants and hippopotami took place. Wildlife species, which cause most crop damage on farms there. caused major damage to crops during Lions, leopards and hyenas usually kill the day, were monkeys, namely yellow domestic animals and are also feared by baboons, Vervet monkeys and Rufi ji the villagers. Th ey complain that the blue monkeys. Wildlife species, which wildlife no longer fear people and come caused major damage to crops during ever closer to homesteads where hunting the night, were African elephant, has been prohibited. Th e villagers are bush pig, hippopotamus and buff alo. no longer able to get hartebeest skins Wildlife species, which caused minor for producing strings for their hunting damage to crops during the night, were bows and without the bows they cannot warthog, eland, greater kudu, bushbuck, protect their fi elds (Baldus 1990: 67– impala, black-backed jackal, Reed buck, 68, 72). Th e District Agriculture and porcupine and cane rat. Masunzu found Livestock Offi cer estimated that about that the species which damage crops to fi ve percent of all crops produced are a greater extent were elephant, buff alo, damaged by wildlife in the Liwale bush pig, baboons and monkeys. Th e District. Th e volume of crops lost crop damage varied from one village because of wildlife damage has fl uctuated to another and from one fi eld plot to between 427 tons to 845 tons between another within the study area. Th ere 1991 and 2000. However, there was a was also some seasonal variation in crop huge increase in the volume of destroyed damage between diff erent wildlife species. crops from 2000/2001 season onwards Elephants, bush pigs and baboons caused in Liwale (Table 6.). greater damage both in the wet and dry season. Buff alo caused greater damage to

166 Figure 20. A group of hippopotami from the nearby river have caused damage to a rice fi eld in Kikulyungu village in 2002. crops in the early dry season. Baboons on maize seedlings about three to four started to destroy maize seedlings right weeks after germination and continued after germination and continued to to damage the crops until harvesting. damage the crops until harvesting. Th ere were two spatial indicators, which Elephants and buff aloes started to feed had an infl uence on the crop damages

Table 6. Agricultural crops lost by wildlife damage in the Liwale District between 1991 and 2002. (District Agriculture and Livestock Development Oﬃ cer, Mr. Bonaventure Munlea in Liwale District Council, 25.7.2002, personal communication).

season crops lost by wild animal damage (tons) 1991/1992 845 1992/1993 478 1993/1994 654 1994/1995 758 1995/1996 691 1996/1997 717 1997/1998 792 1998/1999 427 1999/2000 687 2000/2001 1023 2001/2002 1053

167 caused by the elephants in both dry and cost of crop protection is very high for wet season. Th e fi rst was the location shifting cultivators in the study area. He of the fi elds in relation to the feeding assumed that if each farmer spends an routes of the elephants. Th e second average of ten hours per night guarding indicator was the location of the fi elds their fi elds against wildlife during the in relation to the distance from the game 150 nights of the growing season, this reserve. Th e study indicates that maize would amount to 1,500 man hours, and sorghum are heavily aff ected by which are lost from other productive wildlife damage. At least 15% of maize work, education, business etc. If the damage and 20% of sorghum damage payment or salary per hour would be was caused by wildlife in the study area 50 TSH (about 8 cents in USD), the (Siege and Baldus 1998b: 11–12). In a opportunity cost for the labour is 75,000 study carried out in Kenya, there was a TSH, which equals to 129 US dollars. positive correlation between rainfall and In addition to this opportunity cost, the attacks of large carnivores on livestock farmers must also keep guard during day in the villages. Seasonal variation in time and scare away the monkeys and depredation can be aff ected by local baboons from their fi elds. Th is doubles availability of natural prey, although the opportunity cost and as a result the (Kolowski and Holekamp 2006) failed costs of guarding can be over 250 USD to prove this. in a six month period (Siege and Baldus Masunzu’s study shows that there 1998b: 52). A study carried out in is less wildlife damages in fi elds which Uganda shows that primates avoid farms are regularly guarded or visited by the which are intensively guarded. Th ere are farmers. Th ey have to guard the fi elds also studies which report that men are every night and day during the growing more successful guards than women and season to prevent wildlife damage. children. Baboons, for example, escape Th e whole family has to participate in more readily when they were approached guarding and working in the fi eld. Th e by men as compared to women and children are unable to go to school children. Guarding is a dangerous task during the day because they have to stay which has social implications for the on guard. Farmer families often live in rural families across Africa. Th e guards temporary huts instead of permanent may loose sleep, get injured by wildlife houses, because they have to shift from or infected by malaria when they sit out one fi eld to another and most fi elds in the fi elds (Osborn and Hill 2005: are far away from their permanent 79). In accordance with the agricultural residential area. A small hut or platform, calendar, cultivation and guarding called dungu (Fig. 21.) is a common of crops in the vicinity of the Selous sight in the Liwale district and elsewhere Game Reserve usually begins in March in the villages bordering the Selous and ends in June. Th is day and night Game Reserve. Th is hut is often built activity withdraws household members’ of wooden poles and has grass walls and labour from other economic and more roof. Th e dungu is used for guarding productive activities (Baldus et al. 1988: the fi elds especially during night time. 127). For cash-crops, such as cashew Mazunsu estimates that the opportunity nuts, the main fruiting season is from

168 Figure 21. A dungu or a guard hut on the side of a ﬁ eld in Mpigamiti village.

September to November, which extends culture borderlines, this means that the crop protection to an almost year round closer the crop fi elds of the village are to activity (Rodgers and Lobo 1978: 35). the forest edge the more they fall within Crop damage has an interesting the grey area between culture and nature spatial dimension which explains the where the nature-culture borderline is vulnerability of crop fi elds located very constantly tested and crossed by wild close to the forest boundary. Several animals. studies (Naughton-Treves 1998; Tania Some researchers have taken a critical et al. 2001) show that crop damage by stand towards the system of scattered medium and large-sized wild animals farms and shifting-cultivation. Th ey correlates with the distance of the fi eld point out that coexistence of wildlife from the forest edge. Farms located and people would be more positive with within 300 m of a forested boundary proper land use planning and more have the greatest risk of crop-raiding by compact and permanent settlement wildlife. Th e study by Tania et al. (2001) patterns avoiding randomly arranged, reveals that vervet monkeys damage isolated fi elds and huts along the game more crops on farms which are located reserve. Masunzu recommends that 200 m from the forest edge compared villages, which do not have permanent with signifi cantly less crop-raiding on infrastructure and which are located farms which are only 100 or 50 m away close to the game reserve or along the from the forest edge. Th e closer the crop main feeding routes of animals, should fi elds are to the forest edge the higher the be removed. Th e expansion of human risk of crop damage caused by wildlife. population and agricultural activities In the framework of critical nature- has limited wildlife habitats and brought

169 easily digested and high nutrient Th e studied districts were Rufi ji, Kilwa content crops into the feeding routes and Liwale. He divides wildlife species and pathways of wild animals, making into two main groups. Th e fi rst group it irresistible for wildlife to supplement consists of species, which are killed or their insuffi cient food supply with these injured during crop protection. Th is human-cultivated products (Siege and category includes the African elephant, Baldus 1998b: 51). buff alo, hippopotamus, bush pig, Wildlife species have diff erent habitat yellow baboon, vervet monkey, warthog requirements and these must be taken and rats. Th e second group consists into consideration in the land use plans. of species, which are killed or injured Th ere are species, which require a large during the protection of domestic wilderness refuge or conservation areas animals or human life. Th is category for survival, such as the elephants, the includes lion, leopard, crocodile and buff alos and the lions. Th ese species often potted hyena. Some wildlife species cause damage on brief visits to settled can be found in both categories as they areas. Bush pigs, baboons, monkeys, cause both crop damage and loss of leopards, crocodiles, hippopotamuses, domestic animals and human life. Of most small mammals, birds, reptiles and the three studied districts, Rufi ji had insects can all survive in small wilderness the highest number of animals killed or patches within settled areas without a injured between 1975 and 1995 because large refuge or conservation area (Bell there was a severe cropping project for 1984 cit. Siege and Baldus 1998b: 52). crocodiles and hippopotami between 1987 and 1991. During the 20-year 9.3.3. Problem animal control in the period, they also killed 1,685 elephants, Liwale district 3,100 hippopotami, 659 crocodiles and 261 lions in the Rufi ji district. Th e statistics of elephant control in Th e Liwale district had the highest south-east Tanzania between 1971 and number of killed elephants during crop 1975 show that the highest number of protection between 1975 and 1995. elephants killed annually has been in Over 3,000 elephants were killed in the Liwale district, the annual mean was Liwale within a period of 21 years, 473. Th is shows a considerable increase which equals an average of almost 145 in control activities in the mid-1970’s elephants killed each year. In Liwale, also when compared to the annual mean in 238 hippopotami, 174 buff alos, 45 lions, the period from1930 to 1940, when 350 49 leopards and 47 hyenas were killed elephants were killed. Th e highest death during the same period. Th e problem toll was in 1975, when 579 elephants were animal species killed in Liwale between killed in control activities. Th e lowest 1975 and 1995, were 1,284 bush pig, number of elephants killed in Liwale 3,408 baboons, 2,269 Vervet monkeys, during the same period was 304 in 1973 686 other monkeys and 86 warthogs. In (Rodgers and Lobo 1978: 52). Masunzu Kilwa district, over 2,000 elephants and studied the problem animals killed by 910 hippopotami were killed during the villagers or relevant authorities in the same period. Th ese fi gures do not three districts between 1975 and 1995. include the number of poached wildlife,

170 but only contain information on the also another side of the coin, which is number of wildlife killed during crop not so widely declared and published by protection and problem animal control the media outside Kenya and Tanzania. activities in the three districts (Siege Some wildlife species can be very and Baldus 1998b: 14, 68). Elephants dangerous to humans and cause several and hippopotami are species which are deaths within a relatively short amount most often killed in problem animal of time. Th e book Th e man-eaters of Tsavo control activities in the Liwale District by J. H. Patterson (1907/1979: 106) is (Table 7). Th e number of problematic among the fi rst non-fi ction tales, which elephants killed was lowest in 1994, tell a cruel true story to the public about when only 19 were killed and highest in the attacks of man-eating lions on the 1990, when 80 elephants lost their lives. Uganda-Kenya railway builders between Large predators, such as leopards, lions 1898 and 1899. Patterson wrote that and hyenas have also been killed in these two man-eating lions had killed 28 activities. Th e total number of killed Indian workers, in addition to “scores of predators in problem animal control unfortunate African natives of whom no started to increase slowly towards the offi cial record was kept”. One of the worst end of the same decade. cases of man-eating lions occurred in Th e above fi gures of killed animals the Njombe District in South-Western may seem quite dramatic. Th e statistics Tanzania, where 1,500 people were on hunted and culled wildlife are often killed by lions between 1932 and 1946. updated and easily available to anyone Most of these people were killed by lions interested in the eff ects of man on wildlife. when they were trying to protect their Th ese statistics are usually quoted in grazing cattle. In the same district, lions scientifi c articles and documentaries had killed some 3,000 head of cattle on African wildlife. However, there is between 1944 and 1952.

Table 7. Problem animals controlled by hunting in Liwale District in 1990–2000. (District Assistant Game Oﬃ cer in Liwale District Council, 22.7.2002, personal communication).

year elephant hippopotamus lion leopard hyena 1990 80 10 3 3 0 1991 34 6 3 2 5 1992 53 0 2 2 5 1993 30 3 3 2 4 1994 19 6 5 5 3 1995 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1996 25 9 2 6 0 1997 44 7 2 5 6 1998 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1999 40 10 6 4 2 2000 66 9 1 10 5 Total 391 60 27 39 30

171 9.3.4. Human casualties of human- adult men. People who are killed by wildlife confl icts wildlife were carrying out various tasks at the time of the attack. Th ese tasks Even today, the presence of freely include farming, fi shing, fetching water, roaming large predators takes its toll in collecting fi rewood, basket material East Africa. In Tanzania, approximately and building materials, and bathing or 200 people are killed by wildlife every washing clothes in rivers. According to year. About one third of these victims are Siege and Baldus (1998b), Masunzu killed by lions. Skuja (2002) documents (1996) assumes that some of the victims 14 separate lion attacks where 13 people were actually poaching wildlife. He lost their lives in seven rural villages in estimates that about 70% of the human- northern Tanzania over a period of 26 wildlife encounters took place in wildlife months (Skuja 2002 cit. Quigley and habitats and 30% within settlements. Herrero 2005: 35). Injuries and deaths Th e respondents of the survey state that caused by lion attacks have been and people who walked along paths and roads remain even more acute in Southern in the wildlife habitats in order to go to Tanzania. Th ere the main reason for the fi elds, shops, dispensary or school were man-eating behaviour of lions is hunger at risk of wildlife attacks. Th e encounters caused by the fact that in the settled within the settlements occurred mostly areas there is very little game apart from at night. Elephants often killed people elephants and scarce livestock due to the by attacking and demolishing the dungu tsetse fl y. Man-eating takes place mainly in the fi elds. Th ese raiding elephants during the wet season (Baldus 2004: 6, are mostly bulls, which respond more 23–24). Wild animals killed 365 people aggressively to the chasing attempts of and injured 274 people in the Rufi ji, the guards (Siege and Baldus 1998b: 14, Kilwa and Liwale districts between 1975 68; Baldus and Cauldwell 2004: 29). In and 1995. All of the incidents of people Liwale, the elephants killed eight people killed by wildlife are not reported and and injured seven between 1975 and the numbers presented here are probably 1995. Most of the human casualties in under-estimations. Th e systematic Liwale were caused by leopards, killing under-reporting of victims refl ects the 24 with lions, killing 22 during the avoidance of too much publicity for this same period. Between them, these two politically sensitive issue. In Tanzania, predator species injured 24 people in there is no compensation for wildlife Liwale. Hippopotami killed fi ve and damage even if this includes loss of life. injured 14 people, while buff alo killed Sometimes the Government may deliver one and injured 11 people in Liwale a symbolic sum of money, such as 30 between 1975 and 1995. Hyenas did to 50 USD to the relatives of a victim not kill any people but injured seven (Baldus 2004: 25, 28). during the same period (Siege and Most of the victims are adult Baldus 1998b: 68). men, who are killed in the vicinity of According to the District Assistant wildlife habitats, cultivated fi elds or in Game Offi cer, lions and leopards residential areas. About 90% of the 51 killed 14 people in the season of victims killed by elephants in 1996 were 1996/1997 and in 2001/2002 these

172 species killed fi ve people in the Liwale season when the natural prey animals District (Mohamedi Mtila, personal are dispersed over vast areas and the tall communication, 22.7.2002). Dangerous grass gives the lions better confi dence wild animals do not only pose a threat to approach the villages (Baldus and to humans in rural villages but can also Cauldwell 2004: 29–30). attack people in the outskirts of urban Fencing of protected areas and areas like Lindi and Dar es Salaam. eliminating all lions outside these areas In 2000, lions killed 23 people in fi ve is the only way to reduce man-eating by months near the Lindi airport. One lion lions to near zero. Houses should also killed 35 people by taking many of them be improved to make them lion proof. from their huts close to the city of Dar es Local communities tend to connect Salaam between August 2002 and April man-eating by lions with superstition 2004 (Baldus 2001: 1; Baldus 2004: 4). and witchcraft. Th e lion responsible for Large predators also attacked people man-eating is believed to be a human during the time when I was carrying out lion simba-mtu, which is considered as fi eld research for this study. Two female a metamorphosis from a person into a lions killed nine people and injured two lion. People also believe that this kind in Liwale district from 24th of February of human lion can become invisible. In to 14th of March 2003. In the fi rst some cases people believe that a local incident, four people of the same family chief who has lost his position seeks were killed in one night. Th e lion entered revenge by using his supernatural power their house through a window and killed the people inside the hut one by one. Th e lioness responsible for these killings was shot on the 6th of March 2003 in Liwale (Fig. 22.). Th e second lioness, which was responsible for the killings of fi ve more people was hunted down and killed on the 16th of March 2003. After those horrifying incidences, life returned to normal again and farmers went back to work on their farms (Clement Kitandala, personal communication). Man-eating lions are a serious problem, especially in the south-east of Tanzania. It has been estimated by Baldus (2004) that approximately 30% of all human casualties caused by wildlife there are deu to the active predation of lions. Elimination of man-eating lions is very Figure 22. Th e Liwale District Assistant diffi cult and it may take even two years Game Offi cer, Mr. Mtila with the hunted of eff ort to locate and cull these animals lioness which was responsible for killing in the village areas. Most man-eating four persons in Liwale in 2003. Photo by lion casualties occur during the rainy Clement Kitandala, 6 March 2003.

