Impact of Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas on household wealth

Abstract

Large-scale area-based conservation measures affect millions of people globally. Understanding their social impacts is necessary to improve effectiveness and minimise negative consequences. However, quantifying the impacts of conservation measures that affect large geographic areas and diverse peoples is expensive and methodologically challenging, particularly because such evaluations should capture locally-defined conceptions of wellbeing while permitting policy-relevant comparisons. We measure the impact of Tanzania's Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs), a national community-based conservation and poverty reduction initiative. We used a novel, cost-effective impact evaluation method based on participatory wealth-ranking and Bayesian multilevel modelling. We find that from 2007-2015 the impacts of WMAs on wealth were small and variable, with no clear evidence of widespread poverty reduction. Accompanying qualitative data suggest that apparently positive effects in one WMA cannot be directly attributed to WMA activities. Our results suggest that current WMA policy needs to be revisited if it is to promote positive economic development. WMA name Region (Study Area) Year initiated Year gazetted Level of restrictions Generation of revenues

Progress or regression? Institutional evolutions of community‐based conservation in eastern and southern Africa

“…Moreover, cost and benefit sharing, including the allocation of receipts within WMA member villages, remains a fundamental challenge to the sustainability of WMAs (Sulle & Banka, 2017). This is a core reason why the livelihood impacts of WMAs, despite the opportunities afforded by a wildlife tourism industry that generates over $1 billion annually in Tanzania, have been minimal (Keane et al, 2020). More broadly, a considerable body of scholarship has built up over the past 15 years critiquing the limitations of WMAs, including but not limited to their frequently top‐down facilitation, the livelihood restrictions they often impose on local land use practices, and conflicts related to both structure and implementation (Bluwstein et al, 2016; Moyo, Funk, & Pretzsch, 2017; Keane et al, 2020).…”

More robust local governance suggests positive effects of long‐term community conservation

“…CBC experiences significant challenges in transferring direct benefits to people, both in Tanzania and globally (Brooks, 2017; Galvin et al, 2018; Keane et al, 2020). Challenges include limited wildlife tourism revenue transferred from the central state to CBC administrative bodies and then to households, elite capture of benefits, and lack of decision‐making authority held by member households.…”

“…Long‐running CBC programs show that decreased resource access and often frequent wildlife conflicts can significantly impact CBC households (Benjaminsen, Goldman, Minwary, & Maganga, 2013; Kaswamila, Russell, & McGibbon, 2007; Salerno et al, 2016). Yet few CBC households in Tanzania receive direct payments from CBC administrative bodies, despite the nation's profitable wildlife tourism sector and in some cases appreciable CBC revenue (Bluwstein, 2017; Keane et al, 2020; Maliasili, 2013; Sekar, Weiss, & Dobson, 2014). More commonly, program benefits come in the form of new schools, health facilities, roads, and irrigation works, as well as funding for scholarships and civil society organizations.…”

“…Although economic and social influences of CBC interventions have been suggested to support stronger governance in Tanzania (Salerno et al, 2016), interventions are more often associated with these above governance challenges (Benjaminsen et al, 2013; Bluwstein et al, 2016; see also Muyengwa, Child, & Lubilo, 2014). In response to the unclear impacts of CBC in Tanzania (Keane et al, 2020; Maliasili, 2013), along with evidence showing the importance of supporting local governance through clear programmatic strategy (Brooks et al, 2012; Galvin et al, 2018), we undertake a multi‐site investigation into the potential for an ongoing 18‐year CBC intervention to influence governance capacity at the village level.…”

Adaptation and evolution of institutions and governance in community‐based conservation

“…For example, national forest policy may be altered, often in partnership with conservation NGOs, to redefine land tenure and user rights, granting communities the authority and autonomy to manage local forests (e.g., Hajjar et al, 2020; Wright, Andersson, Gibson, & Evans, 2016). On‐ground interventions, for instance in the wildlife sector, may include conservation NGOs providing capacity support for area‐based wildlife conservation on community controlled lands, such as ranger training, boundary demarcation, and tourism sector development (e.g., Keane et al, 2020; Salerno et al, 2016).…”