ArticlePDF Available

Preserving the New Tanzania: Conservation and Land Use Change

Authors:
International Journal of African Historical Studies
Vol. 41, No. 3 (2008) 557
Preserving the New Tanzania: Conservation and
Land Use Change*
By Dan Brockington, Hassan Sachedina, and Katherine Scholfield
Introduction
Consider the facts. Tanzania has the largest protected area estate in Africa, both absolutely
and relatively. Tanzania at independence inherited a large protected area estate, it has been
vigorously expanding it ever since, and particularly so in recent years. Table 1, drawn from
the World Database of Protected Areas, shows its dominance. Excluded, however, from
those data are forest reserves, which cover a further 10 percent of the country. We then
have to consider the expansion of the Katavi and Mikumi National Park, the creation of the
Rukwa, Luafi and Usangu Game Reserves, the creation of the Kitulo National Park and
upgrading of Mkomazi Game Reserve to National Park status, and the upgrading of the
forest reserves on Kilimanjaro to National Park status, all within the last ten years.
Tanzania had set aside about 31 percent of its land mass by 2003 in national parks, game
reserves and forest reserves (we have not included game controlled areas), and that was
before the expansion of Mikumi National Park was announced. Tanzania’s conservation
estate is unrivalled in Africa.
In addition, there is another expansion of less formally protected conservation
estate, at the village level. Two types are prominent—wildlife management areas and
village forest reserves. The former involves villages setting aside a portion of their land for
wildlife habitat, often adjacent to national parks and game reserves, and then selling the
right to hunt or photograph wildlife on those lands to tour operators. The process is fraught
with conflict. Some villages insist that they were not properly consulted and resent the
sudden and peculiar appearance of wildlife management areas on their land.1 Others have
set up their own agreements independently of government support, and earned valuable
sums from it.2
* The authors thank Fred Nelson and an anonymous reviewer for their careful critiques of earlier drafts.
Dan Brockington is grateful to the support of the ESRC for his Research Fellowship on the Social Impacts of
Protected Areas (RES-000-27-0174) that he held while working on this paper.
1 Jim Igoe and Beth Croucher “Poverty Alleviation Meets the Spectacle of Nature: Does Reality
Matter?” Conservation and Society 5, 4 (2007), 534–61.
2 Fred Nelson, “The Evolution andIimpacts of Community-Based Ecotourism in Northern Tanzania.”
IIED Drylands Programme Issue Paper 131 (2004); Fred Nelson and Sinandei O. Makko, Communities,
Conservation and Conflicts in the Tanzanian Serengeti” (Third Annual Community-Based Conservation
Network Seminar: Turning Natural Resources into Assets, Savannah Georgia, 2003).
558 Dan Brockington, Hassan Sachedina, and Katherine Scholfield
Less financially lucrative, but still important for the landscape and protected area
estate, has been the growth of village forest reserves and ngitili. The former are areas of
village land with demarcated boundaries and locally agreed and enforced rules of use.
They have been endorsed with national level legislation and are growing in diverse regions
in the country.3 The latter are private and village owned grazing and forest reserves set up
to strengthen local resource use. Ngitili are a traditional institution of the Sukuma people
which had fallen into disrepair, but have since been invigorated with demonstrable
ecological and livelihood impacts, particularly in the region south of Lake Victoria.4
We will examine two aspects of this remarkable division and categorization of land
in Tanzania. First, we will consider what its consequences for vegetation, wildlife, and
people have been. Then we will examine some of the forces that have marshalled and
directed this expansion. We will argue that, although the initial impetus for the
conservation estate derived from a colonial vision for Africa’s landscape, Tanzania’s
remarkable growth of protected areas reflects vigorous state support for conservation
(boosted by the revenues it offers) combined with a powerful international conservation
lobby. Extensive as the expansion of the conservation estate has been, it is difficult to
imagine the growth ceasing.
Landscape Change
In 1930 Major Richard Hingston was sent to Tanganyika by the Society for the
Preservation of the Fauna of the Empire to investigate the possibility of establishing
national parks there as part of a coordinated program of nature conservation in African
lands. Hingston’s report envisaged a future where agricultural development had
transformed the landscape except in the parks, where wildlife alone could be found.5 He
3 Liz Alden Wily and Peter A. Dewees, “From Users to Custodians: Changing Relations between
People and the State in Forest Management in Tanzania,” World Bank Policy Research Paper No. 2569
(2001); Liz Alden Wily and Othmar Haule, “Good News from Tanzania: Village Forest Reserves in the
Making—the Story of Duru-Haitemba,” Forest, Trees and People Newsletter 29 (1995), 28–37; Elmer Topp-
Jorgensen, Michael K. Poulsen, Jens F. Lund, and John F. Massao, “Community-Based Monitoring of
Natural Resource Use and Forest Quality in Montane Forests and Miombo Woodlands of Tanzania,”
Biodiversity and Conservation 14, 11 (2005), 2653–77; Lorenz Petersen and Anna Sandhovel, “Forestry
Policy Reform and the Role of Incentives in Tanzania,” Forest Policy and Economics 2, 1 (2001), 39–55;
Tom Blomely and H. Ramadhani, “Going to Scale with Participatory Forest Management: Early Lessons
from Tanzania,” International Forestry Review 8, 1 (2006), 93–100.