173 and sends his lions to kill people in confl icts particular wild animals do the villages (Baldus 2004: 22, 32, 39). not only physically move across the Witchcraft has a long history in southern borderline between nature and culture Tanzania and it remains part of the daily as animals but also change their form life in most communities. Although and temporarily get human shapes while witchcraft practices have changed over being in the culture side of the border. time, they still continue to retain their meanings established during the colonial 9.3.5. Some explanations of crop period. Th e belief that bad outcomes are raiding behaviour – a case of the the result of witchcraft or the activity of African elephant witches has turned the locals’ attention away from the real causes of misfortune. Chiyo and Cochrane studied the Witchcraft can be viewed as an population structure and behaviour of institution complementing the politics crop-raiding elephants in Kibale National which deny responsibility for social Park in Uganda between January 1999 outcomes and accuse local communities and June 2001. Th eir fi ndings confi rm for their own misfortune (Green 2005: that the elephants raiding crops were 7–17). Th e superstitious elements in mostly males. Th ey point out that crop the relationship between humans and raiding behaviour normally starts at the wildlife make the study of nature-culture age of 6–8 years, when male elephants borderlines very challenging. Taboos and leave their maternal family units. Most belief in witchcraft are part of persons’ of the raiding elephants in Uganda were basic belief patterns (Fig. 13) which post pubertal males and 20–24 years aff ect their attitudes and values and are old. Th is is the stage when the bulls are fi nally refl ected in their behaviour. Th e approaching reproductive age and show superstitious elements attached to some sexual activity. For the male elephants, particular wild animals, such as lions, crop raiding is an optimal foraging aff ect people’s behaviour so strongly strategy, which provides improved that they may even prevent them from nutrition and results in increased body taking actions to restore order and size enhancing their competitive ability biosecurity in spaces invaded by these during mating periods. Crop raiding animals. Th e district game guards are maximises the effi ciency of foraging due called for help in the cases of man- to the reduced time spent and distance eating lions because they usually are the travelled for that activity. Crop raiding only ones who are able to take actions elephants derived 38% of their daily and kill the lions. According to the food intake from the short time spent Liwale District Assistant Game Offi cer, on the cultivated fi elds. Crop raiding is the guards sometimes have diffi culties a learned behaviour and the bulls learn it in tracking down the man-eating lions easier than the female elephants because because the locals give them incorrect they are more socially independent and information and remove the paw tracks mating intensive. In addition, the risks due to their beliefs (Mohamedi Mtila, of crop raiding are higher for the females personal communication, 22.7.2002). because they live in groups with their In these types of human-wildlife off spring and the juveniles are at risk

174 of being trampled on or lost when the palatable for elephants. Th e crossings herd is chased away or frightened during of elephants from the protected areas raids. Th e study in Uganda shows that to the cultivated areas increased when the incidence of repeated crop raiding grass moisture was low. Elephants also will increase as elephants grow older. consume more browse as the quality of Sole male groups raid fi elds repeatedly grasses and forbs decline (Osborn 2004: for two or four nights. Th e number of 322–326). So in dietary terms elephants elephants in the raiding groups varied compete for the same food plants with from one to eight individuals and the people and indirectly with people’s mean was four individuals. Th e raiding livestock (Osborn and Hill 2005: 74). group of elephants stayed near the cultivated areas during the day and 10. Results of the fi eld study in raided the area at night (Chiyo and Cochrane 2005: 233–240). the Liwale district Th e confl icts between humans Th is chapter presents the results of my and elephants are increasing because fi eld study in the Liwale district. Th e more and more elephant habitats research methods that were chosen to are conversed into agricultural areas. best reveal the spatial characteristics Crop-raiding by elephants is a major of human-wildlife confl icts in the area conservation concern in Africa (Osborn limit the scope of my analysis. However, 2004: 322; Chiyo and Cochrane 2005: it is possible to conclude that the use of 233). A study of the seasonal variation geoinformatics and remote sensing could of feeding patterns and food selection have helped me to study the spatiality and by crop-raiding elephants in Zimbabwe location of nature-culture borderlines in indicates that there is a tendency for a more accurate way and also to visualize elephants to move out of the protected them cartographically. On the one hand, areas and raid into cultivated fi elds when nature-culture borderlines are dynamic the quality of wild grasses declines to a between diff erent spaces of the hierarchy certain point. Th us the seasonal changes and change through time in the context in forage quality have an infl uence on of modernization. Th e cartographic the crop-raiding behaviour of elephants. visualisation of the temporal change of Elephants have a generalist diet and they the location of nature-culture borderlines mainly feed on grass and woody browse, in the Liwale district would have been of which they consume between 100 kg an immense task. On the other hand, and 300 kg per day. Elephants spend nature-culture borderlines are personally from 70 to 90% of their time foraging and socially constructed so there are also and tend to choose the food that off ers subjective diff erences in the perception the highest nutrient intake at each given of these borderlines. Th e nature-culture time and place. Th e study also pointed borderlines also contain superstitious out that when grass moisture was high elements, such as the metamorphosis the elephants remain inside the protected described in the previous chapter, so area. When grass matures towards the they are not easy to map. end of the wet season, its moisture level drops and it then becomes less

175 10.1. Human-wildlife confl icts in their village area or in areas around their the studied villages village. Ni wanyama gani wanaopatikana katika maeneo ya kijiji? (Ramani ya kijiji). Th e fi rst two research questions which Th e villagers mentioned 51 diff erent I had for this dissertation were related animal species, including 37 mammals, to the characteristics of human-wildlife nine bird species, and fi ve reptiles and confl icts in the six studied villages amphibians during the group discussion (Chapter 1.3.). I also wanted to fi nd out in the villages (Table 8.). which animal species locals considered In a questionnaire survey, carried responsible for these confl icts. Open out by Maganga et al. (2003: 84–86) in discussions, group interviews and seven villages in the Liwale Pilot Wildlife participatory mapping methods were Management Area from February–May used during the visits to these villages for 2003, the villagers mentioned a total of collecting empirical data which could be 44 animal species, mainly large mammals analyzed and studied in order to fi nd and three reptile species. Th ere were also answers to the research questions. When two endangered species, namely the black we walked across the village areas and rhinoceros and the wild dog, included in visited places of human-wildlife confl ict the list of Maganga et al. However, the in crop fi elds, farms and homes, I also black rhinoceros was mentioned only carried out participant observation. in Kimambi village, which was not part In the open discussions and group of the village sample for my study. Th e interviews my main aim was to fi nd wild dog was mentioned in the lists of out which wildlife species existed in the Kikulyungu and Mpigamiti villages vicinity of the villages and how locals but not in Barikiwa / Chimbuko. In perceive the presence of these species. the results of Maganga et al. (2003), I also asked what kind of damage these there were no signifi cant diff erences in animals caused and where these damages the number and species composition mostly took place. Participatory mapping among these three villages except for the was used to get a visual presentation of black rhinoceros and the wild dog. As the location of these incidents and also a result of the open discussions which I to indirectly locate the places where carried out with the villagers, they listed the locals’ perceived nature-culture 29 wild animal species in Kikulyungu borderlines. I was also interested to learn while in Mpigamiti villages they listed of their opinions on the trends of animal 30 and in Barikiwa/Chimbuko 35 populations around their village. I asked species. A comparison of the lists shows them if the number of wild animals was that the fi ndings are almost similar, increasing or decreasing in their village although some small diff erences in area. In the beginning of the open species composition for each village can discussions, the villagers provided a list be found. For example, in my list of of species found in their village area. I Mpigamiti village, people mention the asked the village members of Barikiwa/ buff alo and the impala which are absent Chimbuko, Mihumo, Liwale B, from the list of Maganga et al. However, Likombora, Mpigamiti and Kikulyungu their list for Mpigamiti included the to mention all animal species present in southern reedbuck, the otter, the spring

176 hare, the civet and the serval which were and why: Ni wanyama gani mnaowaona not mentioned to me by the villagers. kuwa muhimu? Kwa nini? In addition Th ese lists of wild animals may not be I wanted to know which species they complete because they are based on the did not want to see around their village villagers’ memories, but these lists do and why: Ni wanyama gani hampendi reveal something of the wide diversity of kuwaona? Kwa nini?. Th e results are wildlife conceived to be present in the also depicted in Table 8. An empty vicinity of the villages. It also refl ects cell means that the species was not local knowledge on the distribution of mentioned by the villagers and thus wildlife. does not exist around the village area. Furthermore, I asked the villagers if Th e [x] mark means that the species was the number of wild animals had increased mentioned by the village members and or decreased during the past fi ve years. found in the village area and considered Th en I also wanted to know why this was as a neutral species by the people there. happening. Th e question in Kiswahili Th e [+] mark means that the species is was Je, idadi ya wanyama katika kipindi found in the village area and considered cha miaka mitano iliyopita, inapungua au important by the villagers and the [–] inaongezeka? Kwa nini? According to the mark means that the species is found participating villagers, the number of in the village area but considered as a wild animals had increased in Barikiwa/ nuisance by the village members. Th e Chimbuko, Mpigamiti, Mihumo, [*] mark means that in addition to the Likombora and Kikulyungu villages due importance of the species, the villagers to conservation activities and hunting also mentioned some negative eff ects of limitations. However, the villagers of this wild animal on their livelihoods. Liwale B told me that the number of Th e table above shows that the wild animals had decreased during the jackal, the African wild cat, the vervet past fi ve years because the farms have monkey, the yellow baboon, the bush expanded and wild animals have been pig, the python and the spotted hyena hunted for meat. Hunting has chased are the most disliked wild animal species the animals away from the village area. in the villages. Th e zebra, the wildebeest, Th ere were no reliable offi cial records of the hartebeest and some other antelopes animal population sizes in the district are regarded as positive species which so the villagers’ estimates could not be cause little damage in the villages. It verifi ed. Our fi ndings are almost similar was surprising to fi nd out that local with those of Maganga et al. (2003: communities also had a very positive 86). Th ey also found out that the village attitude towards the buff alo. Th ey members of Mpigamiti considered that mostly considered it as a valuable species while the overall wild animal numbers which does not cause much damage to were increasing, bushbuck and sable crops but provides meat for the villages antelope populations were decreasing when hunted. It was also interesting due to predation by lions and wild that people consider the elephant and dogs. the lion as important species, although I wanted to know which wild animal they pointed out that these animals species were important to the villagers cause a lot of damage and sometimes

177 Table 8. Wild animal species present around the village areas in the studied six villages in Liwale district according to the information provided by the villagers during the group discussions 1–11 July 2002.

Village Barikiwa Mpigamiti Mihumo Likombora Kikulyungu Liwale B Animal species /Chimbuko Elephant +* +* +* +* +* + Buﬀ alo +++x*+*+ Lion +* +* +* +* +* - Leopard - - +* +* +* +* Greater kudu +* +* x +* + Zebra +++x++ Blue bearded wildebeest ++ x*++ Lichtenstein’s hartebeest +* x +* x + + Eland ++x+*++ Wild dog x* + + - x Hippopotamus x+*+*x*- - Impala +x xx+ Spotted hyena --+ -+* Sable antelope +x*+x* Common waterbuck xxx* Southern reedbuck x Bushbuck x x* + x* +* x Warthog x* x* - x* x Aardwark xx Porcupine x* +* x* x* x Cape hare x* + x* x* Bush pig ---x*-x Red duiker x Common duiker x x + x x* x Klipspringer x Yellow baboon ---x*-- Vervet monkey ---x*-- Blue monkey x- - Civet -x* African wild cat - x* - x* - Jackal -x*-x*-- Ground pangolin x+++ Nile crocodile +x*-

178 Leopard tortoise xxx Python - - +* + - - Suni xxx x Honey badger x* Chameleon x+* Helmeted guinea fowl x Vulturine guinea fowl x Feral pigeon x+ Lesser Galago x Nile monitor x Antbear x Blank and Red Bush x Squirrel Francolin x Honey guide x African goshawk x Hornbill x Owl x x x* - Sacred Ibis + kill people in the villages. Th ese species the economic potential of this species are, of course, very important for the through tourism and community- community-based conservation projects, based conservation. I will describe the such as the SCP and through tourist situation in the open discussions with incomes, but I was still surprised by the a case study from Barikiwa/Chimbuko positive response. I expected a stronger where the villagers and the spokesman opposition to the presence of elephants suddenly changed their language from in the village meetings because I had seen Kiswahili to a local language in the the crop damages these animals cause in middle of an argument because they did the study area. I believe that there is a not want us to understand the content bias in the table caused by courtesy or of their discussion. Luckily, our driver expectation which is explained below. spoke that language and he translated Th e open discussions about the the discussion to me from an audio importance and dislike of certain recording. Th e discussion started from wild animal species were far from a question about the importance of the unambiguous because people quite animals found in the village area. All often disagreed with the spokesmen of comments are by the ordinary members the meetings who usually were village of the Barikiwa/Chimbuko village, chairmen or ward councellors. Th is except those by the village chairman and was especially the case for elephants ward councellor, which are marked in which were regarded as pests by many parentheses: villagers but they also acknowledged

179 - Elephant is a very important animal for us so it means that we should not because we use it for meat and it also kill it. So what about the buff alo? provides income for our village and If we say that the buff alo is very for the whole nation. important for us, would it also - [lively discussion]. So we should mean that we should not be allowed not kill the elephant? to kill it for meat. - No, we should not. [a few people] - (ward counsellor):[Changes from - Even if the elephant is going to eat Kiswahili to a local language]. our plants, we should not kill it? Th ere is a licence which is obtained - If the number of elephants is from the district offi ce. It allows us increasing in such a way that they to hunt the buff alo, but there is no are destroying our crops and we fail licence for local people to hunt the to chase them away from our area elephant. Th ey are only available and fi elds, then we had better kill for the tourists. Have you ever been them so as to get meat. [people are given a licence to hunt an elephant? still discussing] For the case of the tourist, when he - Th ey should not be killed but there will be asked the same question, we should be protection against the will say that the elephant is a very animals which destroy our fi elds important animal because he has and crops. Also when the goats are the licence to kill it. eating your plants you are allowed - We are afraid that when we say that to chase them away so why not do the elephants are important and they the same for the elephants. are destroying our crops. When we - [people are laughing] Oh, the then ask help from the government elephants are very important for us! for protection, we could be asked - (village chairman): Do not make that why are you complaining for jokes in this meeting! Th is man came while you on the other hand say here from very far. Just like he GTZ that this animal is very important he came here with the questions for your village? before they started the programme. - Do not be afraid of it. Mr.Tino has Th e same way as the RIPS did. So travelled from Finland to Tanzania. do not make any jokes. Th is may We do not have to be afraid of it. help you in the future! He has heard the name of Barikiwa - (ward counsellor): If you are saying when he was in Finland and he that the elephant is very important travelled here. So when you will to the people of Barikiwa, it then say that you want to protect the means that you should not kill them elephants, the message will also because they are important for you. reach to Finland because Mr. Tino If you say that the elephant is not came here.[Language returns to important for you, it means that Kiswahili]. they should be killed. So which now - So in the end, the elephant is is which? important to us because it provides - You said that if we are going to say us meat and income. that the elephant is very important - Kudu

180 - Hartebeest destroying the crops and killing - We have to know which way these people. Importance of the buff alo to animals are important to us. Th e us comes up when it is killed and its animals we are mentioning here, meat is sold to people and we get the are they important because of we get cash from it. meat or income? - Green monkey and baboon. - (research assistant): It is for both - Aa,aa,aa! [some people do not reasons. agree with this] - If that is the case, we should not exclude the elephant from our list Th is example reveals that the although the government is not previous work and projects on wildlife providing hunting licences for the conservation have left a mark on people’s local people. behaviour and on their responses to - Out of all the animals mentioned, the visitors. It became evident that the the elephant is perhaps contributing spokesman tried to adjust the comments a lot for the village government as of the villagers into an answer which they income and meat. expected the researcher or the visitor - But we are still worried! [All of wanted to hear in order to provide some them did not agree that elephant projects or assistance for their village in is important to them] the future. Th is courtesy and expectation - (village chairman): Where did we bias was discovered with the help of an reach in our discussion about the extra interpreter, our driver, who luckily elephants? was with us during the meeting. In a - We are getting confused. Th is situation where I would only have had village is under the GTZ wildlife an interpreter who was not familiar with conservation programme so what is any other local language than Kiswahili going to happen to us if we are going and English, I would have remained to say that the elephants are not ignorant of this important empirical important to our village and that observation. From the research ethics they destroy our crops and we do perspective, it is not fair that I left the not like them. Th en the tourists are participants of the village meeting not coming to our village anymore. unaware of my aims to ask the help of We should agree that the elephants our driver to translate their discussion. are important if we want to earn It was not a premeditated act at all something from the GTZ. but I briefl y assessed the situation and - I think that the elephant is important decided to ask his help to understand although it is destructive. the content of the discussion. Th e driver - Th erefore the elephant is important was all the time present in the meeting although it is destructive. so we did not try to conceal in any way - We have built a school with the that we have a local peson in our group money we got from the district who understands the local language. through the tourism income. I have made an unethical choice of - Elephant is important. Also the publishing their discussion here because, buff alo has the same habits of in my opinion, it provides a truthful

181 evidence of the contested realities in cassava), hartebeests, bush bucks, blue wildlife conservation which the locals monkeys, jackals, hippopotami, sable have to deal with. Methodologically, it antelopes, porcupines (cassava), cape is important to reveal the pitfalls which hares (groundnuts), helmeted guinea one may face when repeating the study or fowls (sorghum and maize), pigeons, using similar ways to collect information francolins, elands (tobacco) and mice. on such a highly sensitive topic in the Th ey mention that species which prey future. Th e open discussions and group on domestic animals include lions (on interviews show quite clearly that locals cattle, goats and chicken), leopards (goats do not have a very positive attitude and chicken), hyenas (goats), jackals towards large mammals and predators (chicken), snakes (goats and chicken), but they mainly kept their real opinions honey badgers (chickens and destroys to themselves and reluctantly and silently beehives for honey), wild dogs (goats and agreed with the viewpoints of the village chicken), African wild cats (chicken), chairmen or ward councellors. In the baboons (chicken) and vervet monkeys end, it became clear that people were (chicken). Wild animals that kill people afraid to admit, while I was present, that include lions, leopards, hyenas, buff alos, the elephants caused more trouble than hippopotami and crocodiles. benefi t to their community and most Some of the villagers of Barikiwa told of them wanted to get rid of elephants. me that they sometimes catch baboons, Overall, I observed that locals did blue monkeys and vervet monkeys and not have so positive attitude towards sell them for meat to buyers from Masasi. lions and elephants as the table above I also learned that the fat of a lion is used indicates. as a local medicine for muscular ache Th e people who participated in in Barikiwa. In Mpigamiti, the village the meetings in the studied six villages members pointed out that although mainly all agreed that the number of wild dogs occasionally kill their goats, wildlife in and around their villages they are mostly considered helpful by was increasing because of conservation the people because the wild dogs tend eff orts and because the wild animals to chase away other wild animals which were not hunted. Th ey pointed out that may cause crop damage in their fi elds. most wild animals came to their villages Elephants attack 10 persons per year in from the Selous Game Reserve in search Barikiwa/Chimbuko while in the other for food from their fi elds and to prey on villages studied by Maganga et al. there domestic animals or drink water from were only one or no elephant attacks on the nearby rivers. Some animals were humans. In Kikulyungu a person was migrating towards the southeast and killed by a crocodile in 2001 (Maganga passing through the villages, while other et al. 2003: 93). According to the report animals were returning to the Game of the District Game Offi cer in Liwale, Reserve. Th e village members interviewed the rate of wildlife encroachment into the list the following species as crop raiding villages increased in 1989. Th is increase wild animals: elephants, buff alos, yellow was due to more disturbances, including baboons, vervet monkeys, bush pigs, hunting and tourist activities, within the greater kudus, warthogs (especially to game reserve scaring the animals into the

