Comparing and Contrasting Wildlife Management Policies in Tanzania and Kenya

Comparing and Contrasting Wildlife Management Policies in Tanzania and Kenya

Africa’s environment is extremely different than that of North America, Europe, and even Asia. Because of this, there are many animals that are found in the wild in Africa that aren’t in many other continents (such as lions, giraffes, elephants, zebras and rhinos). Tourists from around the world come to see these exotic animals in protected areas like national parks and reserves. In Tanzania, tourism counts for 14% of the country’s GDP and a little over 25% of the land is protected for wildlife. For Kenya, tourism accounts
for 12% of GDP and 21% of the total foreign exchange earnings. It is also the second largest division of Kenya’s economy. Kenya has 57 protected areas that cover 8% of the country’s land. Because tourism is such an important part of both countries’ economies, it is important to conserve wildlife and their habitats.
Both countries are in East Africa and are adjacent to each other, but have developed different wildlife management strategies beginning from when they were colonized. Some strategies have been successful while other strategies have failed. Policies have changed over the years to accommodate the changes in the country as well. The following paper analyzes 8 sources which evaluate Tanzania or Kenya’s wildlife management policies and strategies. These papers are all related but vary in many ways, such as different viewpoints and suggestions, intended audience, the background knowledge needed, and the specific time period or method that is being evaluated.

“Natural Resources.” The Untied Republic of Tanzania National Website. http://www.tanzania.go.tz/naturalresourcesf.html (Accessed April 5, 2013).
This website is part of the national website of Tanzania and is managed by the government. This portion of the website is specifically dedicated to natural resources. It is organized into sectors: fisheries, forests, wildlife, beekeeping and tourism. Each sector has a description of natural resource, including the importance of the sector and how it influences the economy, the role of the public and private sector and reforms in the sector. There is also contact information provided for each sector. This paper will use details from the wildlife sector. The first subsection describes how protected areas are important for tourism. It also includes the benefits the communities adjacent to the protected areas get, such as employment and hunting. The next subsection describes the biodiversity of Tanzania’s wildlife resources including the number of endemic species. It also describes the habitats found in Tanzania. The next couple sections describe the wildlife policy and list the policy objectives. It also includes how they are trying to improve the policy and make sure it is effective. Finally, there is a short description of the public and private sector, followed by contact information for the stakeholders.

“Overview – About Us.” Kenya Wildlife Service. http://www.kws.org/about/ (Accessed April 5, 2013).
This website is the homepage of the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS). This specific page describes the KWS, including its role in wildlife conservation and management. The website also describes the challenges of wildlife conservation and how it addresses those challenges. It states the vision, mission, and values of the KWS, as well as information on the protected areas of the country (national parks and reserves), which includes the number of each type of protected area as well as what else is in the park (e.g. research centers, airstrips, training institutes, etc.). It also describes tourism for Kenya, including its importance in Kenya’s economy and what efforts the KWS provides to enhance and support the tourism industry. In addition, a major part of the KWS is conserving and managing wildlife. Thus there is a section on this page that is devoted to the specific strategies and goals of the KWS for wildlife management and conservation research. It also describes how laws will be enforced (e.g. to prevent poaching, they have ground and aerial patrols). It describes who the KWS works with, and how they help support the KWS’s goals.

Akama, John. “The evolution of wildlife conservation policies in Kenya.” Journal of Third World Studies 15, no.2 (1998): 103-117.
The journal article discusses the historical and political wildlife conservation policies in Kenya and how these policies have led to increased human wildlife conflicts with the increase in population. The author begins with pre-colonial times and how the communities used their resources sustainably. However, colonization led to a decrease in the wildlife population due to many reasons which Akama describes in detail. He then goes to describe how conservation measures were put in to place in the early 20th century, such as the creation of national parks. However, Akama points out the negative results these measures had on the local community. Even when Kenya became independent, the author points out how there were still western influences on the conservation of wildlife. Because of the lack of involvement and participation of the local communities, wildlife populations are continuing to decrease and Akama provides suggestions for how to include the communities in wildlife conservation and management.