4 G.C. Monela, S.A.O. Chamshana, R. Mwaipopo, and D.M. Gamassa, “A Study of the Social,
Economic and Environmental Impacts of Forest Landscape Restoration in Shinyanga Region, Tanzania”
(Nairobi, IUCN, Eastern Africa Regional Office, 2004). How village government has been strengthened to
support them is less apparent. See Dan Brockington, “Devolution, Community Conservation, and Forests: On
Local Government Performance and Village Forest Reserves in Tanzania,” Society and Natural Resources 20
(2007), 835–48.
5 Richard W.G. Hingston, “Proposed British National Parks for Africa.” The Geographical Journal 77,
(1931), 401–428.
Preserving the New Tanzania 559
Table 1: Trends in Terrestrial Protected Area Establishment (IUCN category 1–4)
1959–2004.
Country
Percentage of land
area set aside 1959
Growth 1960–
2004 as a % of
land available
Percentage of
land set aside
in 2004
Area of land
area set aside
2004 (km2)
Rural Pop.
density/km2
Tanzania
9.0%
8.0%
16.5%
145,938
19
Chad
0.1%
9.6%
9.7%
121,869
3
DRC
0.8%
3.8%
5.1%
115,228
No data
Botswana
0.0%
18.4%
18.4%
104,406
1
Niger
0.2%
6.5%
6.7%
84,940
4
Sudan
1.0%
2.3%
3.3%
78,571
7
CAR
10.0%
2.0%
11.8%
73,512
3
South Africa
2.6%
1.5%
5.2%
63,958
12
Zambia
0.0%
8.4%
8.4%
62,442
5
Angola
1.8%
2.5%
4.3%
53,233
5
Ethiopia
0.6%
4.8%
5.3%
52,868
No data
Mali
2.4%
0.6%
3.0%
36,382
5
Nigeria
0.1%
3.8%
3.9%
35,484
59
Kenya
4.1%
2.0%
6.0%
34,051
25
Congo
0.3%
9.5%
9.8%
33,320
3
Burkina Faso
3.5%
7.9%
12.1%
33,063
25
Namibia
0.0%
4.0%
4.0%
32,970
1
Cameroon
1.5%
4.8%
6.8%
31,461
13
Mozambique
0.0%
3.7%
3.7%
29,017
13
Zimbabwe
4.1%
3.1%
7.0%
27,194
15
Senegal
4.4%
6.9%
11.2%
21,550
19
Uganda
3.8%
6.9%
10.5%
20,724
63
Ivory Coast
0.0%
6.2%
6.2%
19,756
18
Madagascar
0.7%
1.7%
2.4%
14,137
13
Ghana
0.0%
4.7%
4.7%
10,583
37
Malawi
3.2%
7.8%
10.7%
10,076
64
Benin
5.2%
2.7%
7.8%
8,644
25
Eritrea
5.9%
0.0%
5.9%
5,923
No data
Eq. Guinea
0.0%
16.3%
16.3%
4,559
7
Togo
7.6%
0.0%
7.6%
4,136
39
Rwanda
7.3%
4.5%
11.4%
2,817
205
Mauritania
0.2%
0.0%
0.2%
2,500
1
Somalia
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
1,802
7
Sierra Leone
0.8%
1.1%
1.9%
1,328
36
Burundi
1.5%
3.5%
5.0%
1,282
170
Gabon
0.0%
0.4%
0.4%
1,076
1
Liberia
0.0%
1.0%
1.0%
965
13
Guinea
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
425
16
Swaziland
0.0%
2.1%
2.1%
359
30
Lesotho
0.0%
0.3%
0.3%
87
39
Gambia
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
5
58
Source: Protected Area data from the World Database of Protected Areas 2005. Population Density data are
from the World Bank 2004.
560 Dan Brockington, Hassan Sachedina, and Katherine Scholfield
Figure 1. From Hingston 1931. Proposed national parks are shaded in black.
Preserving the New Tanzania 561
Figure 2. The current geography of protected areas in East Africa. Note, does not include
forest reserves.
562 Dan Brockington, Hassan Sachedina, and Katherine Scholfield
proposed three modest parks for Tanganyika (Figure 1). The current geography of
protected areas differs in that much more land is set aside, and in larger constellations
(Figure 2). In many places the contrast between protected and unprotected land has
unfurled as Hingston foretold, but not always, and not always as he might have expected.