182 open areas to seek shelter. Th e District corridors for wild animals. During the Game Offi cer mentioned that a 25-mile participatory village mapping exercise, I buff erzone from the Matandu river to asked the village members of the six study the settlements would be wide enough villages to tell us in which areas around to keep the animals away (Baldus 1990: their villages they has seen animals. 50). Ni maeneo gani ya kijiji wanyama hao huonekana? It became evident that the 10.2. Nature-culture boundaries in villagers clearly perceived that wild the Liwale district animals were coming into the village and farms from the forested areas. In Participatory mapping, observation Barikiwa/Chimbuko, the villagers told and visits to the sites of human- us that most wild animals come to their wildlife confl ict were used to establish villages from the Selous Game Reserve. if the members of the six study villages Th ey added that once the animals have perceived any clear nature-culture eaten in the village area, many of them boundaries in their environments. Th e continue to move southwards and cross villagers drew the maps together and at through their village. Some animals do the same time explained where they had return back to Selous Game Reserve seen wild animals, where they moved after their visit to the village and farms. in the area and why. Th e location of Th e villagers told me that the nearby permanent water sources causes some rivers are water sources for some wildlife seasonal animal migration in the Liwale species, although hippopotami can district. Th e village chairman of the often be found in river Mtatamanga Barikiwa village, explained to me that and river Mlembo. In Barikiwa village there are some wild animal species which the interviewed village members did not are found in the perennial rivers near the notice any seasonal diff erences in wildlife village but those rivers turn into ponds distribution. Th ey said that elephants, and swamps during the dry period. jackals and monkeys are seen there Some of the rivers have water even then throughout the year. In Kikulyungu and so the wild animals are coming from the Mpigamiti villages the participants also forests to drink in these rivers but they perceive that animals moved to the village are not permanently there. Th ere are area from the forests of the Selous Game some swamps in the village where you Reserve. In Mihumo and Likombora can fi nd animals, such as hippopotami the most often mentioned source of (Ally Mohamedi Kamuna, personal wild animals was the Angai forest. Th is communication 1.7.2002). Th e role of empirical data provides me with enough the perennial rivers seems to be important information to conclude that the villagers in the distribution of certain animal perceive a clear nature-culture border species around the studied villages. Th e located between the cultivated fi elds and vegetation of the river banks consists the forest border. Selous Game Reserve mainly of bushed and wooded grasslands and Angai Forest Reserve are considered and closed woodlands so in addition as places where wildlife belongs to and to water they also provide shelter, comes from to the fi elds and farms to do refuge, and nutrition and migration its damage. Th ere were also some smaller

183 Figure 23. Th e map of Mihumo shows the location of forests and rivers where wildlife is mostly seen and from where the animals move into the village area. forest where the wild animals were often During the walks in certain parts seen and from where they approached of the studied villages, it was easy to the villages, like in the village map of identify and see where the cultivated Mihumo (Fig. 23.). ﬁ eld ended and where the forest started.

Figure 24. A clear borderline between the cultivated area and the forest of the Selous Game Reserve in Kikulyungu.

184 In some villages, such as Kikulyungu, the forest followed by wild animals then the cultivated land reached very close to by agricultural land. People in Liwale the border of the Selous Game Reserve WMA value natural resources not only (Fig. 24.) because of their direct use value but also However, this was not the case in for their existence value that is linked all cultivated areas like the recently to the conservation of those resources. cleared areas for shifting-cultivation In my fi eld study, I tried to get a more in Mpigamiti (Fig. 25.) which has a holistic view on the values of wildlife borderline between the forest and the for people in Liwale WMA. During fi eld that is not so easily observed. Th ese the village meetings and interviews a areas have just recently been shifted variety of species specifi c meanings and from natural to human spaces through values were explained to me and that the felling the trees so they were in a phase of importance of some wild animal species transition. Th e nature-culture borderline to the local communities can only be had just moved a few hundred meters understood on the basis of beliefs and towards the border of the uncleared folktales. Th e spiritual importance of forest in the fi gure below. wildlife to locals is diffi cult to verify A study carried out by Maganga et al. empirically because according to the (2003: 112) pointed out that villagers in stories from my interviewees some have the Liwale Wildlife Management Area had supernatural experiences with wild (WMA) ranked the available natural animals. Th e only way how I could resources based on the benefi ts or assess the truth value of the information perceived values that people derive from provided to me on the spiritual these resources. According to their study, importance of wildlife to people was to the highest ranked natural resource was observe the reactions and gestures from

Figure 25. A recently cleared shifting cultivation area in Mpigamiti.

185 other participants in the meetings. Many African landscape. Th is questionnaire people considered an owl as a bird of ill was also delivered to district and omen and certain snake species seen on region level offi cials who worked for the road allegedly predicts a death or the government and international illness in the destination village. Th e NGOs. Th e aim was to study whether villagers predicted the future for the next the human-wildlife confl icts in Liwale year by using the ground pangolin as could partly be explained on the basis their prognosticator and they therefore of diff erences in the perceived images of highly value this species. Th ere were landscape between the ordinary villagers also many taboos regulating the use of and those people who make decisions certain antelope species in the villages. on wildlife management and nature Th ese cultural dimensions of wildlife to conservation at the district and regional local communities are seldom considered levels. Th e associated meanings and in community-based conservation values as well as perceived contents of projects. a place have an eff ect on behaviour and A low level of subsistence poaching choices of acceptable actions among the was carried out in Kikulyungu village stakeholders in rural development and where people illegally hunt buff alo, wildlife conservation. If the perceived hartebeest and wildebeest (Maganga images of the rural landscape were et al. 2003: 94). Poached wild animal uniform between the ordinary villagers meat was also occasionally sold in the and district or regional level authorities, market of Liwale town during my visit the people-people confl icts related to there. Zebra and hartebeest meat could wildlife conservation at the local level be found most often in the market even could not be explained on the basis of outside the offi cial hunting period. diff erent values and associated meanings of places. 10.3. Th e perceived image of rural I analysed 183 questionnaires from African landscape the ordinary village members and 16 questionnaires fi lled out by district Th e research and observation of the level and regional level civil servants. I perceived nature-culture boundaries calculated the average rank of each listed opened up some new questions which object and animal in the questionnaire I wanted to also explore. I wanted to for each village. Th ere was big variation map out the elements and objects as in the number of respondents between well as animals which belonged to the the villages which has to be taken into images of the rural African landscape consideration when pondering the of the local communities. I wanted to results. Each diagram shows the average fi nd out which elements are integral rank of the selected objects ranked by parts of their perceived image and which the village members according to their elements are more exterior and not a perceived image of the rural African strong part of their landscape image. landscape. Th e closer the average rank is I used a preformulated questionnaire to number one, the more an integral part (Appendix 1.) to study the associated this object is of the person’s perceived meanings and contents of the rural image of the rural African landscape.

186 Th e larger the rank is, for example 12, cultivated fi elds would be similarly the more exterior is the object in the obvious as in the open discussions and perceived image of the landscape. Th us fi eld walks but the result does not seem those objects which have an average rank to be so clear here. Sorghum fi eld ranks visualized close to the x-axis are the most better than tree savanna, bush savanna integral to the locals’ perceived image and closed forest but the diff erence is of rural landscape. Each village has its not as high as I expected. Th is can be own average rank line visualized with an interpreted that shifting-cultivators do individual colour. not perceive a huge diff erence between Fig. 26 shows a slight variation these objects in their image of the rural between the villages. Liwale B stands landscape. It was also interesting to see out clearly, but one has to keep in mind that vegetable gardens ranked quite low that their averages represent only three in the preferences of the respondents persons, so it cannot be considered very in Liwale. Th e civil servants’ average representative. Farm house and school ranks of objects show more variation building seem to be integral to the between the district level authorities perceived images of rural landscapes. and the regional level authorities in Fig. Th e lake object was a control object as 27. Tree and bush savanna and closed there are no lakes in the Liwale district forest were ranked better by the regional so it was assumed that the lake would level civil servants than the district level not belong to people’s perceived images civil servants. However, the district of the rural landscape either. With level personnel ranked the farm house this questionnaire I also wanted to see and the goat shelter as a more integral if the divide between the forest and part of their perceived image of the

Figure 26. Objects ranked by their importance in the perceived image of the rural African landscape for the members of six studied villages in the Liwale district, Tanzania. Th e landscape object other is not depicted here because the respondents did not give any rank for the objects mentioned in this category.

187 Figure 27. Objects ranked by their importance in the perceived image of the rural African landscape for the district and region level civil servants in the Liwale district, Tanzania. rural landscape than did the regional 10.4. Animals in the perceived personnel. Th e sample was small but image of African countryside it still indicates some diff erences in the associated meanings and content Similarly to the previously mentioned of places between these two groups of part of the questionnaire, the respondents respondents. were also asked to select certain animals Fig. 28. shows a combination of the from the list of preselected animals average rank of all villages and those of the which would belong to their perceived district and regional level civil servants. image of the African countryside. Here the big diff erences in the ranking Th ey could also add their own choices of the tree savanna, the bush savanna of animals not found on the list. Th e and the closed forest are clearly evident. villagers added a few animals in the Th e district level civil servants rankings category other into their lists, such as blue are much closer to those of the village wildebeest, hippopotamus, horse and averages in comparison to the rankings helmeted guineafowl in Mpigamiti, bees of the regional level civil servants. Th is and rabbit in Mihumo, blue wildebeest, may indicate that the perceived images hartebeest, rhino, helmeted guineafowl, of the rural landscape are quite diff erent greater kudu, donkey, bush pig, eland already at the regional level from those and hyena in Kikulyungu, and hyena, of local communities. Th is may lead to wild cat, leopard and blue wildebeest in diff erent land use preferences at regional Barikiwa/Chimbuko. level decision-making processes in Th e diagram of Fig. 29 shows that comparison to those land use preferences the overall ranking of animals according that would be decided at the local level to their importance in the perceived by the villagers. image of the African landscape has been 188 Figure 28. A combined diagram of the average ranks of the landscape objects. quite similar in all villages. Th ere are a Th e comparison of the average few animals, such as the elephant, which rankings of animals between the civil have a wide variation in the average servants of the two diff erent levels, ranking between diff erent villages. district and region, gives an interesting Goats, chicken and cattle have been result (Fig. 30). Th ree animals stand ranked as an integral part of the perceived out from the generally parallel results. image of the countryside in all villages Th ese are the lion, the warthog and the while baboons, warthogs and snakes are baboon, which are given a higher rank considered as exterior in the same setting. in the perceived image of the African Th is supports the results of the open countryside by the regional level civil discussions where people mentioned servants than by the district level civil species which they do not even want to servants. If these subjective preferences see near their village areas. Th e average of animals belong to the perceived ranking of buff alo is almost identical to image of the countryside were directly that of the sheep, so the people consider transmitted to the wildlife management them both as animals belonging to their decisions made on the regional level, image of the countryside. Th erefore it can there would certainly be disagreements be concluded that buff alos are seldom between the district and regional levels involved in human-wildlife confl icts in on the role of these animals in rural areas. the Liwale district. Th e average ranking Let’s compare these average rankings of the buff alo which is parallel to that with the combined average ranking of of a domestic animal shows that the all studied villages next to see how big a tolerance level of people to its presence diff erence exists between the stakeholder in the rural African landscape is higher groups. than for some other wild animal, such Here we can see that the villagers as warthog. do not consider the elephant as such

189 Figure 29. Th e important animals of the perceived image of the African countryside for the members of six studied villages in the Liwale district, Tanzania.

an integral part of the perceived image and conservation of these two wild as the civil servants do, especially at animal species in the rural areas. the regional level. Th e villagers exclude snakes from their countryside image 10.5. Results of the Q-sorts of the but not as strongly as the civil servants civil servants do. Th ere is little variation in the cases of the zebra, the goat, the buff alo, the Th e fi nal step in my fi eld research was to sheep, the dove and the impala. Th ese use the Q- methodology to elicit a profi le can be considered as neutral species in of deep attitudes of the district level civil the diff erent countryside images among servants and regional level civil servants the compared groups of respondents. in wildlife related issues. Th e selected Fig. 31 shows that the regional level civil key informants represented in the Q- servants ranked the elephant, the lion, sorts were persons who participated in the dog, the warthog and the baboon decision-making of wildlife conservation with lower average ranks, meaning that and management at the district level and these animals were more integral to their at the regional level. My objective of perceived image of countryside than for using the Q-methodology was to reveal the other group of respondents. Persons any clear diff erences in the deep attitudes who work at the regional level seem to between the representatives of these two position elephants and lions closer to groups towards wildlife conservation their perceived image of the African and management. Th eir attitudes may countryside than the villagers and, if serve as a mediator between the value the regional level administrators make orientation and behavioral intentions to decisions on the basis of this image it may perform certain activities in community- indicate confl icts in the management based conservation programmes in the

190 Figure 30. Animals ranked by their importance in the perceived image of the African countryside for the civil servants at the district and regional level.

Liwale district (Chapter 2.3.). Any clear ways of seeing wildlife in human and diff erence between their deep attitudes animal spheres in the study area. Th e 25 could be used to explain some human- statements in the Q-methodology sorts wildlife confl icts, especially those were the following: originting from struggles over diff erent

Figure 31. A combined diagram of the average ranks of the animals in the perceived images of African countryside among the villagers and civil servants at the district and region levels.

191 1. Th e size of wildlife population values of wildlife. should be controlled through 18. Rural people emphasize more hunting. the productive values of nature 2. Local people do not conserve than its aesthetic values. wildlife if they do not have rights 19. More wildlife should live in to use it. rural areas so that the tourists can 3. Wildlife has only an instrumental come and watch them there. value for rural people. 20. Wildlife conservation 4. Wild animals are valuable because is a valuable tool for rural they are used by the people. development. 5. Th ere should be more wildlife in 21. Large predators attract tourists rural areas so that local people to visit the rural area and bring would get meat. income there. 6. Wildlife conservation is not 22. Local people should have legal successful without the involvement rights to use wildlife in community of local people and their needs. conservation programmes. 7. Wild animals in rural areas are 23. Wildlife conservation should be pests which should be hunted. prioritized in rural areas – outside 8. Wild animals are not important to the protected areas. rural people. 24. Wildlife produces more income 9. Wildlife should live in the forests, for rural people than domestic not in rural areas. animals and crops. 10. Human welfare is more 25. Wildlife is the most valuable important than wildlife natural resource found in many conservation. rural areas. 11. Rural villages need schools and I used a freely downloadable software extension services, not wildlife PQMethod 2.11. version available from conservation programmes. the web site to analyze for rural development, not for the collected Q-sorts. Th e original wildlife conservation. FORTRAN program was created 13. Wildlife populations are by John Atkinson at the Kent State decreasing because of hunting. University. Th is statistical programme 14. Wildlife-viewing is an important is tailored for Q-methodology studies. source of tourism income for local With the help of this programme, I people in rural areas. analyzed intercorrelations among the 15. Wildlife is disappearing because Q-sorts, factor analyzed the sorts with it is poached by the local people in Principal Component Analysis and rural areas. carried out a Varimax rotation of the 16. Th e people should not disturb resulting factors. the order of nature but to let it Th e aim of the factor analysis is to function on its own way. indicate certain types of attitudes towards 17. Rural people are backward and wildlife conservation, and towards the do not understand the ethical role of wildlife in community-based

192 conservation and rural development. that support the consumptive use of Th e emphasis is on the persons wild animals. Statements 19–21 and participating in decision-making of 23–25 strongly support the presence wildlife conservation and management of wild animals in rural areas and at the district level and at the regional are aimed at revealing attitudes that level. As a one part of the research support the existence of wildlife in the hypothesis, human-wildlife confl icts human sphere. Th ese six statements also are expected to partially originate from highlight the role of wild animals in struggles over diff erent ways of seeing rural development. Th e hypothesis was wildlife in human and animal spheres. thus tested by dividing the statements I assume that there are diff erences in into categories of consumptive and non- the attitudes of decision-makers at these consumptive use of wildlife and the two regional levels. Th e management categories of opposition and support actions based on these attitudes produce of the presence of wild animals in rural confrontations in the role of wildlife areas (in the human sphere). In the end in rural development in Liwale. Th e of the analysis, the PQMethod 2.11 diff erent types of attitudes indicated by programme produced tables on factor the factor analysis would either confi rm or loadings, statement factor scores and reject this part of the hypothesis. Certain listed the consensus statements as well statements, such as 15–18 are strongly as the discriminating statements. Th e conservationist in character and aimed factor analysis indicated also consensus at revealing attitudes which support statements, which did not distinguish the non-consumptive use of wildlife. between any pair of factors, were Statements 7–11 are strongly against the statements number 3, 4, 8, 14, 16, 20 presence of wild animals in rural areas and 23. and aimed at revealing attitudes that Th e factor analysis indicated four oppose the existence of wildlife in the factors which were analyzed further. human sphere. In contrast, statements Th e highest positive standard scores of 1 and 3–5 are strongly anthropocentric the four statements for each factor are in character and aim to reveal attitudes shown below.

