Abstract
Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) are establishments that promote wildlife conservation and rural development in Tanzania. However, through focus group discussions, key informant interviews, a questionnaire survey, and literature review, we found that the participation of local people in both the establishment and management of the WMA was limited and rife with conflict. While benefits have materialized at the communal level, local people saw neither value nor benefit of the WMA to their livelihoods. Specifically, local people’s access to natural resources got worse while private eco-tourism investors and the central government have gained financially. Contrary to the livelihood enhancing WMA rhetoric, top-down institutional choices have sidelined democratically elected Village Governments and successive legislative adjustments disenfranchised and dispossessed them and their constituencies. We conclude that village governments should consistently demand for their legal rights to the resources on their land...
Highlights
The 1990s surge in various forms of decentralized management of natural resources in Africa sparked scholarly interest in the outcome of Community-Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM; Nelson & Agrawal, 2008; Ostrom, 1999; Ribot, 2002, 2004; Songorwa, Buhrs, & Hughey, 2000)
The 1974 Wildlife Conservation Act was repealed by the Wildlife Conservation Act No 5 of 2009, which forms the legal basis for subsequent Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) Regulations
We observed that local people, contrary to the rhetoric livelihood enhancing objectives of the 1998 Wildlife policy, felt disenfranchised and dispossessed because of the WMA
Summary
The 1990s surge in various forms of decentralized management of natural resources in Africa sparked scholarly interest in the outcome of Community-Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM; Nelson & Agrawal, 2008; Ostrom, 1999; Ribot, 2002, 2004; Songorwa, Buhrs, & Hughey, 2000). Some CBNRM programs at some point appeared reasonably successful in their promotion of natural resource conservation and improved rural livelihoods These include Community Conservancies in Namibia, the Communal Areas Management Program for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) in Zimbabwe, and the Administrative Management and Design for Game Management Areas (ADMADE) in Zambia (Nelson & Agrawal, 2008; Songorwa, 1999). The outcomes include reduced welfare of involved communities, the most vulnerable subgroups rather than development and poverty alleviation as envisioned (Roe & Nelson, 2009) Major weaknesses of this kind are, for instance, observed in ADMADE in Zambia and CAMPFIRE in Zimbabwe (Junge, 2002; Mutandwa & Gadzirayi, 2009; Nelson & Agrawal, 2008; Regional Center for Southern Africa, 1998; Ribot, 2004)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