Tanzania’s protected areas have long been chronically under-funded, and under-policed.
But its regulations do have teeth. The regulations have visible impacts in the vegetation,
landscape, and wildlife distributions of the country, as well as the lives and livelihoods of
its citizens. To appreciate their achievements it is helpful to step back and consider some
broader recent ecological trends.
Kjekhus has suggested that precolonial bush clearance allowed East Africans to
cope with the threat of trypanosomiasis.6 The collapse of livestock and human populations
after rinderpest (which arrived in 1891) was partly due to the collapse of their ecological
controls. The recovery of populations in the twentieth century required that control to be
re-established by re-clearing the bush. The history of that century therefore in Tanzania
can partly be told in fallen trees, as rural peoples (with some government assistance)
cleared the bush to eradicate the tsetse. Ford records that the British administration cleared
ca. 2,000 km2 of bush to rid it of the tsetse fly, but that local, unsupervised clearance added
a further 7,000 km2 of fly-free land.7 The transition from the forest reserves of Tabora
north to the treeless zones of Mwanza near the lake reflect that history of population
expansion and land clearance.8
Generally, therefore, on the largest scale, it should be no surprise that the impacts
of conservation are visible in the relative vigorous vegetation cover. Pelkey and colleagues
examined NDVI and LANDSAT satellite data for the years 1982–94 and 1978–82,
respectively. They found that vegetation in national parks and game reserves was generally
greener (healthier) than unprotected land, particularly woodlands, swamps, and bushlands.
Forest reserves however, which are often not patrolled, did not provide strong protection.9
The health of montane forests is particularly tightly tied to strong conservation
policies. The Eastern Arc forests, found on isolated mountains and rich in biodiversity,
6 Jim Giblin, “Trypanosomiasis Control in African History: An Evaded Issue?” Journal of African
History 31, (1990), 59–80; Jim Giblin, The Politics of Environmental Control in Northeastern Tanzania
1840–1940 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992); Jim Giblin, “East Coast Fever in Socio-
Historical Context: A Case Study from Tanzania,” International Journal of African Historical Studies 23,
(1990), 401–21; Helge Kjekshus, Ecology Con trol and Economic Development in East African History: The
Case of Tanganyika 1850–1950 (1977; reprint, London: James Currey, 1996).
7 John Ford, The Role of Trypanosomiasis in African Ecology: A Study of the Tsetse Fly Problem
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971).
8 Per Brandstrom, “The Agro-Pastoral Dilemma: Underutilisation or Overexploitation of Land among
the Sukuma of Tanzania,” Working Papers in African Studies, No. 8 (African Studies Programme,
Department of Cultural Anthropology, Sweden, 1985); Per Brandstrom, “Boundless Universe: The Culture of
Expansion among the Sukuma-Nyamwezi of Tanzania” (Ph.D. thesis, Uppsala University, 1990).
9 N.W. Pelkey, C.J. Stoner and T.M. Caro, “Vegetation in Tanzania: Assessing Long Term Trends in
Effects of Protection Using Satellite Imagery,” Biological Conservation 94 (2000), 297–309.
Preserving the New Tanzania 563
have been substantially cleared by farmers seeking fertile land in well watered, often
malaria free mountains. Conte has documented the devastating clearance of a forest reserve
in the Usambara mountains after it was degazetted following independence.10
But at smaller scales, and in particular ecosystems, this general rule cannot be
applied. The Ngorongoro Conservation Area, in which people live, performs better than
national parks where they do not. Homewood and colleagues’ comparative study of land
cover change in the Serengeti ecosystem between Kenya and Tanzania shows that what
matters is not the categorization of land into protected and unprotected, but the form of
tenure and the opportunities for commercial agriculture they afford.11
At the general level, the protection of vegetation is matched by higher abundances
of wildlife within protected area boundaries.12 Heavier ungulates in particular, targeted by
poachers for their better returns for effort, are more abundant in protected areas.13 More
strictly protected areas are better more often for more species than less protected areas. But
this is not just a story of healthy wildlife populations amid a sea of change. Some large
species (buffalo and eland) fared better outside national parks and game reserves in some
ecosystems. Moreover it is not yet possible to test how different species fare under
different forms of protection that require more local participation.14
Another difficulty is that in many ecosystems numerous species depend on land
beyond the borders of national parks. The health of the ecosystem therefore depends not
just on the land that has been protected by the state, but the nature of land use outside its
boundaries.15 The Amboseli National Park protects a small dry season concentration area,
10 Chris A. Conte, “The Forest Becomes a Desert: Forest Use and Environmental Change in Tanzania’s
West Usambara Mountains,” Land Degradation and Development 10 (1999), 291–309.