Normalized Factor Scores -- For Factor 1 No. Statement Z-SCORES 6 Wildlife conservation is not successful without the involvem 2.090 22 Local people should have legal rights to use wildlife in com 1.891 20 Wildlife conservation is a valuable tool for rural developme 1.402 25 Wildlife is the most valuable natural resource found in many 1.219

Factor 1 represents an attitude which is parallel to the principles of the community-based conservation programmes. Participation of local communities in wildlife conservation, where they would have legal rights to utilize the wildlife resource, forms the cornerstone of such an attitude. Here wildlife conservation is seen as a valuable instrument for rural development and the presence of wildlife in rural areas is supported. Th is attitude has a strong anthropocentric dimension. 193 Normalized Factor Scores -- For Factor 2 No . Statement Z-SCORES 21 Large predators attract tourists to visit the rural area and 1.960 12 Tourism income should be used for rural development, not for 1.470 22 Local people should have legal rights to use wildlife in com 1.470 5Th ere should be more wildlife in rural areas so that local p 0.980

Factor 2 represents a rather similar anthropocentric attitude towards nature and wildlife but places more emphasis on the wildlife related tourism income which would be used for rural development. Th is attitude has a stronger developmentalist dimension than factor 1. Th e legal rights of local people for using wildlife is a statement which also received positive standard scores in this factor which also supports the presence of wild animals in rural areas.

Normalized Factor Scores -- For Factor 3 No. Statement Z-SCORES 17 Rural people are backward and do not understand the ethical 1.960 19 More wildlife should live in rural areas so that the tourist 1.470 23 Wildlife conservation should be prioritized in rural areas - 1.470 20 Wildlife conservation is a valuable tool for rural developme 0.980

Factor 3 represents an attitude which places more emphasis on the conservation of wildlife than on the rural development. Th e diﬀ erences are small but reﬂ ect a slightly stronger conservationist attitude than the previous two factors. Th is attitude also contains a preference of the top-down management approach and places less emphasis on the participation of locals in wildlife management than the other factors do. Th e presence of wild animals in rural areas is strongly supported here.

Normalized Factor Scores -- For Factor 4 No. Statement Z-SCORES 10 Human welfare is more important than wildlife conservation. 1.960 6 Wildlife conservation is not successful without the involvem 1.470 11 Rural villages need schools and extension services, not wild 1.470 14 Wildlife-viewing is an important source of tourism income fo 0.980

Factor 4 represents an attitude where rural development is considered more important than wildlife conservation. Th is factor has a strong developmentalist dimension. Such an attitude cannot be seen as a clearly anti-conservation type of an attitude because it acknowledges the importance of wildlife-tourism incomes to rural people. Th e attitude towards the presence of wild animals in rural areas is slightly opposing in this factor.

194 Th e four indicated factors do not of the studied groups which might confi rm the original research hypothesis. have been used to explain and indicate Th e attitudes of the studied persons that human-wildlife confl icts in the do not clearly fi t into the distinctive Liwale district primarily originate from categories set by the researcher. All the struggles over diff erent ways of seeing fi rst three factors support the presence of wildlife in human and animal spheres. wild animals in rural areas. Th e fourth Th e results thus show that the people- factor is not strongly opposing the people confl icts at the local, district and presence of wild animals in rural areas regional level in wildlife conservation are either. Th e factors do not clearly indicate not an explaining factor for the human- any attitudes which would support the wildlife confl icts in Liwale. non-consumptive use of wildlife. Th e Q-methodology may not be the Th e analysis also provided best way to study stakeholders’ attitudes distinguishing statements which towards wildlife in a relatively small indicated diff erence between any geographical area. Th e variations in pair of the selected four factors. Th e attitudes within a region and a district distinguishing statements for each factor are not as distinctive and clear as one are shown on the next page. may assume at the beginning of a study. Th e factor matrix (Table 9.) which It would have been interesting to use indicated a defi ning Q-sort for each four the Q-methodology among the local factors shows that most of the regional villagers, and laymen who were not level civil servants have high loadings for involved in decision-making related to factor 1 while only three district level wildlife conservation. Unfortunately, civil servants loadings indicate the same the language problems provided factor. Factor 1 is also clearly the most insurmountable diffi culties for using defi ning factor for the whole sample of the Q-methodology in the villages. Th e respondents. All other factors get only role of the interpretor would have been one defi ning sort each while factor 1 too big in explaining and organizing gets eight defi ning sorts. As a result, I the statements so I decided to leave this can say that the Q-sorts do not produce method only for the district and region any revolutionary fi ndings but confi rm level administrative personnel. my assumptions about the acceptance of the principles of community-based 10.6. Discussion conservation, especially among the regional level civil servants. Also the Th is study provides a holistic view of majority of the positive loadings of the human-wildlife confl icts in Liwale. Th e district level civil servants highlight theoretical part of the study describes factor 1 which represents the attitude that the historical, geographical, economical, supports the aims of these community- ecological, political, social, psychological based conservation programmes. Th e and religious backgrounds of these Q-sorts do not show any big diff erences confl icts. It is necessary to study human- in the deep attitudes between the two wildlife confl icts from various angles studied groups. Th is means that there is using an interdisciplinary approach in not a strong diff erence in the attitudes order to get a broader picture of the

195 Distinguishing Statements for Factor 1 (P < .05 ; Asterisk (*) Indicates Signiﬁ cance at P < .01) Both the Factor Q-Sort Value and the Normalized Score are Shown. Factors No. Statement 1 2 3 4 rank score rank score rank score rank score 1Th e size of wildlife population should be 1 0.60* -4 -1.96 -2 -0.98 -2 -0.98 controlled through 12 Tourism income should be used for rural -3 -1.25* 3 1.47 1 0.49 0 0.00 development, not for 11 Rural villages need schools and extension -3 -1.64 -1 -0.49 0 0.00 3 1.47 services, not wild

Distinguishing Statements for Factor 2 Factors No. Statement 1 2 3 4 rank score rank score rank score rank score 21 Large predators attract tourists to visit the -1 -0.37 4 1.96 1 0.49 1 0.49 rural area and

Distinguishing Statements for Factor 3 Factors No. Statement 1 2 3 4 rank score rank score rank score rank score 17 Rural people are backward and do not -2 -0.79 -2 -0.98 4 1.96* -1 -0.49 understand the ethical 15 Wildlife is disappearing because it is poached 0 -0.24 0 0.00 -3 -1.47 1 0.49 by the local

Distinguishing Statements for Factor 4 Factors No. Statement 1 2 3 4 rank score rank score rank score rank score 10 Human welfare is more important than -1 -0.46 1 0.49 -1 -0.49 4 1.96 wildlife conservation. 11 Rural villages need schools and extension -3 -1.64 -1 -0.49 0 0.00 3 1.47 services, not wild 19 More wildlife should live in rural areas so 0 -0.12 1 0.49 3 1.47 -3 -1.47* that the tourist

196 Table 9. A factor matrix indicating the loadings of the respondents for each four factors. Factor Matrix with an X Indicating a Deﬁ ning Sort

Loadings QSORT 1 2 3 4 Civil servant level (DL = district level, RL = regional level) 1 TZ1 0.3451 0.7522X 0.3719 0.1417 DL 2 TZ2 0.1124 0.3739 0.6461X -0.1316 DL 3 TZ3 -0.0246 -0.5172 0.5723 0.2474 DL 4 TZ4 0.6625 -0.0079 -0.0956 -0.1539 DL 5 TZ5 0.3187 0.2196 0.0024 0.8806X DL 6 TZ6 0.6292X 0.2477 0.1020 0.0502 DL 7 TZ7 0.5795 0.5507 -0.0816 -0.0948 DL 8 TZ8 0.5448 -0.1336 0.4309 -0.0875 DL 9 TZ9 0.3369 -0.3188 0.1761 0.2869 DL 10 TZ10 0.5821 -0.3507 -0.4973 0.0845 DL 11 TZ11 0.7482X -0.2652 -0.3004 0.0213 DL 12 TZ12 0.6179X -0.4488 -0.1301 0.1137 DL 13 TZ13 0.5839 0.2283 -0.4616 -0.0596 DL 14 TZ14 0.6706X -0.2173 -0.1294 0.0093 RL 15 TZ15 0.5171 -0.2961 0.1272 -0.0203 DL 16 TZ16 0.8393X 0.0195 0.1120 -0.2587 RL 17 TZ17 0.7232X 0.4223 -0.1174 -0.0729 RL 18 TZ18 0.8270X 0.0133 0.0488 -0.0173 RL 19 TZ19 0.3185 -0.5404 0.4633 -0.2345 RL 20 TZ20 0.6588X 0.0165 0.3837 0.0459 RL

% expl.Var. 33 13 11 6 current situation. It is obvious that and interact with one another to ensure there is no single cause for the human- that all points of views are taken into wildlife confl icts in Liwale but several consideration when implementing the synergic causes infl uence these confl icts. initiative, there are still many important In practice, the holistic examination areas left uncovered. Anthropology, and understanding of human-wildlife history and philosophy are seldom at confl icts is often missing in community- the core of the planning processes of based conservation projects because community-based conservation projects. politicians, wildlife managers and New animal geography has raised interest international NGOs who administer and in studying the exclusion and inclusion manage these initiatives tend to rely on of certain animals from particular places. expertise from single disciplines, such as My study follows a similar trajectory economics, biology and sociology. Even and uses perceived images of rural though these experts work in groups landscapes to explain why confl icts are

197 so common in the integration of wildlife lions, hippopotami and leopards are conservation and rural development. important to them because they receive Th e perceived location of the nature- income through safari-tourism and culture borderland is an important meat from the culled animals. Th e most element for questions of the exclusion important wild animal for meat was the and inclusion of certain wild animals buff alo. Th e villagers often mentioned in particular rural landscapes. Th e aim that lions, leopards, elephants, of the farmers is to maintain order and hippopotami, hyenas and buff alos are biosecurity in the spaces designated for valued by the tourists and thus create agricultural production. Th e presence indirect income for the communities of crop damaging wildlife or dangerous participating in the Selous Conservation predators does not fi t into their socially Programme. However, these same constructed agricultural spaces and animals are on the list of animals that as a result a human-wildlife confl ict people do not want to see in their may come into existence. Th e spatial villages because these species cause crop dimension of human-wildlife confl icts damage, kill and injure domestic animals has not received much attention in and people. Th is inconsistency, however, community-based conservation and this raises a question of the importance of the study makes some new contributions principles and aims of the community- to the discourse. Th is study hopefully based conservation project to the local demonstrates that there is a growing communities. Reliance on foreign need for a more broad examination of the tourism income and the resulting existing human-wildlife confl icts around incentives for the communities are the the world. Th e spatial dimension of prerequisities for the community-based these confl icts is often overshadowed by conservation projects in Liwale and the political, economical and ecological elsewhere in Tanzania. Th e tourism dimensions which are commonly industry is very sensitive to regional and dealt within the literature on nature national crises, such as political turmoil, conservation. All human encounters with armed confl icts or natural hazards. Th ere wild animals take place in spaces which are some doubts about the sustainability are socially constructed. In this study of community-based conservation the spatial characteristics of human- projects which place too much reliance wildlife confl icts were explored through on tourism income only. perceptions, order and biosecurity in a Th e rural communities in Liwale hierarchy of spaces. have a long history of co-existing with Th e empirical part of the study wildlife and they still have traditional indicates that the Selous Conservation knowledge of wildlife management Programme has increased the knowledge and hunting. Th e controlled direct of the local communities on the utilization of wildlife could be developed importance of wildlife conservation. more in community-based conservation. Th is became clear during the village Traditional beliefs and taboos have been meetings. Th e members of the villages one of the means to control local wildlife participating in the meetings mentioned use but these beliefs have today lost some that species, such as elephants, buff alos, power among the younger generation.

198 Hunting quotas, regulations and laws however, challenge the framework model have largely replaced the traditional of critical nature-culture borderlines wildlife management practices of the (Fig. 12) but requires some more local communities. However, poaching explanation. Local villagers tolerate has not disappeared despite the the presence of zebras and wildebeests establishment of several educational in the cultivated areas more than the campaigns and the community-based presence of elephants and lions because conservation project. Poaching may be the former species do not cause as much explained as local actions for restoring damage to crops and domestic animals order and biosecurity in the agricultural as the latter species. All these species landscapes by individual people. In are considered as wild animals living in addition, poaching can be a consequence forests and uncultivated areas but zebras of power struggles around defi ning the and wildebeests are regarded as less out critical nature-culture borderlines in of place when roaming in the cultivated the agricultural landscapes. Poaching areas than elephants and lions found in can also be seen as a means of resistance the same areas. Th us, the nature-culture towards existing wildlife laws. Meat is borderline is a dynamic one. Th e reactions regarded as the most important direct of locals towards wild animals crossing output from wild animals by the local the borderline and moving inside the communities. It is diffi cult to substitute human sphere varies according to the wild animal meat with any other types of species, perceived outcomes (damages) incentives, except with money. Aesthetic and the spatial hierarchy. Th e closer to and ethical values of wildlife are not the human body the wild animal moves, totally absent in the villages but these do the more out of place it is considered not play an important role in the daily to be and as a result, the stronger the survival of the rural inhabitants. Th e human-wildlife confl ict will evolve. Th e incentives for participating in wildlife members of villages who participated conservation must be tangible and help in the discussions usually mentioned the villagers to cope with crop loss and a clear distinction between forests and domestic animals deaths caused by cultivated land. Th ey continuously wildlife. explained how wild animals move out Th e observed human-wildlife from the forests, encroach their crop confl icts in Liwale occur when certain fi elds and farms and cause damage there wild animal species, such as lions, before returning back to the forests. leopards, elephants, hippopotami and According to the statements of the hyenas, enter into the cultivated areas, villagers, the nature-culture borderline farms and villages from the Selous Game often corresponds with the boundary Reserve and from the Angai Forest between the forest and the fi eld. Th is Reserve. Chapter 10.1. demonstrates that was not suprising because most villagers there are also wild animal species, such in Liwale are shifting cultivators and as zebras, wildebeests and hartebeests, small-scale farmers whose livelihood is which do not cause confl its even when mainly based on transforming forests roaming in the cultivated areas and into cultivated lands. At certain stages farms in Liwale. Th is fi nding does not, of the transformation process, the

199 boundary between the forest and the images of rural landscapes between locals slashed and burned fi eld, were far from and those making decisions on wildlife clear for the researcher. However, the conservation and rural development at villagers identifi ed the area as a fi eld the regional level. It would be interesting once the trees and bushes were cut. After to also study these perceived images a few years of cultivation these fi elds are among the civil servants at the national abandoned and the forest is allowed to level and among people who administer return slowly to its former stage. Due the international wildlife conservation to this kind of lifestyle, I expected that programmes. Th e diff erences in these the nature-culture borderline would not images might even be bigger as the be so distinctive for the locals but to level of inquiry moves higher up in the have many more grey areas where both regional hierarchy. entities overlap. Th is may have been the Th is study shows that the human- case immediately after the beginning of wildlife confl icts in the Liwale district the transition of the communities from are manifold and cannot be explained hunter-gatherers to agriculturalists. simply on the basis of attitudes or Today, many rural inhabitants in Liwale perceived images of landscapes. Slight are under the infl uence of ideas on the diff erences in the respondents’ perceived dualism of nature and culture with the images of the African countryside process of modernization. Similarly, the indicate that the villagers do not perceived norms and structures of the share completely similar views on the inhabitated space are being modifi ed content of the human sphere with the and renewed in this process. Th e old respondents operating at the regional man described in the prologue, lived far level. Th e villagers perceive some wild away from the core village and tolerated animals diff erently in their images of the the presence of a pack of elephants in the African countryside than the district and immediate surroundings of his poorly regional level civil servants do. Small- fenced farm house. For him it was not scale subsistence farmers’ livelihood confl icting that the elephants roamed so depends on the annual crop harvest and close to the farm. Th ey have always done in the Liwale district many people live so, according to the old man. His farm in a constant risk of losing that harvest is located inside a forest, so the wooden to crop raiding wild animals. Like the fence creates the only nature-culture title of this study suggests, wild animals boundary that can be identifi ed there. are considered as beasts when they are Locals who live in the core of the village found in the fi elds. Th is negative term usually perceive that it is the village is often attached to wild animals that boundary that separates them from are out of place, meaning that they nature. Th e human sphere does not are found in human spaces where they end at the village boundary but extends should not be according to the observer’s futher away from the village all the way social constructions. Elephants and large to the distant farms and cultivated fi elds predators also occasionally threaten on the edge of the forest. Th ere seems the lives of locals in Liwale, so there to be some diff erences in the associated are certain biosecurity risks caused by meanings and contents of the perceived their presence in the village areas. Th e

200 biosecurity risk in the villages of the that locals’ tolerance for predators is not Liwale district is much higher than always in line with the true impact of in the case of the sheep farmers in the those animals on their livelihoods. Gore French Alps described by Buller (2008). et al. (2006: 37–39) studied stakeholder In the Liwale district, there are many perceptions of risk associated with more large predators and large mammals human-black bear confl icts in the U.S.A. which continuously invade the fi elds and and they defi ned nine constructs used attack people and their livestock in the in human-bear risk assessments. Th ese farms. As this study has shown, the wild constructs were: animals do not confi ne themselves to the - volition (intentional or deliberate spaces designated for biodiversity, such as exposure to the risks from these the Selous Game Reserve, in which the animals) humans try to keep and secure them. On - certainty (individuals’ certainty the contrary, wild animals continue to about the causes of the exposure challenge the separation of the wild and to risks and their prevention) the domestic spaces by moving across - dread (feelings of anxiety, worry their perceived borders in search of food or fear regarding exposure to risks and shelter. As a result, the small-scale from black bears) farmers may loose their crops, property, - frequency (individually felt livestock or even their own lives in the frequency of the exposures to confrontations with wild animals. Th ese these risks) biosecurity risks are, however, much - responsiveness of decision-makers lower in the district capital and in the (managers’ reactions to individuals’ regional capital where the interviewed exposure to risks) civil servants work and mainly live. Th e - trust in decision-makers (degree perception of biosecurity risk in the of individuals’ belief in managers’ lived space may explain the reasons for ability to manage risks) human-wildlife confl ict in the Liwale - familiarity (familiarity of these district. Buller (2008: 1595) writes risks to individuals; common, fi rst that the biological and evolutionary timer) aims of people at self-preservation and - natural causes (environmental or self-security are no less human than the human-induced factors causing culturally and emotionally enhanced the risks from black bears) objectives of preserving biodiversity. - control (individuals’ abilities to Naughton-Treves and Treves (2005: prevent exposures to these risks) 253) reported that people’s perception of risk is as important as actual losses. Th ese nine constructs may be helpful People’s perceptions usually focus on for this study if generalized to cover a rare and extreme damages, such as those wide range of diff erent wildlife species caused by elephants and other large wild and partially used to explain the risks animals, rather than on common small that underlie human-wildlife confl icts losses, such as damages caused by rodents in the Liwale District in Tanzania. and birds, which may be cumulatively Risk perception may infl uence people’s greater. Frank et al. (2005: 293) write beliefs, attitudes and support for