Mkumbukwa, Abdallah. “The evolution of wildlife conservation policies in Tanzania during the colonial and post-independence periods.” Development of Southern Africa 25, no. 5 (2008): 559-600.
This journal article looks at the conservation policies in Tanzania from the colonial to post-independence, up to and including the 1998 Wildlife Policy.  The article focuses on how the policies affect the local communities, emphasizing how local communities haven’t had the same rights as tourists or the same access to resources. Mkumbukwa fist looks at pre-colonial times and the relationship between the communities and the wildlife. He established that there was wildlife conservation. However when Tanzania was colonized, the settlers established conservation methods used in other areas of the world, which excluded the community. He provides specific examples of how the community has been excluded and denied access to resources that was available previously by describing the laws that were enacted by and the effects they had on the community. Mkumbukwa also points out the effects of British colonialism and German colonialism on wildlife conservation. Even after independence, the government made policies that excluded the communities to boost tourism and the economy. The author then discusses the laws and policies that were enacted in the 1970’s and later which began to focus on the community’s needs as well. He ends describing the Wildlife Policy of Tanzania, which promotes the community-based conservation method for wildlife conservation. Thus, he concludes, that Tanzania is moving towards a sustainable future by including the community in its wildlife management practices.

Stoner, Chantal, Tim Caro, Simon Mduma, Charles Mlingwa, George Sabuni, and Markus Borner. “Assessment of effectiveness of protection strategies in Tanzania based on a decade of survey data for large herbivores.” Conservation Biology 21, no. 3 (2007): 635-646.
This journal article looks at the effectiveness of different protection areas in Tanzania by evaluating the count of large herbivores. The authors wanted to know whether there was more wildlife in better protected areas because the protection was successful or because there were higher densities there initially. They used aerial surveys to collect data on the number of large mammals they saw and used that data to calculate whether the percentage of a species was increasing, not significantly changing, declining, or they weren’t found in enough cells to calculate a decline. Their results showed that in all protection areas, there is a significant decline of large herbivores over the decade, but more species did well in strictly protected national parks. They also found that the number of species doing well was significantly less than the species doing well in game-controlled areas and other less protected areas. These findings mean that national parks are the most effective at conserving large mammals, but are only protecting some species. They go on to describe the study limitations (e.g. small sample size) and future directions (e.g. continue to take surveys throughout the decade).

Lusigi, Walter. “New approaches to wildlife conservation in Kenya.” Ambio 10, no. 2/3 (1981): 87-92.
In this journal article, Walter divides conservation problems in Kenya into two categories: problems involving cultural, political, and socio-economic factors; and those with ecological factors. He states that the first set of problems must be solved before the second can be completely resolved. He briefly discusses the history of Kenya with regards to conservation of wildlife. He discusses the cultural, socio-economic, and ecological factors that must be considered to have a successful wildlife conservation plan. Walter believes that the communities need to have a good relationship with wildlife so they should have compensation and benefits from tourism. He describes his basic planning philosophy of coordinating park management with the management of the land surrounding it. Walter proposes a management system that has three different categories of land use (national park, protected area and multiple use area). He describes this idea in detail then compares it with Biosphere Reserves.

Hackel, Jeffrey. “Community conservation and the future of Arica’s wildlife.” Conservation Biology 13, no. 4 (1999): 726-734.
This journal article evaluates community-based conservation (CBC) and how effective it is. The author explains the concept of CBC, its goals, and how it accomplishes their goals. Even though it seems like a solution because it gives the local communities a say in land-use decisions and will be able to use the resources of the land. However Hackel believes CBC may not be the best solution, and there are many problems with it that are being overlooked. He describes how population growth, land-use pressures, poverty, and democratization affect conservation. Then he provides four case studies that show problems with CBC. Hackel promotes protectionism in Kenya, but believes that CBC has many positives as well because it doesn’t ignore the local communities.