11 Katherine Homewood, “Policy, Environment and Development in African Rangelands,”
Environmental Science and Policy 7 (2004), 125–43; Kathy Homewood, Eric F. Lambin, Ernestina Coast, A.
Kariuki, Idris Kikula, Julius Kivelia, M. Said, S. Serneels, and Mick Thompson, “Long-Term Changes in
Serengeti-Mara Wildebeest and Land Cover: Pastoralism, Population, or Policies?” Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98 (2001), 12544–49; Mick Thompson and
Katherine Homewood, “Entrepreneurs, Elites and Exclusion in Maasailand: Trends in Wildlife Conservation
and Pastoralist Development,” Human Ecology 30, 1 (2002), 107–37.
12 Chantal Stoner, Tim Caro, Simon Mduma, Charles Mlingwa, George Sabuni, Marcus Borner, and C.
Schelten, “Changes in Large Herbivore Populations Across Large Areas of Tanzania,” African Journal of
Ecology 45, 2 (2007), 202–15; Tim M. Caro, N. Pelkey, Marcus Borner, K.L.I. Campbell, B.L. Woodworth,
B.P. Farm, J.O. Kuwai, S.A. Huish and E.L.M. Severre, “Consequences of Different Forms of Conservation
for Large Mammals in Tanzania: Preliminary Analyses,” African Journal of Ecology 36, 4 (1998), 303–20.
13 Caro et al., “Consequences.”
14 Stoner et al., “Changes,” 645.
15 Mara Goldman, “Sharing Pastures, Building Dialogues: Maasai and Wildlife Conservation in
Northern Tanzania” (Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin, 2006).
564 Dan Brockington, Hassan Sachedina, and Katherine Scholfield
and wildlife depend on lands beyond it in the wet season.16 The same is true in the
Serengeti and Tarangire, where wildebeest and other herbivores (together with their
carnivore followings) range far beyond national park boundaries into lands where people
live.
The interactions between different species and people can be complex and
unexpected impacts emerge in the relative abundance of different species of wildlife in
protected ecosystems. The impact of parks on decision making, wildlife and land use
change is also often felt far beyond their boundaries. For example, the removal of Maasai
pastoralists from the Serengeti National Park in the 1950s may have facilitated the
irruption of the wildebeest population, from about 200,000 to 1.4 million.17 Populations
were rebounding anyway as they recovered from rinderpest, but the Maasai were wont to
fence off some waterholes for their cattle on the plains in the wet season. Their absence
removed this constraint.18 The result has been the further exclusion of Maasai stock from
the plains of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area where they live with the wildlife.
Wildebeest calves carry malignant catarrhal fever, which is fatal to livestock and herders
have to avoid them. Since 1976 (known to the Maasai as the year of the wildebeest),
wildebeest have been too numerous for Maasai livestock to use the fertile short grass
plains in the wet season.19 This confines stock to colder, less productive pastures where
they do not perform well. It is one of the factors, combined with policies suppressing
burning, which has accelerated dependence on agriculture.20
The suppression of elephant hunting by Watta bowmen from Tsavo National Park
in the 1950s resulted in many more elephants and their deforesting of large parts of the
park.21 Before the poaching crisis of the 1970s “solved” the problem, park wardens were
worrying about what to do about the degradation elephants were causing, just as they are in
16 David Western, “Ecosystem Conservation and Rural Development: The Case of Amboseli,” in
David Western and R. Michael Wright, eds., Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-Based
Conservation (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1994).
17 Katherine M. Homewood and W. Alan Rodgers, Maasailand Ecology: Pastoralist Development and
Wildlife Conservation in Ngorongoro, Tanzania (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
18 Katherine Homewood, personal communication, February 2004.
19 Tomas Potkanski, “Pastoral Economy, Property Rights and Traditional Mutual Assistance
Mechanisms among the Ngorongoro and Salei Maasai of Tanzania,” IIED Pastoral Land Tenure Series
Monograph 2 (1997).
20 Kathleen Galvin, Jim Ellis, R.B. Boone, A.L. Magennis, N.M. Smith, S.J. Lynn, and P. Thornton,
“Compatibility of Pastoralism and Conservation? A Test Case Using Integrated Assessment in the
Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania,” in Dawn Chatty and Marcus Colchester, eds., Conservation and
Mobile Indigenous Peoples: Displacement, Forced S ettlement and Sustainable Development (New York:
Berghan Books, 2002).
21 Krishna B. Ghimire and Michel Pimbert, “Social Change and Conservation: An Overview of Issues
and Concepts,” in Krishna B. Ghimire, and Michel Pimbert, eds., Social Change and Conservation (London:
Earthscan, 1997); Ed I. Steinhart, Black Poachers, White hunters: A Social History of Hunting in Colonial
Kenya (Oxford: James Currey, 2006).