201 wildlife management goals as well as crop raiding animals from their fi elds. their behaviour towards wild animals For the second construct certainty there and adoption of educational messages is also a high risk perception among (Knuth et al 1992, cit. Gore et al. 2006: the villagers as they seem to be unsure 37). Gore et al. (2006) created a scale of how to prevent exposure to these from one to fi ve for the evaluation dangerous animals. In the case of man- of perceptions of risk associated with eating lions in 2003, local schools were human-black bear confl icts in the closed for two weeks and people were Adirondack Park in the U.S.A. Number afraid of walking outdoors until the one represents a minimal and number game guards succeeded in hunting down fi ve a maximal risk perception by the the two female lions responsible for the participants. Number three is the neutral killings of people in Liwale. Chasing value so numbers smaller than three away crop raiding elephants is essential represent a low risk perception while the for the protection of family subsistence numbers higher than three represented so there are currently no alternatives a high risk perception. I did not collect to that kind of exposure to elephants. similar samples of data nor did I carry Th e three following constructs, dread, out principal component analysis as the frequency and familiarity can be dealt researchers in Adirondack did but want with together as they all involve high to use their construct model to map out risk perception by the locals. Although the situation in the Liwale district in most people whom I interviewed and relation to the existing information from met in Liwale district shared at least written reports, articles and data collected some worry about being attacked by during the participant observation in the lions or elephants when working in the area. In principle these nine constructs fi eld or walking across the forested areas, could be applied to any large mammal they were not hysterical or paralyzed by species found in the vicinity of villages this fear. Th ere seemed to be nothing in Liwale but I chose two wild animal exceptional about it. Neither was there species which are perceived as the two any clear period when exposures were most dangerous by the village members greater or less frequent so the risk was I interviewed during my stay in the six perceived common and repeated at villages in the Liwale district in 2002. all times around the year. People were Th ese wild animals are the lion and the familiar with these risks and could name elephant. For the fi rst construct volition, a neighbour or even point out a person one might conclude that villagers’ in the meeting who has experienced or exposure to lions and elephants is mostly witnessed such an exposure to a lion involuntary as they have to carry out or an elephant. Responsiveness and their daily activities, such as farming, and trust in wildlife managers were less collecting water and fi rewood, in an area clear than other constructs mentioned. which is also the habitat of these wild Some villagers complained that the local animal species. Th ey share a high risk authorities responsible for carrying out perception of being attacked by a lion problem animal control and protecting when walking to school or to the well or locals from dangerous wild animals did by an elephant when chasing away these not arrive in time to take care of the

202 situation. A few villagers told me that in and domestic spaces loose their clarity. some cases the wildlife offi cials did not Th e WMAs will become buff er zones respond at all because they do not have or transition zones that will stretch the enough resources. In some villages I was immediate contact surface of nature told that it can take even two weeks and culture and increase the capacity before any game scouts arrive to kill of this perceived borderline to enhance problematic elephants or lions. People biosecurity and sustain encroachment also have historical reasons for not from both sides. trusting wildlife managers. However, Th e success of the Wildlife many people appeared to have a neutral Management Areas in the Liwale district attitude towards wildlife management remains unclear at the moment. A due to the collaboration with the further study on the community-based Selous Conservation Programme. It conservation projects in south-eastern was generally perceived by the villagers Tanzania is required before more concrete that natural causes, such as the increase conclusions can be drawn. Th is study has of lion and elephant populations due provided many insights into the human- to conservation activities, do not solely wildlife confl icts in Liwale and elsewhere explain the confl icts. Th ese causes were in the world. It has made me evermore most often emphasized but in several curious about the spatial characteristics discussions there were participants of these confl icts. I still feel now that I who acknowledged that humans also have only scratched the surface of the destroy the habitats of these animals topic as so many elements still remain and establish new fi elds in the remote uncovered. Locating perceived nature- parts of the villages where they are more culture borderlands into georeferenced easily encroached by the wild animals. space with participatory GIS Finally, some members of the villages I (Geographical Information Systems) visited seem to have put a lot of faith and GPS (Global Positioning System) into the success of the new natural receivers would allow a more detailed resource management programmes analysis of the formation and limits in the Wildlife Management Areas to of these borderlines. Th is technology reduce the confl icts. Apart from the would also enable an accurate location WMA, they do have very few other legal of the existing wildlife damages so that alternatives to cope with these wildlife the results could be used for examining confl icts in Liwale. As a conclusion, I the movement of wild animals inside the can say that for most defi ned constructs human sphere. Such data could be used there is a high risk perception among to model the confl ict-prone areas in the the locals that could be represented on villages and to assist in land use planning a scale from one to fi ve as a four. Th e so that fi elds would not be established established Wildlife Management Areas in the migration routes of wild animals. will actually constitute a new relational Further studies on the spatiality of space where the domesticated and the human-animal confl icts would also help wild overlap. In these spaces the nature- to make community-based conservation culture dualism becomes blurred and projects more sustainable. the spatial frontiers between wild spaces

203 Epilogue rats, mice, rabbits and hare in the vicinity of city centre. Th e Finnish national team Th e twenty-two players of the national won the match and the wild predatory soccer teams of Belgium and Finland bird, which earlier interrupted the game, stared towards the other end of the was considered almost as a national football fi eld of the Helsinki Olympic hero and was selected as a mascot for Stadium where the scapegoat for the the Finnish soccer team. It was publicly interruption of the European Qualifying believed that the owl made the Belgian Match sat quietly on the crossbar of the players nervous by showing up during goal. One of the fi ve Eurasian Eagle the middle of the game and helped the Owls Bubo bubo, which live in the Finnish team to score their fi rst goal right center of the Finnish capital town had after it fl ew away from the football fi eld. amazingly appeared in the middle of Th e Finnish national football team also an international football match, fl ew received a new nickname according to over the fi eld and made sudden dashes the Finnish name of the Eurasian Eagle against some players. Once it landed Owl, namely Huuhkajat. Th is individual again, it was turning its head around owl was named as Bubi by the media while looking at the cheering crowd of and by the public. Th e name is derived tens of thousands of spectators, who on the one hand from the scientifi c had invaded its privacy and made noise name of the species and on the other in its urban habitat. Th e referee had hand from the nickname of one of the to blow his whistle and stop the game most well-known sport commentators for some time before the huge bird of in Finland, who is also often seen at pray decided to leave the grounds of the the Olympic Stadium during diff erent Olympic Stadium and fl y to a quieter sport events. Th is Eurasian Eagle Owl place to rest. What made this human- is now occasionally seen in Helsinki and animal encounter really exceptional was it was nominated as the Citizen of the not only the space where it took place Year in Helsinki by the board of 100 but also the time when it happened. journalists this year (Helsingin Sanomat Although, it is not so rare anymore to 18.12.2007). see Eurasian Eagle Owls in some of the Th is example describes one peaceful European capital cities in year 2007, human-animal encounter in the nature- most of the people in the audience saw culture borderland. Th e Eurasian Eagle this majestetic predatory bird in the Owl had arrived into a place, the Olympic wild for the fi rst time in their lives. Th e Stadium, which is defi ned and perceived players were not accustomed to watch as a man-made artifi cial environment. A out for the attacks of a wild animal while wild animal had crossed the culturally playing soccer in the largest stadium in constructed border between nature the middle of a city. Th e Eurasian Eagle and culture. Th e owl was certainly out Owl is the largest of all owls in northern of place. It was now in a place which Europe and it usually lives in remote should not contain any other animals forest areas far away from the urban areas. except those which are regarded as pets Th is individual had found a habitat and by humans. For the predatory bird, enough prey species, such as pigeons, however, the Olympic Stadium was part

204 of its modern urban habitat. Th ousands Eagle Owls were intensively hunted and of people were able to witness the fi rst disliked across the country. Th e species outcomes of the process, which Jennifer was considered as a major threat to forest Wolch (1988: 124–125) call the re- game birds and to some other game naturalization of the re-enchanted city animals as well. Th e government even zoöpolis. She writes that in urban nature, paid fees for the hunters for each killed people are protected from all nature’s Eurasian Eagle Owl. Now the Eurasian dangers and are about to loose any sense Eagle Owl has become a local celebrity of wonder of the non-human world. and a legend, which attracts tourists to In the zoöpolis, animals are not killed visit the Olympic Stadium in Helsinki. or confi ned to zoos but are valued as I would like to end this epilogue with neighbors and partners in survival. Now, a what-if-scenario, which symbolically the soccer fans were able to wonder in describes and relates the Eurasian Eagle awe at one of the largest predatory birds Owl case with the reality of wildlife in the country. conservation in the eyes of rural Africans. Th e predatory bird’s sudden Let me speculate with a vision where two appearance in the middle of the match infl uential international conservation was beyond the control of humans. organizations start to pressure the Finnish Th ere were no game guards available to government with a couple of European chase the bird away and not even the countries to protect the urban habitat police knew how to solve the situation. of the endangered Eurasian Eagle Owl. Th is was the fi rst situation of this kind Th ese organizations have already started in Finland so there were not any security a process in the High Court of European plans available for wildlife problems. For Union to sue the government of Finland a while, the football players or the referees for allowing its citizens to disrupt the were not able to practice their profession habitat of the owl by organizing noisy because it was not safe or comfortable concerts and sport events at the Olympic due to the fl ying and dashing predatory Stadium. Th e conservation organizations bird overhead. What if the owl would have also arranged international boycotts have not left the stadium at all and the for Finnish products to support the game would have been cancelled? How preservation of the Olympic Stadium would the audience have felt if Finland for the Eagle Owl. Th e government would have lost the match? What kind of Finland fi nally has to give up and of front page news would the newspapers demarcate the Olympic Stadium as have written if the owl had injured a a protected area where access is only player on the fi eld or attacked a child in granted for high-paying foreign tourist the audience? Luckily, the owl encounter and national elite coming there to did not even turn into a human-wildlife watch the owl. Local inhabitants cannot confl ict where the owl itself may have enter the area without a special permit been injured or killed. Th e Eurasian from the Ministry of Culture. If locals Eagle Owl received a protected species trespass the protected Olympic Stadium status in Finland in 1983. At the end area, they will be arrested as poachers. of the 19th century and during the two Local communities protest against the fi rst decade of the 20th century, Eurasian decision and say that their cultural

205 heritage and national symbol is taken over by foreigners and demand to have an access to the stadium. During the next few years, the Eurasian Eagle Owl population has not increased in Helsinki area as scientists and conservationists had hoped for. Th ere is some proof that locals had killed two owls while protecting their pets from the attacking owls. Th e international conservation organizations launched a world-wide money-raising campaign to fund the establishment of additional protected areas for the owls in Helsinki. Th e government of Finland faces severe critique from the opposition parties for approving the establishment of one new protected area in Hietaniemi graveyard, and two buff er zones in Hesperia Park and Töölönlahti area. Th e location of these buff er zones were selected by a group of Brasilian scientists and ministers who considered that these two areas very well represented the Finnish natural landscape and by limiting human activities these areas could be kept in their natural state. All human activities are prohibited in the Hietaniemi graveyard and locals have no rights to access the area, even though some of the presidents, ministers, national poets and authors as well as priests and other important people are buried there. Only foreign tourists have the right to access the area. In the buff er zones, the new land use plans prohibit all sport activities, art performances, removal of trees and grasses and restrict the access of pets in the area.

206 References

Adams, W. & D. Hulme (2001). Conservation & Community: Changing Narratives, Policies & Practices in African Conservation. In Hulme, D. & M. Murphree (eds.): African Wildlife & Livelihoods. Th e Promise & Performance of Community Conservation, 9–23. James Currey Ltd, Great Britain. Akama, J. S., C. L. Lant & W. G. Burnett (1995). Confl icting Attitudes Toward State Wildlife Conservation Programs in Kenya. Society and Natural Resources 8, 133–144. Alcorn, J., R. K. Asukile & B. Winterbottom (2002). Assessment of CBNRM Best Practices in Tanzania. Final Report. EPIQ / USAID Tanzania, Washington D.C., U.S.A. Allison, L. (1991). Ecology and Utility. Th e Philosophical Dilemmas of Planetary Management. 185 pp. Leicester University Press, London. Anderson, D. & R. Grove (1987; eds.). Conservation in Africa: peoples, policies and practice. 305 pp. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Anderson, K. (1995). Culture and nature at the Adelaide Zoo: at the frontiers of ‘human’ geography. Transactions Institute of British Geographers 20, 275– 294. Anderson, K. (1997). A walk on the wild side: a critical geography of domestication. Progress in Human Geography 21: 4, 463–485. Andersson, B. (1983). Imagined Communities: Refl ections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Verso, London, U.K. Armstrong, P. (2002). Th e Postcolonial Animal. Society & Animals 10: 4, 413–419. Baland, J-M. & J-P. Platteau (1996). Halting degradation of natural resources. Is there a role for local communities? 423 pp. FAO. Clarendon Press, Oxford, U.K. Baldus, R. D. (1989). Village Participation in Wildlife Management. Introducing Communal Wildlife management in the Mgeta River Buff er Zone North of the Selous Game Reserve. SCP Discussion Paper No. 4. Selous Conservation Programme / GTZ, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Baldus, R.D. (1990; ed.). Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in the Liwale Buff erzone. SCP Discussion Paper No. 10. Selous Conservation Programme / GTZ, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Baldus, R. D. (1991; ed.). Community Wildlife Management Around the Selous Game Reserve. SCP Discussion Paper No. 12. Selous Conservation Programme / GTZ, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Baldus, R.D. (1992; ed.). Natural Resource Management by Self-help Promotion (RMSH). A Case Study for the Selous Conservation programme. SCP Discussion Paper No. 14. Selous Conservation Programme / GTZ, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Baldus, R. D. (2000). Wildlife Conservation in Tanganyika under German Colonial Rule. GTZ Wildlife Programme in Tanzania. Read 11.3.2002

207 Baldus, R.D. (2001). Introduction: Conservation by the People. In Baldus, R. D. & L. Siege, (eds.): Experiences with Community-based Wildlife Conservation in Tanzania, 1–4. Tanzania Wildlife Discussion paper No. 29. Wildlife Division, GTZ Wildlife Programme in Tanzania. GTZ, Dar es Salaam. Baldus, R. D. (2002). Bushmeat: Some Experiences from Tanzania. Kakakuona / Tanzania Wildlife 25, 22–23. Baldus, R. D. (2004). Lion Conservation in Tanzania Leads to serious Human- Lion Confl icts with a Case Study of a Man-Eating Lion Killing 35 People. Tanzania Wildlife Discussion Paper No. 41. GTZ Wildlife Programme in Tanzania, Wildlife Division. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Baldus, R.D. & A. E. Cauldwell (2004). Tourist Hunting and Its Role in Development of Wildlife Management Areas in Tanzania. Paper presented at the Sixth International Game Ranching Symposium in Paris, France 6–9 July 2004. Baldus, R. D., F. Lerise & U. Schüler (1988). Confl icts between wildlife and people. Village Development Planning for Th ree Settlements bordering the Selous Game Reserve. Selous Conservation Programme Discussion Paper No. 3. GTZ, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Baldus, R. & L. Siege (2002). Selous Game Reserve. Th e Travel Guide. East African Movies, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Barnes, R. F. W., G. C. Craig, H. T. Dublin, G. Overton, W. Simons & C. R. Th ouless (1999). African Elephant Database 1998. Occasional Paper Series of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 22. IUCN / SSC African Elephant Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Barrow, E. & M. Murphree (2001). Community Conservation – from Concept to Practice. In Hulme, D. & M. Murphree (eds.): African Wildlife & Livelihoods. Th e Promise & Performance of Community Conservation, 24–37. James Currey Ltd, Great Britain. Bassett, T. J. (2005). Card-carrying hunters, rural poverty, and wildlife decline in northern Côte d’Ivoire. Th e Geographical Journal 171: 1, 24–35. Beck, U. (1990). Riskiyhteiskunnan vastamyrkyt. 274 pp. Vastapaino, Tampere. Belsky, J. M. (2000). Th e Meaning of the Manatee: An Examination of Community- Based Ecotourism Discourse and Practice in Gales Point, Belize. In Zerner, C. (ed.): People, Plants & Justice. Th e Politics of Nature Conservation, 285–308. Columbia University Press, New York, U.S.A. Bennett, C. F. Jr. (1960). Cultural Animal Geography: an Inviting Field of Research. Th e Professional Geographer 12: 5, 12–14. Bennett, E. L. & J. G. Robinson (2000). Hunting of Wildlife in Tropical Forests. Implications for Biodiversity and Forest Peoples. Impact studies paper no. 76. Biodiversity Series. Th e World Bank / Th e Wildlife Conservation Society, Washington D.C., U.S.A. Bergin, P. (2001). Accommodating New Narratives in a Conservation Bureaucracy. TANAPA & Community Conservation. In Hulme, D. & M. Murphree (eds.): African Wildlife & Livelihoods. Th e Promise & Performance of Community Conservation, 88–105. James Currey Ltd, Great Britain. 208 Berkes, F. (2004). Rethinking Community-Based Conservation. Conservation Biology 18: 3, 621– 630. Blanc, J. J., R. F. W. Barnes, G. C. Craig, H. T. Dublin, C. R. Th ouless, I. Douglas- Hamilton & J. A. Hart (2007). African Elephant Status Report 2007: an Update from the African Elephant Database. Occasional Paper Series of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 33. IUCN / SSC African Elephant Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland Switzerland. Brandenburg, A. M. & M. S. Carroll (1995). Your Place or Mine? Th e Eff ect of Place Creation on Environmental Values and Landscape Meanings. Society and Natural Resources 8, 381–398. Brosius, P., A. Tsing & C. Zerner (1998). Representing Communities: Histories and Politics of Community-based Natural Resources Management. Society and Natural Resources 11, 169–178. Brown, J.E. (1992). Animals of the Soul: Sacred Animals of the Oglala Sioux. 145 pp. Element Books Limited, Longmead, U.K. Brown, N. (2001). Edward T. Hall: Proxemic Th eory, 1966. Center for Spatially Integrated Social Science. University of California, Santa Barbara. Read 18.12.2007. Brown, S. R. (1996). Q-methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research 6: 4, 561–567. Buller, H. (2008). Safe from the wolf: biosecurity, biodiversity, and competing philosophies of nature. Environment and Planning A 40, 1583–1597. Bunce, M. (1994). Th e Countryside Ideal. Anglo-American Images of Landscape. 232 pp. Routledge, London. Butler, J. R. A. (2000). Th e economic costs of wildlife predation on livestock in Gokwe communal land Zimbabwe. African Journal of Ecology 38: 1, 23–30. Campbell, B. (2005). Changing Protection Policies and Ethnographies of Environmental Engagement. Conservation and Society 3: 2, 280–322. Campbell, L. M. (2000). Human need in rural development areas: perceptions of wildlife conservation experts. Th e Canadian Geographer 44: 2, 167–181. Carruthers, J. (2005). Changing Perspectives on Wildlife in Southern Africa, C. 1840 to C. 1914. Society & Animals 13: 3, 183–199. Cartmill, M. (1993). A View to a Death in the Morning. Hunting and Nature through History. 331 pp. Harvard University Press, U.S.A. Chavez, A. S., E. M. Gese & R. S. Krannich (2005). Attitudes of rural landowners toward wolves in northwestern Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33: 2, 517–527. Child, B. (1988). Th e Role of Wildlife Utilization in the Sustainable Economic Development of the Semi-Arid Rangelands of Zimbabwe. PhD Th esis. University of Oxford, Great Britain. Chiwalo, Mr., Dr. Mleche, Mr. Mnali, Mr. Mpanda & Dr. Pima (1997). Goat Project. Lindi and Mtwara Regions, Phase 2. May 1997–June 1999. Framework Project Document. Ministry of Agriculture, Th e United Republic of Tanzania and Ministry for Foreign Aff airs, Th e Republic of Finland.