Newmark, William. “The role and design of wildlife corridors with examples from Tanzania.” Ambio 22, no. 8 (1993): 500-504.
The journal article focuses on the solution of wildlife corridors to conserve wildlife. Newmark defines wildlife corridors as “a habitat that permits the movement of organisms between ecological isolates”.  He describes wildlife corridors and how important they are for mitigating adverse effects of habitat fragmentation. There are many factors that need to be taken into account for designing wildlife corridors (such as what the target species are, the habitat requirements, etc.). Newmark also addresses the problems with wildlife corridors and how to minimize those problems. He provides two examples of proposed policies for wildlife corridors in Tanzania (specifically for Eastern Usambara Mountains, and Mount Kilimanjaro).

These eight sources address the issue of wildlife conservation in either Tanzania or Kenya. By analyzing these sources critically, the reader can compare and contrast the works. Even though the works fall under the same general theme, they vary slightly in subject material, some more specific than others, writing style, the intended audience and background knowledge needed, and differing viewpoints on what will be successful for wildlife management and conservation in Tanzania and Kenya.
These works are all related to wildlife management, however they vary in the time periods, and specific policies and management plans. The two websites from the Kenya Wildlife Service and the United Republic of Tanzania present the current wildlife management policies and plans. The articles “The evolution of wildlife conservation policies in Kenya” by John Akama, and “The evolution of wildlife conservation policies in Tanzania during the colonial and post-independence periods” by Abdallah Mkumbukwa, however, cover past wildlife conservation policies. Both of these articles start with how communities interacted with wildlife pre-colonization and then continue through the country’s history to current day. The articles by Chantal Stoner, et. al., “Assessment of effectiveness of protection strategies in Tanzania based on a decade of survey data for large herbivores” and Jeffrey Hackel, “Community conservation and the future of Africa’s wildlife”, evaluates policies that were implemented in the past and are still used today. On the other hand, the articles “The role and design of wildlife corridors with examples from Tanzania” by William Newmark, and “New approaches to wildlife conservation in Kenya” by Walter Lusigi, promote newer ideas for wildlife management and conservation. These ideas have been established in very few areas, if any.
Another way these sources vary is the author’s writing style. Some authors write in first person, while others write in third person. The different types of writing present information in a different way and may allow the readers to connect better with the author. These authors clearly establish their views in the articles. For example, in the article “New approaches to wildlife conservation in Kenya” Walter Lusigi created his own philosophy which he thought will be successful for wildlife management. Jeffrey Hackel, the author of the article “Community conservation and the future of Africa’s wildlife” also uses first person when evaluating the community-based conservation method for wildlife management and conservation. It gives the papers a more personal feel where the reader feels like he/she can connect with the author better. Excluding these two articles, the others are written in third person and focus on presenting information in a seemingly unbiased way. The article “Assessment of effectiveness of protection strategies in Tanzania based on a decade of survey data for large herbivores” by Chantal Stone, et. al. presents and evaluates information in scientific way. This can be intimidating for those who are not familiar with this type of article.
The background knowledge and intended audience varies between the sources. The two websites from the Kenya Wildlife Service and the Untied Republic of Tanzania contain information for the general public. There isn’t a lot of detail or specifics of the wildlife policies for either country, but it provides the basics of each country’s wildlife management and conservation plan. The KWS website is dedicated to the mission of the KWS and providing more information about them, while the Tanzanian website covers all natural resources, including wildlife. The KWS website is much more user friendly with the information displayed in a format that is easier to read (bullet points) and has different links to different sections. In order to find the wildlife section on the Tanzania website, users have to scroll down to find it, and hope they don’t pass it because the sections are not separated in very significant ways (just the titles of the section are bolded). There is a lot of information displayed on just one page which can be intimidating for readers who want to learn only about one topic. But, both websites are easy to understand and intended for those without previous knowledge on the topic. The articles by John Akama and Abdallah Mkumbukwa are also general articles that people with little background of wildlife conservation could understand. They assume the reader knows a little about the history of Kenya and Tanzania, but even if they don’t, it is easy to follow and understand.
On the other hand, the scientific journal article “Assessment of effectiveness of protection strategies in Tanzania based on a decade of survey data for large herbivores” by Stoner, et. al. requires much more background knowledge and is intended for other scientists and researchers. Even though they provide adequate background information for those who aren’t familiar with the topic, it is hard to understand their methods and results without knowledge in that area. The journal articles by Jeffrey Hackel, Walter Lusigi, William Newmark, and Isaac Sindiga are also not intended for the general public. However, these articles are easier to understand than the article by Stoner, et. al. They provide a lot of background information that is organized into clearly labeled headings. Because the papers are well organized, it is easier to understand them.
Each work states what it thinks is necessary for wildlife conservation to be successful. With the exception of one article, all of the works state that it is important for the communities in Tanzania and Kenya to be involved in conservation if the wildlife will be managed and conserved successfully. The articles “The evolution of wildlife conservation policies in Kenya” and “The evolution of wildlife conservation policies in Tanzania during the colonial and post-independence periods” by John Akama and Abdallah Mumbukwa, respectively, both state how local communities were excluded from the initial wildlife management policies put in place when they were colonized, and they discussed the negative effects it had on the communities. The other articles state how wildlife conservation has been challenging because the communities aren’t involved. The article “The role and design of wildlife corridors with examples from Tanzania” by William Newmark is the only article that doesn’t address the importance of the community in wildlife conservation and management. Instead this article focuses on one solution: wildlife corridors.
In conclusion, wildlife management is a very important issue in both Tanzania and Kenya. Wildlife is a huge factor of both countries’ economy, which is the major reason why it needs to be managed. There are many different possible solutions, and the eight works evaluate policies that have been put in place. Although there are many similarities in wildlife management policies between the two countries, there are also many differences. By critically evaluating these policies and management systems, one can compare and contrast the wildlife policies between the two countries.