Preserving the New Tanzania 565
Southern Africa now. The problem may begin to emerge in Tanzania. Poaching is minimal
and healthy elephant populations are rebounding in national parks. In Tarangire, they have
grown by 7 percent per annum since 1994, close to their known maximum reproductive
rate.22 The population now numbers approximately 2,300 individuals, the largest elephant
population in northern Tanzania. The creation of village forest reserves may have further
extended habitat for elephant populations. Topp-Jorgensen and colleagues report the recent
case for many years of people killed by elephants near the village forest reserve of Mgori,
the first for many years.23
But the creation of parks does not just create healthy populations of wildlife that
migrate beyond their borders. They can also facilitate the depopulation of wildlife outside
their own boundaries. They sharpen their own hard edges; their creation accelerates the
separation of landscape into the categories “developed” and “wild” that Hingston
envisaged. In Tanzania, villagers are alleged to have systematically destroyed chimpanzees
in one forest after a visit from a Parks official was misinterpreted to portend gazettement.24
Sachedina’s research shows that pastoralists turning pasture to agricultural land near
Tarangire state that one of their reasons for doing so was in part to strengthen their claims
to land and counter a perceived threatened expansion of the conservation estate, and in part
to establish the practice that has been banned in the NCA.25 It is not a problem confined to
Tanzania. Villagers in Uganda set about killing as much wildlife as they could to try and
avert the re-creation of the Lake Mburo National Park.26
The hostility results from local resentment of conservation policy. There has been
repeated eviction and continual exclusion from protected areas.27 The eviction of people
from protected areas has been accompanied by sporadic campaigns against residence and
resource use, both nationally (such as operation Uhai in the late 1980s, which clamped
down on elephant poaching) and locally around specific reserves. Encounters with
poachers can be violent—there was a recent scandal in the Serengeti when fifty poachers
from one village were alleged to have been captured and then shot by guards.28 The
presence of safari hunting companies also adds to the eyes (and fire power) on the ground
as armed Wildlife Division rangers are required to accompany every tourist hunting party,
22 Hassan Sachedina, “Wildlife Are Our Oil: Conservation, Livelihoods, and NGOs in the Tarangire
Ecosystem, Tanzania” (D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford, 2008).
23 Topp-Jorgensen, “Community-Based Monitoring.”
24 Martin Walsh, “Mammals in Mtanga: Notes on Ha and Bembe Ethnomammalogy in a Village
Bordering Gombe Streams National Park, Western Tanzania,” MS in author’s possession (1997).
25 Sachedina, “Wildlife Are Our Oil.”
26 David Hulme and Mark Infield, “Community Conservation, Reciprocity and Park-People
Relationships: Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda,” in David Hulme and Marshall Murphree, eds., African
Wildlife and Livelihoods (Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2001).
27 Dan Brockington and Jim Igoe, “Eviction for Conservation: A Global Overview,” Conservation and
Society 4, 3 (2006), 424–70. http://www.conservationandsociety.org/vol-4-3-06.html.
28 Roderick Neumann, “Moral and Discursive Geographies in the War for Biodiversity in Africa,”
Political Geography 23 (2004), 813–37.
566 Dan Brockington, Hassan Sachedina, and Katherine Scholfield
and hunting companies are legally required to conduct anti-poaching activities in their
hunting blocks throughout the year. Finally the role of international NGOs is also
increasing. They too are injecting funds and equipment into making parks and protected
areas work.29
The literature on eviction is generally unsystematic, and we are likely to know of
only a fraction of what has happened.30 But some patterns are apparent. Tanzania is a
country reasonably well-endowed with reports about the impacts of eviction.31 We know
29 J.P. Rodriguez, A.B. Taber, P. Daszak, R. Sukumar, C. Valladares-Padua, S. Padua, L.F. Aguirre,
R.A. Medellin, M. Acosta, A.A. Aguirre, C. Bonacic, P. Bordino, J. Bruschini, D. Buchori, S. Gonzalez, T.
Mathew, M. Mendez, L. Mugica, L. F. Pacheco, A.P. Dobson, and M. Pearl, “Environment—Globalization
of Conservation: A View from the South,” Science 317, 5839 (2007), 755–56; Thaddeus Sunseri,
“‘Something Else to Burn’: Forest Squatters, Conservationists, and the State in Modern Tanzania,” Journal
of Modern African Studies 43, 4 (2005), 609–40.
30 Brockington and Igoe, “Eviction for Conservation”; Arun Agrawal and Kent Redford, “Conservation
and Displacement: An Overview,” in Kent H. Redford and Eva Fearn, eds., Protected Areas and Human
Displacement: A Conservation Perspective (New York: Wildlife Conservation Society, 2007).