209 Chiyo, P. I. & E. P. Cochrane (2005). Population structure and behaviour of crop- raiding elephants in Kibale National Park, Uganda. African Journal of Ecology 43, 233–241. Christophersen. K., R. Hagen & G. Jambiya (2000). Economic Opportunities in Wildlife Management Areas. Report submitted to the Wildlife Division of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism and USAID/Tanzania. EPIQ Tanzania, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Cresswell, T. (1996). In Place/Out of Place: Geography, Ideology and Transgression. University of Minnesota Press, U.S.A. Crowe, D. M. & J. Shryer (1995). Eco-colonialism. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23: 1, 26–30. Darlington, P. J. Jr. (1957). Zoogeography: Th e Geographical Distribution of Animals. 675 pp. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, U. S. A. Davies, J. L. (1961). Aim and Method in Zoogeography. Geographical Review 51, 412–417. Decker, D. J., C. A. Jacobson & T. L. Brown (2006). Situation-Specifi c “Impact Dependency” as a Determinant of Management Acceptability: Insights From Wolf and grizzly Bear Management in Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34: 2, 426–432. DeFries, R., A. Hansen, B. L. Turner, R. Reid & J. Liu (2007). Land use change around protected areas: Management to balance human needs and ecological function. Ecological Applications 17: 4, 1031–1038. Demeritt, D. (1994). Th e nature of metaphors in cultural geography and environmental history. Progress in Human Geography 18: 2, 163–185. Demeritt, D. (2002). What is the ‘social construction of nature?’ A typology and sympathetic critique. Progress in Human Geography 26: 6, 767–790. Department of Wildlife (1996). Options for Community-Based Conservation in Tanzania with Special Reference to Possible Benefi ts and Village Title. In Leader-Williams, N., J. A. Kayera & G. L. Overton (eds.): Community-based Conservation in Tanzania. Proceedings of a Workshop held in February 1994, 169–194. Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) No.15. Planning and Assessment for Wildlife Management. Department of Wildlife, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. IUCN- Th e World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Descola, P. (1994). In the Society of Nature: A Native Ecology in Amazonia. 372 pp. Cambridge University Press, Great Britain. Dickman, A. J. (2005). An assessment of pastoralist attitudes and wildlife confl ict in the Rungwa-Ruaha region, Tanzania, with particular reference to large predators. Dissertation submitted in partial fulfi lment of requirements for the degree Master of Science in Biodiversity, Conservation and Management. University of Oxford, Great Britain. Distefano, E. (2005). Human-Wildlife Confl ict Worldwide: A collection of case studies, analysis of management strategies and good practices. SARD Initiative Report, FAO Rome.

210 Dondeyne, S., A. Wijff els, L. B. Emmanuel, J. Deckers & M. Hermy (2004). Soils and vegetation of Angai forest: ecological insights from a participatory survey in South Eastern Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology 42, 198–207. Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concept of Pollution and Taboo. Routlegde, U.K. Duff y, R. (2000). Killing for Conservation. Wildlife Policy in Zimbabwe. Th e International African Institute. James Currey, Oxford, U.K. Dzingirai, V. (2003). ‘CAMPFIRE is not for Ndebele Migrants’: the Impact of Excluding Outsiders from CAMPFIRE in the Zambezi Valley, Zimbabwe. Journal of Southern African Studies 29: 2, 445–459. Eden, S. (2001). Environmental issues: nature versus the environment? Progress in Human Geography 25: 1, 79–85. Eden, S., A. Donaldson & G. Walker (2005). Structuring subjectivities? Using Q methodology in human geography. Area 37: 4, 413–422. Ellis, F. & N. Mdoe (2003). Livelihoods and Rural Poverty Reduction in Tanzania. World Development 31: 8, 1367–1384. Emel, J., C. Wilbert & J. Wolch (2002). Animal Geographies. Society & Animals 10: 4, 407– 412. Emerton, L. (1999). Th e Nature of Benefi ts & the Benefi ts of Nature: Why Wildlife Conservation Has not Economically Benefi ted Communities in Africa. Paper No. 5. Community Conservation Research in Africa: Principles and Comparative Practice. Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester, U. K. Emerton, L. (2001). Th e Nature of Benefi ts & the Benefi ts of Nature. Why Wildlife Conservation has not Economically Benefi ted Communities in Africa. In Hulme, D. & M. Murphree (eds.): African Wildlife & Livelihoods. Th e Promise & Performance of Community Conservation, 208–226. James Currey Ltd, Great Britain. Enck, J. W., D. J. Decker, S. J. Riley, J. F. Organ, L. H. Carpenter & W. F. Siemer (2006). Integrating Ecological and Human Dimensions in Adaptive Management of Wildlife-Related Impacts. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34: 3, 698–705. Escobar, A. (1996). Constructing Nature. Elements for a poststructural political ecology. In Peet, R. & M. Watts (eds.): Liberation ecologies. Environment, development, social movements, 46–68. Routledge, London, Great Britain. Expressen (2007). Björn dödade älgjägere och hund. October 8, 2007. Read 4.1.2008 Fjeldstad, O-H, E. Braathen & A. Chaligha (2006). Local Government Reform in Tanzania 2002–2005: Summary of research fi ndings on governance, fi nance and service delivery. REPOA Brief 6, October 2006. Research on Poverty Alleviation. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Fourli, M. (1999): Compensation for damage caused by bears and wolves in the European Union.Experiences from LIFE-Nature projects.

211 Read 28.9.2001. Frank, L. G., R. Woodroff e & M. O. Ogada (2005). People and predators in Laikipia District, Kenya. In Woodroff e, R., S. Th irgood & A. Rabinowitz (eds.): People and Wildlife. Confl ict or Coexistence?, 286–304. Conservation Biology 9. Th e Zoological Society of London. Cambridge University Press, U. K. Gadgil, M. & V. D. Vartak (1998). Th e Sacred Uses of Nature. In Guha, R. (ed.): Social Ecology, 82–89. Oxford in India readings in Sociology and Social Anthropology. Oxford University Press, Delhi, India. Gerber, J. (1997). Beyond dualism – the social construction of nature and the natural and social construction of human beings. Progress in Human Geography 21: 1, 1–17. Ghimire, K. B. (1994). Parks and people: Livelihood issues in national parks management in Th ailand and Madagascar. Development and Change 25: 1, 195–229. Gillingham, S. (1998). Giving Wildlife Value. A Case Study of Community Wildlife Management Around the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. PhD Th esis. Department of Biological Anthropology, University of Cambridge, Great Britain. Glacken, C. (1967). Traces on the Rhodian Shore. Nature and culture in western thought from ancient times to the end of the eighteenth century. 763 pp. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, U.S.A. Goldman, M. (2003). Partitioned Nature, Privileged Knowledge: Community- based Conservation in Tanzania. Development and Change 34: 5, 833–862. Gore, M. L., B. A. Knuth, P. D. Curtis & J. E. Shanahan (2006). Stakeholder Perceptions of Risk Associated with Human-Black Bear Confl icts in New York’s Adirondack Park Campgrounds: Implications for Th eory and Practice. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34: 1, 36–43. Graham, B, G. J. Ashworth & J. E. Tunbridge (2000). A Geography of Heritage. Power, Culture & Ecomony. 284 pp. Arnold Publishers, London, U.K. Graham, K., A. P. Beckerman & S. Th irgood (2005). Human-predator-prey confl icts: ecological correlates, prey losses and patterns of management. Biological Conservation 122, 159–171. Green, M. (1992). Animals in Celtic Life and Myth. 283 pp. Routledge, London, U.K. Green, M. (2005). Entrenching Witchcraft. Poverty and public bads in post adjustment Tanzania. Suomen Antropologi 30: 1, 6–21. Greider, T. & L. Garkovich (1994). Landscapes: Th e Social Construction of Nature and the Environment. Rural Sociology 59: 1, 1–24. GTZ Wildlife Programme in Tanzania (2002). Selous Conservation Programme (SCP). Read 11.9.2007 Guha, R. (1997). Autoritaaristen biologien ylimielinen antihumanismi- alkuperäisluonnon suojelu kolmannessa maailmassa. In Salvi, L. (ed.):

212 Taistelu paratiisista. Luonnon suojelu ja hyväksikäyttö kolmannessa maailmassa, 83–101. Maailmankauppojen liitto ry, Tampere. Hahn, R. & D. Kaggi (2001). Selous Game Reserve. Development of CBC in the buff er zone –Facts and Figures. In Baldus, R. D. & L. Siege (eds.): Experiences with Community-based Wildlife Conservation in Tanzania, 44–59. Tanzania Wildlife Discussion paper No.29. Wildlife Division, GTZ Wildlife Programme in Tanzania. GTZ, Dar es Salaam. Hall, E. T. (1969). Th e Hidden Dimension. Doubleday, Garden City, New York. Hassler, R. (1996). Agriculture, foraging and wildlife resource use in Africa. Cultural and political dynamics in the Zambesi Valley. 208 pp. Kegan Paul International, London. Head, L., D. Trigger & J. Mulcock (2005). Culture as Concept and Infl uence in Environmental Research and Management. Conservation and Society 3: 2, 251–264. Helsingin Sanomat 18.12.2007. Palkittu Bubi kävi yllätäen palkitsemistilaisuudes- sa. Read 5.8.2008 Hesse, R. (1924/1937). Tiergeographie auf ekologischer Grundlage. In Allee, W. C. & K. P. Schmidt (1951): Ecological Animal Geography, 3–14. John Wiley & Sons, London, U. K. Hobson-West, P. (2007). Beasts and boundaries: An introduction to animals in sociology, science and society. Qualitative Sociology Review 3: 1, 23–41. Holling, C.S., F. Berkes & C. Folke (1998). Science, sustainability and resource management. In Berkes, Fikret & Folke Carl (eds.): Linking Social and Ecological Systems.Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience, 342–362. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom. Howitt, R. & S. Suchet-Pearson (2006). Rethinking the building blocks: Ontological pluralism and the idea of “management”. Geografi ska Annaler 88B: 3, 323– 335. Hulme, D. & M. Murphree (2001a). Community Conservation as Policy: Promise & Performance. In Hulme, David & Murphree, Marshall (eds.): African Wildlife & Livelihoods. Th e Promise & Performance of Community Conservation, 280–297. James Currey Ltd, Great Britain. Hulme, D. & M. Murphree (2001b; eds.). African Wildlife & Livelihoods. Th e Promise & Performance of Community Conservation. James Currey Ltd, Great Britain. 336 pp. Igoe, J. & D. Brockington (1999). Pastoral land tenure and community conservation: a case study from North-East Tanzania. Pastoral Land tenure series No. 11. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, U. K. Igoe, J. (2006). Ecosystem Dynamics and Institutional Inertia: A Discussion of Landscape Conservation in Northern Tanzania. In Mistry, J. & A. Berardi (eds.): Savannas and dry forests. Linking people with nature, 77–103. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, England. IIED (International Institute for Environment and Development) (1994). Whose

213 Eden? An overview of community approaches to wildlife management. 124 pp. A report to the Overseas Development Administration of the British Government, July 1994. Russell Press, Nottingham. Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. 484 pp. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, U.S.A. International Resources Group Ltd. (2000). Mbomipa Project Idodi and Pawaga Divisions Iringa Region, Tanzania and Selous Conservation Program Songea and Morogoro Districts Ruvuma and Morogoro Regions Tanzania. Appendix 1 of the EPIQ Assessment of Lessons Learned from Community Based Conservation in Tanzania. Prepared for USAID/Tanzania. August 2000. Jackson, J. B. (1994). A Sense of Place, a Sence of Time. 212 pp. Yale University Press, New Haven, U.S.A. Jepson, P. & R. J. Whittaker (2002). Histories of Protected Areas: Internationalisation of Conservationist Values and their Adoption in the Netherlands Indies (Indonesia). Environment and History 8, 129–172. Kangwana, K. & R. Ole Mako (2001). Conservation, Livelihoods & the Intrinsic Value of Wildlife: Tarangire National Park, Tanzania. In Hulme, D. & M. Murphree (eds.): African Wildlife & Livelihoods. Th e Promise & Performance of Community Conservation, 148–159. James Currey Ltd, Great Britain. Kideghesho, J. R. (1999). Habitat loss in Tanzania: A Need to Reverse the Trend. Kakakuona/Tanzania Wildlife 15, 11–15. Kideghesho, J. R. (2001). Th e Loss of Wildlife Habitats in Tanzania: What is the Way Forward? Kakakuona/Tanzania Wildlife 23, 7–15. Kinyero, O., P. Kituku, M. Kilua, J. Mgaya, J. Hallamga, O. Luhuwa, P. Lupogo, M. Shamte, S. Chautundu, S. Tilli & S. Kitenge (1995). Community-based forest management Liwale visit report. June 1995. RIPS-Rural Integrated Project Support, Lindi, Tanzania. Knappert, J. (1990). African Mythology. An Encyclopedia of Myth and Legend. 272 pp. Diamond Books, London. Knight, J. (2000; ed.). Natural Enemies. People-Wildlife Conﬂ icts in Anthropological Perspective. 254 pp. Routledge. London, Great Britain. Kolkata Newsline (2007). 48 killed in elephants attack in 2006. July 28, 2007. Read 5.12.2007 Kolowski, J. M. & K. E. Holekamp (2006). Spatial, temporal, and physical characteristics of livestock depredations by large carnivores along a Kenyan reserve border. Biological Conservation 128, 529–541. Koponen, J. (1988). People and Production in Late Precolonial Tanzania. History and Structures. 434 pp. Monographs of the Finnish Society for Development Studies No. 2. Finnish Society for Development Studies in cooperation with Scandinavian Institute of African Studies. Gummerus, Jyväskylä. Krischke, H., V. Lyamuya & I. F. Ndunguru (1996). Th e Development of Community-Based Conservation around the Selous Game Reserve. In Leader-Williams, N., J. A. Kayera & G. L. Overton (eds.): Community-based

214 Conservation in Tanzania. Proceedings of a Workshop held in February 1994, 75–83. Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) No. 15. Planning and Assessment for Wildlife Management. Department of Wildlife, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. IUCN- Th e World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Köhler, A. (2005). Of Apes and Men: Baka and Bantu Attitudes to Wildlife and the Making of Eco-Goodies and Baddies. Conservation and Society 3: 2, 407– 435. Leader-Williams, N. & J. A. Kayera (1996). Preface. In Leader-Williams, N., J. A. Kayera & G. L. Overton (eds.): Community-based Conservation in Tanzania. Proceedings of a Workshop held in February 1994, vii–ix. Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) No. 15. Planning and Assessment for Wildlife Management. Department of Wildlife, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. IUCN- Th e World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Lefebvre, H. (1974/1991). Th e Production of Space. Translated by Donald Nicholson- Smith. Blackwell Publishing, U.S.A. Lehtinen, A. A. (1991). Th e northern natures – a study of the forest question emerging within the timber-line confl ict in Finland. Fennia 169: 1, 57–169. Lehtinen, A. A. (2006). Postcolonialism, Multitude, and the Politics of Nature. On the Changing Geographies of the European North. 299 pp. University Press of America, Lanham, U.S.A. Leimgruber, W. (1991). Boundary, values and identity: Th e Swiss-Italian transborder region. In Rumley, D. & J. V. Minghi (eds.): Th e Geography of Border Landscapes, 43–62. Routledge, London, U. K. Levine, A. (2002). Convergence or Convenience? International Conservation NGOs and Development Assistance in Tanzania. World Development 30: 6, 1043–1055. Ley, D. (1985). Cultural/humanistic geography. Progress in Physical Geography 9: 3, 415–423. Lingard, M., N. Raharison, E. Rabakonandrianina, J-A. Rakotoarisoa & T. Elmqvist (2003). Th e Role of Local Taboos in Conservation and Management of Species: Th e Radiated Tortoise in Southern Madagascar. Conservation and Society 1: 2, 223–246. Linnell, J. D. C., E. Birkeland Nilsen, U. Støbet Lande, I. Herfi ndal, J. Odden, K. Skogen, R. Andersen & U. Breitenmoser (2005). Zoning as a means of mitigating confl icts with large carnivores: principles and reality. In Woodroff e, R., S. Th irgood & A. Rabinowitz (eds.): People and Wildlife. Confl ict or Coexistence?, 162––175. Conservation Biology 9. Th e Zoological Society of London. Cambridge University Press, U. K. Lipp, H-J. (1999). Policy Framework for Decentralisation in Tanzania. Paper presented at the Symposium on Decentralisation and Rural Development in Pretoria, South Africa 12–16 October 1999.