Bibliography
Akama, John. “The evolution of wildlife conservation policies in Kenya.” Journal of Third World Studies 15, no. 2 (1998): 103-117.
Hackel, Jeffrey. “Community conservation and the future of Arica’s wildlife.” Conservation Biology 13, no. 4 (1999): 726-734.
Lusigi, Walter. “New approaches to wildlife conservation in Kenya.” Ambio 10, no. 2/3 (1981): 87-92.
Mkumbukwa, Abdallah. “The evolution of wildlife conservation policies in Tanzania during the colonial and post-independence periods.” Development of Southern Africa 25, no. 5 (2008): 559-600.
“Overview – About Us.” Kenya Wildlife Service. http://www.kws.org/about/ (Accessed April 5, 2013).
“Natural Resources.” The Untied Republic of Tanzania National Website. http://www.tanzania.go.tz/naturalresourcesf.html (Accessed April 5, 2013).
Newmark, William. “The role and design of wildlife corridors with examples from Tanzania.” Ambio 22, no. 8 (1993): 500-504.
Sindiga, Isaac. “Wildlife-based Tourism in Kenya: Land use conflicts and government compensation policies over protected areas.” The Journal of Tourism Studies 16, no. 2 (1995): 45-55. http://www.jcu.edu.au/business/public/groups/everyone/documents/journal_article/jcudev_012610.pdf
Stoner, Chantal, Tim Caro, Simon Mduma, Charles Mlingwa, George Sabuni, and Markus Borner. “Assessment of effectiveness of protection strategies in Tanzania based on a decade of survey data for large herbivores.” Conservation Biology 21, no. 3 (2007): 635-646.