31 Kjekshus, “Ecology Control”; Ed Barrow, Helen Gichohi, and Mark Infield, “The Evolution of
Community Conservation Policy and Practice in East Africa,” in David Hulme and Marshall Murphree, eds.,
African Wildlife and Livelihoods (Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2001); Patrick Bergin, “Accommodating
New Narratives in a Conservation Bureaucracy: TANAPA and Community Conservation,” in Hulme and
Murphree, AfricanWildlife; Roderick Neumann, “Local Challenges to Global Agendas: Conservation,
Economic Liberalization and the Pastoralists’ Rights Movement in Tanzania,” Antipode 27 (1995), 363–82;
Roderick Neumann, “Primitive Ideas: Protected Area Buffer Zones and the Politics of Land in Africa,”
Development and Change 28, (1997), 559–82; Roderick Neumann, Imposing Wilderness, Struggles over
Livelihood and Nature Preservation in Africa (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998); W. Alan
Rodgers, R.I. Ludanga, and H.P. DeSuzo, “Biharamulo, Burigi, and Rubondo Island Game Reserves,”
Tanzania Notes and Records 81, 82 (1977), 99–124; Roger Yeager and Norman N. Miller, Wildlife, Wild
Death: Land Use and Survival in Eastern Africa (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986); Lucy
Emerton and I. Mfunda, “Making Wildlife Economically Viable for Communities Living around the Western
Serengeti, Tanzania,” Evaluating Eden Series Discussion Papers 1 (London: IIED, 1999); Elizabeth Fisher,
“Forced Resettlement, Rural Livelihoods and Wildlife Conservation along the Ugalla River in Tanzania,” in
Chatty and Colchester, eds., Conservation; Dan Brockington, Fortress Conservation. The Preservation of the
Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania (Oxford: James Currey, 2002); Henry Fosbrooke, “Pastoralism and Land
Tenure” (paper presented at the workshop on Pastoralism and the Environment, Arusha, Tanzania, April
1990); Kemal Mustaffa, “Eviction of Pastoralists from the Mkomazi Game Reserve in Tanzania: An
Historical Review,” IIED Pastoral Land Tenure Series, No. 8 (1997); A. Mascarenhas, “Ngorongoro: A
Challenge to Conservation and Development,” Ambio 12, 3–4 (1983), 146–52; Eliot Fratkin and T. S.-M.
Wu, “Maasai and Barabaig Herders Struggle for Land Rights in Kenya and Tanzania,” Cultural Survival
Quarterly 21, (1997), 55–61; George Monbiot, No Man’s Land: An Investigative Journey through Kenya and
Tanzania (London: Macmillan, 1995); C. Deihl, “Wildlife and the Maasai,” Cultural Survival Quarterly 9,
(1985), 37–40; Dorothy Hodgson, Once Intrepid Warriors: Gender, Ethnicity, and the Cultural Politics of
Maasai Development (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 2001); William Olenasha, William Ole
Seki, and Margareth Kaisoe, “Tanzania,” in John Nelson and Lindsay Hossack, eds., Indigenous Peoples and
Protected Areas in Africa (Moreton-in-Marsh, UK: Forest Peoples Programme, 2003); Mara Goldman,
“Partitioned Nature, Priviledged Knowledge: Community-Based Conservation in Tanzania,” Development
Preserving the New Tanzania 567
that over 50 percent of the protected area estate (by area) has involved some sort of
clearance of people (Table 2, Table 3). Most of this happened in the middle of the century,
some building on previous policies of clearing land to cope with sleeping sickness, or
confining ethnic groups to “their” areas.32 The removals of the latest waves of expansion
of protected area estate have yet to reach the academic literature surveyed in those tables.
We know of them from the press, which has been concerned about the removals from
Usangu Game Reserve, in which some people died.33
We cannot tell how many people have been moved in total. Veit and Benson have
estimated that 100,000 Maasai pastoralists have been evicted from protected areas in East
Africa.34 This seems unreasonably high; Veit could not break it down to specific figures
from particular protected areas when pressed.35 Our calculations suggest that 22,000 would
be a likely maximum for Maa-speaking pastoralists in Tanzania.36 A further 50,500 people
were moved from three other reserves, but otherwise we have no data on the number of
people displaced by conservation policies that have removed nearly a third of the landmass
of the country from occupation by people.37
Eviction and displacement have been strongly criticized internationally.38 Drastic
measures may sometimes be necessary for the preservation of such species. But there are
and Change 34, (2003), 833–62; Martin Enghoff, “Wildlife Conservation, Ecological Strategies, and Pastoral
Communities: A Contribution to the Understanding of Parks and People in East Africa,” Nomadic Peoples
25–27 (1990), 93–107; Homewood and Rodgers, Maasailand Ecology; Terrence McCabe, S. Perkin, and C.