215 Livingstone, D. N. (1992). The Geographical Tradition. Episodes in the History of a Contested Enterprise. Blackwell Publishing, U.S.A. Luhuva, O.J., P. Lupogo & S. Chautundu (1997). PRA reporting conducted in villages in Liwale district, January 1997. Unpublished report. Tanzania. Lyimo, M. M. & H. J. Ndolezi (1996). Wildlife Law in Relation to Community- Based Conservation. In Leader-Williams, N., J. A. Kayera & G. L. Overton (eds.): Community-based Conservation in Tanzania. Proceedings of a Workshop held in February 1994, 38–40. Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) No. 15. Planning and Assessment for Wildlife Management. Department of Wildlife, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. IUCN- Th e World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Maganga, S. L. S. (2002). Th e Socio-Ecology of Natural Resources with References to Wildlife Conservation in Tanzania. Kakakuona / Tanzania Wildlife 25, 5–11. Maganga, S.L.S., F. T. Magayane & E. M. Senkondo (2003). A Report on Baseline Information of Pilot Wildlife Management Areas in Tanzania. First Draft, May 2003. Magige, F. & R. Senzota (2006). Abundance and diversity of rodents at the human- wildlife interface in Western Serengeti, Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology 44, 371–378. Majamba, H. I. (2000a). Legal Aspects of the Draft Guidelines for Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs). Wildlife Division, EPIQ / USAID and GTZ. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Majamba, H. I. (2000b). Legal Aspects of the Draft Guidelines for Wildlife Management Areas (WMA’s). Consultancy Report. EPIQ (USAID) / Tanzania Natural Resources Management Project and Th e Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Wildlife Division. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Majamba, H. I. (2001). Regulating the Hunting Industry in Tanzania. Reﬂ ections on the Legislative, Institutional and Policy-Making Frameworks. Lawyers’ Environmental Action Team (LEAT). Read 17.9.2003 Maskit, J. (1998). Something Wild? Deleuze and Guattari and the Impossibility of Wilderness. In Light, A. & J. M. Smith (eds.): Philosophies of Place. Philosophy and Geography, volume III, 265–283. Rowman & Littleﬁ eld Publishers Inc., U.S.A. Mason, M. (1999). Environmental Democracy. 266 pp. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London. Matless, D., P. Merchant & C. Watkins (2005). Animal landscapes: otters and wildfowl in England 1945–1970. Transactions Institute of British Geographers 30: 2, 191–205. Matzke, G. (1976). Th e Development of the Selous Game Reserve. Tanzania Notes and Records 79 and 80, 37–48. Mbano, A. S. & J. Nyanchuwa (1996). Traditional Hunting in Tanzania. In Leader-Williams, N., J. A. Kayera & G. L. Overton (eds.): Community-based

216 Conservation in Tanzania. Proceedings of a Workshop held in February 1994, 41–44. Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) No. 15. Planning and Assessment for Wildlife Management. Department of Wildlife, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. IUCN- Th e World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. McKeown, B. & D. Th omas (1988). Q Methodology. 83 pp. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences 66. Sage University Papers, Sage Publications, London. Meadow, R., R. P. Reading, M. Phillips, M. Mehringer & B. J. Miller (2005). Th e infl uence of persuasive arguments on public attitudes toward a proposed wolf restoration in the southern Rockies. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33: 1, 154– 163. Melamari, L. (1996). Th e Need for a Community-Based Conservation Policy in Tanzania: TANAPA’s Perspective. In Leader-Williams, N., J. A. Kayera & G. L. Overton (eds.): Community-based Conservation in Tanzania. Proceedings of a Workshop held in February 1994, 7–8. Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) No. 15. Planning and Assessment for Wildlife Management. Department of Wildlife, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. IUCN- Th e World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Milbourne, P. (2003). Hunting ruralities: nature, society and culture in ‘hunt countries’ of England and Wales. Journal of Rural Studies 19, 157–171. Milledge, S. & R. Barnett (2000). Th e utilisation of wild meat in Tanzania: Part I – Illegal bush meat trade. Miombo 22, 4–13. Milledge, S. & R. Barnett (2002). Th e utilisation of wild meat in Tanzania: Part II – Legal game meat trade. Miombo 24, 14–18. Milton, K. (2000). Ducks out of water. Nature conservation as boundary maintenance. In Knight, J. (ed.): Natural Enemies. People-Wildlife Confl icts in Anthropological Perspective, 229–246. Routledge. London, Great Britain. Mistry, J. & A. Berardi (2006). Introduction. In Mistry, J. & A. Berardi (eds.): Savannas and dry forests. Linking people with nature, 1–18. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, England. Morris, B. (2000). Wildlife depredations in Malawi. Th e historical dimension. In Knight, J. (ed.): Natural Enemies. People-Wildlife Confl icts in Anthropological Perspective, 36–49. Routledge. London, Great Britain. Msalya, N.K.B. (1997). Baseline survey of Kilwa and Liwale districts in Lindi region. Forum for Conservation of Nature (FOCONA) Environmental and Development NGO, Mtwara, Tanzania. Munasinghe, M. (1994). Economic and policy issues in natural habitats and protected areas. In Munasinghe, M. & J. McNeely, (eds.): Protected Area Economics and Policy. Linking Conservation and Sustainable Development, 15– 35. World Bank/IUCN, Washington D.C., U.S.A. Munasinghe, M. & J. McNeely (1994; eds.). Protected Area Economics and Policy. Linking Conservation and Sustainable Development. World Bank/IUCN, Washington D.C., U.S.A. 364 pp.

217 Murdoch, J. (1997). Inhuman/nonhuman/human: actor-network theory and the prospects for a nondualistic and symmetrical perspective on nature and society. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 15, 731–756. Murombedzi, J. C. (1994). Th e Dynamics of Confl ict in Environmental Management Policy in the Context of the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE). PhD Th esis. Center for Applied Social Sciences. University of Zimbabwe. Murphree, M. W. (1991). Communities as Resource Management Institutions. International Institute for Environment and Development. Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Livelihoods Programme. Gatekeeper Series No. 36. IIED. Murphree, M. W. (2001). Community Based Conservation: Old Ways, New Myths and Enduring Challenges. In Baldus, R. D. & L. Siege (eds.): Experiences with Community-based Wildlife Conservation in Tanzania, 5–16. Tanzania Wildlife Discussion paper No. 29. Wildlife Division, GTZ Wildlife Programme in Tanzania. GTZ, Dar es Salaam. Mustalahti, I. & O. Kinyero (2001). Angai Forest Reserve Process in Liwale District. Final Report 2001. RIPS, Mtwara, Tanzania. Mustalahti, I. (2006). How to handle the stick: positive processes and crucial barriers of participatory forest management. Forests, trees and livelihoods 16, 151–165. Mvungi, A., S. Mesaki, J. Mwami & S. Maghimbi (2002). Socio-economic Survey of the Buff er Zone of the Selous Game Reserve. Volume 2. Selous Game Reserve Management Project. Final Report March 2002. Department of Sociology, University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Mwamfupe, D. (1990). Population. In Baldus, R. D. (ed.): Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in the Liwale Buff erzone. SCP Discussion Paper No. 10. Wildlife Division and Selous Conservation Programme, GTZ, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Mwamfupe, D., F. Lerise & U. Schüler (1990). Planning for Village Development and Wildlife Utilization. Prospects in Village Development and Wildlife Utilization in the Liwale Buff erzone. Selous Conservation Programme. GTZ, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Mäkelä, M. (1999). Community-based Environmental Protection and Natural Resources Management. 152 pp. Ministry of Foreign Aff airs of Finland. Department for International Development Cooperation, Helsinki, Finland. Nagy, D. & J. E. Kumpulainen (2006). Rajamaa ja häviämisen mielenmaisema. Kuvastotulkintaa Transilvaniasta ja Karjalasta. Alue ja ympäristö 35: 2, 15– 31. National Land Use Planning Commission (1998). Guidelines for participatory Village Land Use Management in Tanzania. Ministry of Lands and Human Settlements Development. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Naughton-Treves, L. (1998). Predicting patterns of crop damage by wildlife around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Conservation Biology 12, 156–168.

218 Naughton-Treves, L. (2002). Wild Animals in the Garden: Conserving Wildlife in Amazonian Agroecosystems. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 92: 3, 488–506. Naughton-Treves, L., J. L. Mena, A. Treves, N. Alvarez & V. C. Radeloff (2003a). Wildlife Survival Beyond Park Boundaries: the Impact of Slash-and-Burn Agriculture and Hunting on Mammals in Tambopata, Peru. Conservation Biology 17: 4, 1106–1117. Naughton-Treves, L., R. Grossberg & A. Treves (2003b). Paying for Tolerance: Rural Citizens’ Attitudes toward Wolf Depredation and Compensation. Conservation Biology 17: 6, 1500–1511. Naughton-Treves, L. & A. Treves (2005). Socio-ecological factors shaping local support for wildlife: crop-raiding by elephants and other wildlife in Africa. In Woodroff e, R., S. Th irgood & A. Rabinowitz (eds.): People and Wildlife. Confl ict or Coexistence?, 252–277. Conservation Biology 9. Th e Zoological Society of London. Cambridge University Press, U. K. Ndolanga, M.A. (1996). Th e Need for a Community-Based Conservation Policy in Tanzania: Th e Department of Wildlife’s Perspective. In Leader-Williams, N., J. A. Kayera & G. L. Overton, (eds.): Community-based Conservation in Tanzania. Proceedings of a Workshop held in February 1994, 13–16. Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) No. 15. Planning and Assessment for Wildlife Management. Department of Wildlife, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. IUCN- Th e World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Ndunguru, I. F. (1989). Big Animals and Big Problems. Th e Background to the Ruvuma Village Wildlife Project. SCP Discussion paper No. 6. Wildlife Division, Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Tourism, United Republic of Tanzania and Selous Conservation Programme. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Neumann, R. P. (1995). Ways of Seeing Africa: Colonial Recasting of African Society and Landscape in Serengeti National Park. Ecumene 2: 2, 149–169. Neumann, R. P. (1998). Imposing Wilderness. Struggles over Livelihood and Nature Preservation in Africa. 256 pp. University of California Press. Berkeley and Los Angeles, U.S.A. Neumann, R. P. (2000). Land, Justice, and the Politics of Conservation in Tanzania. In Zerner, C. (ed.): People, Plants & Justice. Th e Politics of Nature Conservation, 117–134. Columbia University Press, New York, U.S.A. Nielsen, M. R. (2006). Importance, cause and eff ect of bushmeat hunting in the Udzungwa Mountains, Tanzania: Implications for community based wildlife management. Biological Conservation 128, 509–516. Norton, B. & B. Hannon (1998). Democracy and Sense of Place Values in Environmental Policy. In Light, A. & J. M. Smith (eds.): Philosophies of Place. Philosophy and Geography, volume III, 119–145. Rowman & Littlefi eld Publishers Inc., U.S.A. Nshala, R. (1999). Granting Hunting Blocks in Tanzania. Th e Need for Reform. Lawyers’ Environmental Action Team (LEAT). Read 17.9.2003 219 Nummelin, M. & P. Virtanen (2000). Local forest management by traditional and introduced means in southern Africa – a synthesis and recommendations. In Virtanen, P. & M. Nummelin (eds.): Forests, Chiefs and Peasants in Africa: Local Management of Natural Resources in Tanzania, Zimbabwe and Mozambique, 220–229. Silva Carelica 34. Faculty of Forestry, University of Joensuu. Ogada, M. O., R. Woodroff e, N. O. Oguge & L. G. Frank (2003). Limiting Depredation by African Carnivores: the Role of Livestock Husbandry. Conservation Biology 17: 6, 1521–1530. Ojalammi, S. (2006). Contested Lands: Land Disputes in Semi-arid Parts of Northern Tanzania. Case Studies of the Loliondo and Sale Divisions in the Ngorongoro District. Academic dissertation. Publicationes Instituti Geographici Universitatis Helsingiensis C12. Dark Oy, Vantaa. Oksanen, A. (2003). Paikallisuuden ja kansainvälisyyden kohtaaminen luonnonsuojelussa. Tapaustutkimuksena Natura 2000 –ympäristökonfl ikti Lounais-Suomessa. PhD dissertation. Turun yliopiston julkaisuja C 192. Turun yliopisto, Turku, Finland. Osborn, F.V. (2004). Seasonal variation of feeding patterns and food selection by crop-raiding elephants in Zimbabwe. African Journal of Ecology 42, 322– 327. Osborn, F. V. & C. M. Hill (2005). Techniques to reduce crop loss: human and technical dimensions in Africa. In Woodroff e, R., S. Th irgood & A. Rabinowitz (eds.): People and Wildlife. Confl ict or Coexistence? , 72–85. Conservation Biology 9. Th e Zoological Society of London. Cambridge University Press, U. K. Palang, H., H. Sooväli, M. Antrop & G. Setten (eds.) (2004). European Rural Landscapes: Persistence and Change in a Globalising Environment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Th e Netherlands. Patterson, J. H. (1907/1979). Th e Man-Eaters of Tsavo and Other East African Adventures. Macmillan Publishers Ltd., English Press Limited, Nairobi, Kenya. Peet, R. & M. Watts (1996). Liberation Ecology. Development, sustainability, and environment in an age of market triumphalism. In Peet, R. & M. Watts (eds.): Liberation ecologies. Environment, development, social movements, 1–45. Routledge, London, Great Britain. Peritore, P. N. (1999). Th ird world environmentalism. Case studies from the Global South. 329 pp. University Press of Florida, U.S.A. Philips, A. (2004). Th e history of the international system of protected area management categories. PARKS 14: 3, 4–14. Philo, C. (1998). Animals, Geography, and the City: Notes on Inclusions and Exclusions. In Wolch, J. & J. Emel (eds): Animal Geographies. Place, Politics, and Indentity in the Nature-Culture Borderlands, 51–71. Verso, London, U.K. Platteau, J.-P. (2000). Community Imperfections. Paper prepared for the Annual Bank Conference on Development Economics, Paris, June 2000. Department of economics and CRED, Belgium. 220 Platteau, J.-P. (2004). Monitoring Elite Capture in Community-Driven Development. Development and Change 35: 2, 223–246. Quigley, H. & S. Herrero (2005). Characterization and prevention of attacks on humans. In Woodroff e, R., S. Th irgood & A. Rabinowitz (eds.): People and Wildlife. Confl ict or Coexistence? , 27–48. Conservation Biology 9. Th e Zoological Society of London. Cambridge University Press, U. K. Ramutsindela, M. (2003). Land reform in South Africa’s national parks: a catalyst for the human-nature nexus. Land Use Policy 20, 41–49. Rannikko, P. (1995). Ympäristötietoisuus ja ympäristöristiriidat. In Jokinen, P., T. Järvikoski & P. Rannikko (eds.): Näkökulmia ympäristösosiologiaan, 65–91. Turun yliopiston täydennyskoulutuskeskus, Turku. Robbins, P. & R. Krueger (2000). Beyond Bias? Th e Promise and Limits of Q Method in Human Geography. Professional Geographer 52: 4, 636–648. Rodgers, W.A. & J. D. Lobo (1978). Elephant control and legal ivory exploitation: 1920 to 1976. Tanzania Notes and Records 84 & 85, 25–54. Rondinini, C., F. Chiozza & L. Boitani (2006). High human density in the irreplaceable sites for African vertebrates conservation. Biological Conservation 133, 358–363. Rye, S. (2000). Wild pigs, ‘pig-men’ and transmigrants in the rainforest of Sumatra. In Knight, J. (ed.): Natural Enemies. People-Wildlife Confl icts in Anthropological Perspective, 104–123. Routledge. London, Great Britain. Saarinen, J. (2002). Erämaan muuttuvat merkitykset: pohjoisen luonnon traditionaalinen käyttö, moderni suojelu ja turistinen tulevaisuus. Alue ja ympäristö 31: 2, 25–36. Salonen, V. (2004). Eläinmaantiede – näkökulmia ihmisen ja eläimen vuorovaikutussuhteeseen. Terra 116: 4, 227–240. Sanderson, S. (2005). Poverty and Conservation: Th e New Century’s ”Peasant Question?” World Development 33: 2, 323–332. Sandi, J. S. C. (1996). Th e Villagisation Process and Organizational Structure of Villages. In Leader-Williams, N., J. A. Kayera & G. L. Overton (eds.): Community-based Conservation in Tanzania. Proceedings of a Workshop held in February 1994, 45–50. Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) No. 15. Planning and Assessment for Wildlife Management. Department of Wildlife, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. IUCN- Th e World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Sauer, C. (1938). Th e Morphology of Landscape. University of California Publications in Geography 2: 2, 19–54. Sauer, C. O. (1969). Seeds, Spades, Heaths & Herds. Th e Domestication of Animals and Foodstuff . 175 pp. Th e MIT Press, Massachussetts, U.S.A. Schafer, J. & R. Bell (2002). Th e State and Community-based Natural Resource Management: the Case of the Moribane Forest Reserve, Mozambique. Journal of Southern African Studies 28: 2, 401–420. Science and Environment Online (2007). Sri Lanka grapples with elephant-human confl ict. December 5, 2007.