Sholfield, “Can Conservation and Development Be Coupled among Pastoral People? An Examination of the
Maasai of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania,” Human Organisation 51 (1992), 353–66; Kaj
Arhem, “Pastoralism under Pressure: The Ngorongoro Maasai,” in Jannick Boesen, Kjell J. Havnevik, Juhani
Koponen, and Rie Odgaard, eds., Tanzania Crisis and Struggle for Survival (Uppsala: Scandinavian Institute
of African Studies, 1986); Jim Igoe, Conservation and Globalisation: A Study of National Parks and
Indigenous Communities from East Africa to South Dakota (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning,
2004).
32 Brockington, Fortress Conservation; Fisher, “Forced Resettlement.”
33 Martin Walsh personal communication; Christopher Nyenyembe, “Walazimishwa kuhama Usangu
bila kulipwa fidia,” Daima, 19 March 2007.
34 Peter G. Veit and Catherine Benson, “When Parks and People Collide,Environmental Rights
Spring (2004), 13–14.
35Peter Veit, personal communication, January 2005.
36 Brockington in Fortress Conservation estimates a maximum of 10,000 pastoralists removed from
Mkomazi. Tarangire, which is approximately the same size, might have displaced a similar number.
Neumann in Imposing Wilderness reports 1,200 removed from the Serengeti. An estimate of 22,000 is the
very upper limit, half that figure would be more plausible.
37 Neumann, Imposing Wilderness.
38 Patrick C. West and Steven R. Brechin, Resident Peoples and National Parks (Tuscon: University of
Arizona Press, 1991).
568 Dan Brockington, Hassan Sachedina, and Katherine Scholfield
Table 2: The geographical distribution of reported evictions from Protected Areas (PAs).
IUCN Category
% of PAs with
evictions reported
% of PA estate with
evictions reported
IUCN
Region
STATE
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
U
WDPA
Total
Not in
WDPA
1-4
All
1-4
All
W + Cen A.
Benin
1
1
50.0
1.6
67
.2
20.6
Cameroon
10
1
11
57.9
31.4
86
.8
70.0
CAR
1
1
7.7
1.4
1.
6
0.9
Congo
3
3
30.0
12.0
92
.3
58.3
DRC
1
1
2
12.5
2.4
10
.6
4.6
Eq. Guinea
1
Gabon
2
2
2
66.7
22.2
23
.5
9.5
Ghana
1
1
0.0
0.3
0.
0
0.2
Nigeria
1
1
3.2
0.1
10
.3
2.6
Rwanda
1
1
2
1
40.0
33.3
52
.5
52.5
Togo
2
2
22.2
2.1
29
.8
17.3
Total
20
5
1
26
4
E’n and S’n
Af.
Botswana
1
3
1
5
33.3
7.0
67
.9
39.3
Ethiopia
3
3
14.3
7.5
12
.7
3.3
Kenya
6
1
7
12.0
2.0
65
.6
30.2
Madagascar
3
3
6.5
5.0
4.
4
3.3
Malawi
1
1
2
1
22.2
1.5
40
.4
20.9
Moz’bique
1
1
10.0
2.4
2.
4
0.8
Namibia
2
1
3
14.3
1.7
22
.9
21.9
Sou’ Africa
8
1
9
1
2.3
1.6
47
.6
41.0
Swaziland
1
1
50.0
12.5
47
.8
29.2
Tanzania
7
6
1
14
2
29.5
1.7
55
.7
18.4
Uganda
5
1
6
18.2
0.8
24
.2
7.4
Zambia
3
3
7.9
0.4
57
.3
12.0
Zimbabwe
5
2
7
15.2
2.8
69
.9
20.5
Total
44
13
4
3
64
4
Grand Total
0
64
0
18
0
5
3
70
8
From Brockington and Igoe, “Eviction for Conservation.”
Preserving the New Tanzania 569
Table 3: The establishment dates of protected areas from which evictions have been reported. NB.
Establishment date and date of eviction are not always the same.
Decade beginning . . .
IUCN Region
COUNTRY
Pre-
1990
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Est. date
unknown
Total
W’n + C. Africa
Benin
1
1
Cameroon
1
1
4
1
4
11
Central
African
Republic
1
1
Congo
1
2
3
DRC
1
1
2
Gabon
2
2
Ghana
1
1
Nigeria
1
1
Rwanda
1
1
2
Togo
2
2
Total
1
1
4
6
2
2
3
7
26
E’n + S’n Africa
Botswana
3
1
1
5
Ethiopia
1
1
1
3
Kenya
4
2
1
7
Madagascar
1
2
3
Malawi
1
1
2
Mozambique
1
1
Namibia
2
1
3
South Africa
2
1
1
2
2
1
9
Swaziland
1
1
Tanzania,
United
Republic of
1
4
4
4
1
14
Uganda
1
2
1
2
6
Zambia
3
3
Zimbabwe
1
1
1
1
3
7
Total
2
3
1
5
8
17
19
4
3
2
64
Grand Total
2
0
0
6
2
5
12
23
21
6
6
7
2
70
From Brockington and Igoe, “Eviction for Conservation.”