221 Read 5.12.2007. Seppälä, P. (1998). Tanzanian Local Administration. A vehicle for democratic development? FAD Working Paper 3/98. Research project: Finnish Aid in Development. Institute of Development Studies, University of Helsinki, Finland. Read 18.9.2007 Serpell, J. A. (1986). In the Company of Animals: Study of Human/Animal Relationships. Basil Blackwell Inc., New York, U.S.A. Severre, E. L. M. (2000). Conservation of Wildlife Outside Core Wildlife Protected Areas in the New Millenium. Paper presented at the African Wildlife Management in the New Millenium Conference organized by the College of African Wildlife Management in Mweka, Tanzania, 13–15 December 2000. Sheppard, M. (1996). Proxemics. Read 18.2.2008 Sheriff , A. (1987). Slaves, Spices & Ivory in Zanzibar. Integration of an East African Commercial Empire into the World Economy 1770–1873. 297 pp. James Currey, London. Short, J. R. (1991). Imagined country. Society, culture and environment. Routledge, London. Sibanda, B. M. C. & A. K. Omwega (1996). Some refl ections on conservation, sustainable development and equitable sharing of benefi ts from wildlife in Africa: the case of Kenya and Zimbabwe. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 26: 4, 175–181. Sibley, D. (1995). Geographies of Exclusion: Society and Diff erence in the West. Routledge, London, U.K. Siege, L. (ed.) (1996). Financial Potential of the Selous Game Reserve and its Buff erzones. SCP Discussion Paper No. 21. Price Waterhouse Zimbabwe, Selous Conservation Programme. Selous Game Reserve- Wildlife Division, GTZ. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Siege, L. (2001a). Community Based Conservation: 13 Years of Experience in Tanzania. In Baldus, R. D. & L. Siege (eds.): Experiences with Community- based Wildlife Conservation in Tanzania, 17–25. Tanzania Wildlife Discussion paper No. 29. Wildlife Division, GTZ Wildlife Programme in Tanzania. GTZ, Dar es Salaam. Siege, L. (2001b). Hunting and Community-based Conservation in Tanzania. In Baldus, R. D. & L. Siege (eds.): Experiences with Community-based Wildlife Conservation in Tanzania, 38–43. Tanzania Wildlife Discussion paper No. 29. Wildlife Division, GTZ Wildlife Programme in Tanzania. GTZ, Dar es Salaam. Siege, L. and Baldus, R.D. (1998a; eds.). Conservation Attitudes of Villagers living next to the Selous Game Reserve. Th e Findings of Sarah Gillingham’s PhD Th esis. Tanzania Wildlife Discussion Paper No. 23. Selous, Saadani and Katavi Rukwa Conservation Programmes, Community Wildlife Management. Wildlife Division / GTZ, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 222 Siege, L. and Baldus, R.D. (1998b; eds.). Assessment of Crop Damage and Application of Non-Lethal Deterrents for Crop Protection East of Selous Game Reserve. Tanzania Wildlife Discussion Paper No. 24. Selous, Saadani and Katavi Rukwa Conservation Programmes, Community Wildlife Management. Wildlife Division / GTZ, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Shand, M.C. (1997). Tanzania Digital National Atlas. Political. Tanzania Administrative Divisions, 1: 2,000,000. Department of Geography and Topographic Science, University of Glasgow, Scotland. U.K. Smets, K. (ed.) (1997). Smallstock Project Evaluation. November – December 1996. Rural Integrated Project Support Programme – Mtwara and Lindi Regions. Monitoring & Evaluation Unit. Evaluation Report 1. Smith, J. M., A. Light & D. Roberts (1998). Introduction: Philosophies and Geographies of Place. In Light, A. & J. M. Smith (eds.): Philosophies of Place. Philosophy and Geography, volume III, 1–19. Rowman & Littlefi eld Publishers Inc., U.S.A. Smith, M. (2001). An Ethics of Place: Radical Ecology, Postmodernity and Social Th eory. State University of New York Press, U.S.A. Soini, K. (2004). Between Insideness and Outsideness- Studying Locals’ Perceptions of Landscape. In Palang, H., H. Sooväli, M. Antrop & G. Setten (eds.): European Rural Landscapes: Persistence and Change in a Globalising Environment, 83–97. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Th e Netherlands. Songorwa, A. N. (1999). Community-Based Wildlife Management (CWM) in Tanzania: Are the Communities Interested? World Development 27: 12, 2061–2079. Songorwa, A. N. (2002). Community Based Wildlife Management in Tanzania. Th e Policy Environment. Kakakuona / Tanzania Wildlife 25, 62–68. Stephenson, W. (1953). Th e Study of Behavior. Q-Technique and Its Methodology. 376 pp. Th e University of Chicago Press, Illinois, U.S.A. Stoner, C., T. Caro, S. Mduma, C. Mlingwa, G. Sabuni, M. Borner & C. Schelten (2006). Changes in large herbivore populations across large areas of Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology 45, 202–215. Sukumar, R. (1998). Wildlife-Human Confl ict in India: An Ecological and Social Perspective. In Guha, R. (ed.): Social Ecology, 303–317. Oxford in India readings in Sociology and Social Anthropology. Oxford University Press, Delhi, India. Swai, I. (1996). Th e Eff ect of Villagisation and Other Policies on Wildlife Conservation in Tanzania. In Leader-Williams, N., J. A. Kayera & G. L. Overton (eds.): Community-based Conservation in Tanzania. Proceedings of a Workshop held in February 1994, 51–54. Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) No. 15. Planning and Assessment for Wildlife Management. Department of Wildlife, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. IUCN- Th e World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. TANAPA (Tanzania National Parks) (1999). Udzungwa mountains. 64 pp. World- wide Fund for Nature, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 223 Tania, L., P. S. Saj & J. D. Paterson (2001). Th e confl ict between vervet monkeys and farmers at the forest edge in Entebbe, Uganda. African Journal of Ecology 39: 2, 195–199. Th e United Republic of Tanzania (1979). Tanzania map 1:250 000. Land units of Mtwara and Lindi regions. Maps 1c and 1d. Land Resources Development Centre, Th e British Government’s Ministry of Overseas Development. Th e United Republic of Tanzania (1994). Report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into Land Matters. Volume II. Selected Land Disputes and Recommendations. Th e Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development, Government of the United Republic of Tanzania in cooperation with Th e Scandinavian Institute of African Studies, Uppsala, Sweden. GOTAB, Stockholm, Sweden. Th e United Republic of Tanzania (2002a). Wildlife Conservation (Wildlife Management Areas) Regulations, 2002. Th e Wildlife Conservation Act, 1974. Regulations. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Th e United Republic of Tanzania (2002b). Th e Forest Act, 2002. Acts Supplement No.7 to the Gazette of the United Republic of Tanzania No.23. Vol.83 dated 7th June, 2002. Th e Government printer, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Th e United Republic of Tanzania (2002c). Wildlife Conservation (Wildlife Management Areas) Regulations, 2002. Th e Wildlife Conservation Act, 1974 (No.12 of 1974) regulations made under sections 84 and 19. Govern Notice. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Th e United Republic of Tanzania (2003). Tanzania Census 2002. Population and Housing Census General Report. Central Census Offi ce, National Bureau of Statistics, President’s Offi ce, Planning and Privatization. Government Printer, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Th irgood, S., R. Woodroff e & A. Rabinowitz (2005). Th e impact of human-wildlife confl ict on human lives and livelihoods. In Woodroff e, R., S. Th irgood & A. Rabinowitz (eds.): People and Wildlife. Confl ict or Coexistence?, 13–26. Conservation Biology 9. Th e Zoological Society of London. Cambridge University Press, U. K. Toner, A. (2003). Exploring Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches in Relation to Two Interventions in Tanzania. Journal of International Development 15, 771– 781. Treves, A. & U. K. Karanth (2003). Human-Carnivore Confl ict and Perspectives on Carnivore Management Worldwide. Conservation Biology 17: 6, 1491– 1499. Treves, A., L. Naughton-Treves, E. K. Harper, D. J. Mladenoff , R. A. Rose, T. A. Sickley & A. P. Wydeven (2004). Predicting Human-Carnivore Confl ict: a Spatial Model Derived from 25 Years of Data on Wolf Predation on Livestock. Conservation Biology 18: 1, 114–125. Tuan Y-F. (1974). Topofi lia: a study of environmental perception, attitudes and values. 260 pp. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, U.S.A. Turovski, A. (2000). Th e semiotics of animal freedom: A zoologist attempt to perceive the semiotic aim of H. Hediger. Sign System Studies 28, 380–387. 224 TWCM (Tanzania Wildlife Conservation Monitoring Programme) (1989). Selous Census. Tanzania Wildlife Division. Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Tourism. Arusha, Tanzania. TWCM (Tanzania Wildlife Conservation Monitoring) (1999). Aerial Wildlife Census: Th e Selous, Mikumi, Kilombero and surrounding areas, October 1999. TWCM / Frankfurt Zoological Society Wildlife Survey Report, Arusha, Tanzania. UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) (1999). United Republic of Tanzania. Read 22.7.2007 University of Missouri-St. Louis (2007). Tanzania. Read 5.9.2007 Vaske, J. J. & M. P. Donnelly (1999). A Value-Attitude-Behavior Model Predicting Wildland Preservation Voting Intentions. Society & Natural Resources 12, 523–537. Veltheim, T., F. Mahenge & E. Msoff e (2001). Study Tour to Angai Forest Reserve in Liwale District, Lindi Region, 21–28 July 2001. East Usambara Conservation Area Management Programme Working Paper 44. Forestry and Beekeeping Division of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Tanzania, Department of International Development Co-operation, Finland and Metsähallitus Consulting Oy. Tanga, Tanzania. Voets, E. W. (2005). Human-Elephant Confl ict: Livelihoods & Coping Mechanisms. MA Th esis. Center for International Development Issues Nijmegen, Radboud University Nijmegen, Th e Netherlands. Walker, P. A. (2003). Reconsidering ‘regional’ political ecologies: toward a political ecology of the rural American West. Progress in Human Geography 27: 1, 7– 24. Walpole, M. J. & C. R. Th ouless (2005). Increasing the value of wildlife through non- consumptive use? Deconstructing the myths of ecotourism and community- based tourism in the tropics. In Woodroff e, R., S. Th irgood & A. Rabinowitz (eds.): People and Wildlife. Confl ict or Coexistence?, 122–139. Conservation Biology 9. Th e Zoological Society of London. Cambridge University Press, U. K. Wanitzek, U. & H. Sippel (1998). Land rights in conservation areas in Tanzania. GeoJournal 46, 113–128. Wells, M., K. Brandon & L. Hannah (1992). People and Parks. Linking Protected Area Management with Local Communities. 99 pp. World Bank/World Wide Fund for Nature/USAID, Washington D.C., U.S.A. West, P. & D. Brockington (2006). An Anthropological Perspective on Some Unexpected Consequences of Protected Areas. Conservation Biology 20: 3, 609–616. Western, D. (1989). Conservation without parks: Wildlife in the rural landscape. In Western, D. &, M. C. Pearl (eds.): Conservation for the Twenty-fi rst century, 159–165. Oxford University Press, New York.

225 Whatmore, S. & S. Boucher (1993). Bargaining with nature: the discourse and practice of ‘environmental planning gain’. Transactions Institute of British Geographers 18: 2, 166–178. Whatmore, S. & L. Th orne (1998). Wild(er)ness: reconfi guring the geographies of wildlife. Transactions Institute of British Geographers 23: 4, 435–454. Whatmore, S. & L. Th orne (2000). Elephants on the move: spatial formations of wildlife exchange. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 18, 185– 203. Widgren, M. (2004). Can Landscapes Be Read? In Palang, H., H. Sooväli, M. Antrop & G. Setten (eds.): European Rural Landscapes: Persistence and Change in a Globalising Environment, 455–465. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Th e Netherlands. Williams, A., T. S. Masoud & W. J. Othman (1998). Community-based Conservation: Experiences from Zanzibar. International Institute for Environment and Development. Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Livelihoods Programme. Gatekeeper Series No.80. IIED. Williams, D. R. (2002). Social Construction of Arctic Wilderness: Place meanings, Value Pluralism, and Globalization. In Watson, A. E., A. Lilian & J. Sproull (eds.): Wilderness in the Circumpolar North: searching for compatibility in ecological, traditional and ecotourism values, 120–132. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-26, May 15–16, 2001. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah, U.S.A. Wilshusen, P. R., S. R. Brechin, C. L. Fortwangler & P. C. West (2002). Reinventing a Square Wheel: Critique of a Resurgent “Protection Paradigm” in International Biodiversity Conservation. Society and Natural Resources 15, 17–40. Wolch, J. (1998). Zoöpolis. In Wolch, J. & J. Emel (eds): Animal Geographies. Place, Politics, and Indentity in the Nature-Culture Borderlands, 119–138. Verso, London, U.K. Wolch, J. (2002a). Anima urbis. Progress in Human Geography 26: 6, 721–742. Wolch, J. (2002b). Zoöpolis. In Dear, M. J. & S. Flusty (eds.): Th e Spaces of Postmodernity. Readings in Human Geography, 200–215. Blackwell Publishers Ltd, U.K. Wolch, J. & J. Emel (1995). Guest editorial. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 13, 632–636. Wolch, J. & J. Emel (eds.) (1998). Animal Geographies. Place, Politics, and Indentity in the Nature-Culture Borderlands. Verso, London, U.K. Wolch, J. & J. Emel (1998). Preface. In Wolch, J. & J. Emel (eds.): Animal Geographies. Place, Politics, and Indentity in the Nature-Culture Borderlands, xi–xx. Verso, London, U.K. Wondrak, A. K. (2002). Seen any wildlife? Community confl ict and a struggle for the soul of Estes Park, Colorado. Cultural Geographies 9, 68–94. Woodroff e, R., S. Th irgood & A. Rabinowitz (2005). Th e impact of human-wildlife confl ict on natural systems. In Woodroff e, R., S. Th irgood & A. Rabinowitz (eds.): People and Wildlife. Confl ict or Coexistence?, 1–12. Conservation

226 Biology 9. Th e Zoological Society of London. Cambridge University Press, U. K. Woods, M. (1997). Researching Rural Conﬂ icts: Hunting, Local Politics and Actor- networks. Journal of Rural Studies 14: 3, 321–340. World Resources Institute (2006). Biodiversity and protected areas – country proﬁ les. EarthTrends: Th e Environmental Information Portal. Read 4.1.2008 Zerner, C. (2000). Toward a Broader Vision of Justice and Nature Conservation. In Zerner, C. (ed.): People, Plants & Justice. Th e Politics of Nature Conservation, 3–20. Columbia University Press, New York, U.S.A. Zimmerer, K. S. (2007). Cultural ecology (and political ecology) in the ‘environmental borderlands’: exploring the expanded connectivities within geography. Progress in Human Geography 31: 2, 227–244. Zinn, H. C., M. J. Manfredo, J. J. Vaske & K. Wittmann (1998). Using Normative Beliefs to Determine the Acceptability of Wildlife Management Actions. Society & Natural Resources 11, 649–662.

Personal communication:

Kamuna, A. M. (2002). Discussion 1.7.2002. (Barikiwa Village Chairman). Kitandala, C. (2003). Email 31.3.2003. (Teacher in Liwale town). Mtila, M. (2002). Discussion 22.7.2002. (Liwale District Assistant Game Oﬃ cer). Munlea, B. (2002). Discussion 25.7.2002. (Liwale District Agriculture and Livestock Development Oﬃ cer).

227 Appendix 1.

Questionnaire

There is a list of different objects below. Choose those objects Now make similar choices from the list of animals. which represent your own images of the rural African landscape. Which of the animals below belong to your image Start from the most important object of your image by marking it of African countryside. You can also add one of your with number 1. Then mark the next important with number 2. and so own if t is not in the list. on. Choose as many as you like or add one of your own objects if it is not on the list. Choose first from the list of places below and then choose from the other list of animals.

___ sorghum field (mtama) ___ zebra (pundamilia) ___ farm house (nyumba) ___ goat (mbuzi) ___ grinding mill (mashine ya kusaga) ___ chicken (kuku) ___ tree savanna (msitu) ___ elephant (tembo) ___ river (mto) ___ snake (nyoka) ___ vegetable garden (bustani) ___ duck (bata) ___ tree plantation (mashamba ya miti) ___ lion (simba) ___ goat shelter (ulbanda ya mbuzi) ___ buffalo (nyati) ___ bush savanna (mbuga) ___ cattle (ng’ombe) ___ forest (closed) (msitu uliofunga) ___ sheep (kondoo) ___ pasture land (malisho ya mifugo) ___ dog (mbwa) ___ cassava plantation (mashamba ya mihogo) ___ dove (njiwa) ___ fish pond (bwawa la samaki) ___ impala (swala) ___ lake (ziwa) ___ warthog (ngiri) ___ school building (majengo ya shule) ___ baboon (nyani) ______(other, what?) ______(other, what?)

Mwanaume (male) / Mwanamke (female) Umri (Age) ______Jina la kijiji (Name of the village) ______