570 Dan Brockington, Hassan Sachedina, and Katherine Scholfield
established procedures for moving people by states for diverse reasons.39 The problem
is that eviction for conservation is yet to be covered by a rigorous set of policy
protocols ensuring good practice.
We have much sympathy for the criticisms of eviction, with two caveats. First,
too much attention to the ills of eviction can obscure the other forms of exclusion and
marginalization associated with protected areas that are probably more common than
physical removals.40 Second, we recognize that eviction will be a necessary tool in
conservation’s arsenal of mechanisms to protect nature. The Alliance for Zero
Extinction lists seven sites in the country (one on Pemba, the rest in the Eastern Arc
mountains) that house endangered and critically endangered populations of restricted
range species.41 Of the sixteen species found there, the populations of all but two were
thought to be decreasing at the last count, the other two were unknown. But while we
recognise that the presence of people can be the prime threat to endangered
biodiversity, the ecological case for eviction of all people has rarely been made from
any protected area in Tanzania. People undoubtedly have an impact on ecosystems, but
do these impacts necessitate complete eviction? At the Mkomazi National Park, where
pastoralists populated the landscape sparsely, it is impossible to tell whether their
presence had adversely affected the high levels of bird, vegetation, or invertebrate
biodiversity found there.42 In many cases, unfortunately, the ecological arguments are
irrelevant. Human residence and resource use is forbidden by law from national parks
and is almost always denied as a matter of policy inside Game Reserves. Ugalla Game
Reserve is a notable exception as it allows honey gathering.
What we witness, therefore, in the consequences of protected areas on the
landscape, is the imposition of land use categorization. It is not always the reasoned
outcome of good ecological science. There are many livelihoods that tread lightly on
the landscape (extensive pastoralism, hunter-gathering, honey collecting), their
ecological consequences are complex and the necessity of complete eviction to further
conservation objectives are not obvious. This is particularly the case in drier
ecosystems, which are better characterized by their resilience than fragility and which
are better able to assimilate the biotic interactions between people, animals, and
vegetation.43
39 Michael M. Cernea, “‘Restriction of Access’ Is Displacement: A Broader Concept and Policy,”
Forced Migration Review 23 (2005), 48–49; Michael M. Cernea and Kai Schmidt-Soltau, “Poverty Risks
and National Parks: Policy Issues in Conservation and Resettlement,” World Development 34, 10 (2006),
1808–30.
40 Brockington and Igoe, “Eviction for Conservation.
41 Taylor H.E. Ricketts, E. Dinerstein, T. Boucher, T.M. Brooks, S.H.M. Butchart, M. Hoffmann,
J.F. Lamoreux, J. Morrison, M. Parr, J.D. Pilgrim, A.S.L. Rodrigues, W. Sechrest, G.E. Wallace, K.
Berlin, J. Bielby, N.D. Burgess, D.R. Church, N. Cox, D. Knox, C. Loucks, G.W. Luck, L.L. Master, R.
Moore, R. Naidoo, R. Ridgely, G.E. Schatz, G. Shire, H. Strand, W. Wettengel, and E. Wikramanayake,
“Pinpointing and Preventing Imminent Extinctions,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America 102, 51 (2005), 18497–501.
42 Katherine M. Homewood and Dan Brockington, “Biodiversity, Conservation and Development,”
Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 8 (1999), 301–313.
43 Roy H. Behnke, Ian Scoones, and Carol Kerven, Range Ecology at Disequilibrium: New Models
of Natural Variability and Pastoral Adaptation in African Savannas (London: ODI, 1993); A. Illius and
Preserving the New Tanzania 571
The Imagined Landscape
For the purposes of this essay, removing people from the landscape and altering
ecosystems is not the most interesting thing that conservation does. That is just a
consequence. Far more important is the cause.
There are some powerful economic forces encouraging the creation of wild
areas. Tourist revenues are rapidly increasing and are an ever more important part of
the national economy.44 Tourist revenues were amounted to $740 million in 2000,
about 16 percent of the total GDP. Tourism revenue represented 16.6 percent of GDP
and 25 percent of export earnings in Tanzania in 2002, second only to coffee. Income
from tourism activities increased to $746.1 million in 2004 from $731 million in 2003.
It makes economic sense for Tanzania to exploit its comparative advantage as a remote,
exotic corner of the world with beautiful landscapes and exciting stories to tell.
Tourists, however, are just symptomatic of more powerful forces. How do they
know about these places? Why do they want to go there? Why do they not know about
the evictions and histories of human residence that have characterized so many
protected areas in the country? Tanzania’s conservation estate is no mere collection of
mountainous, savannah, or miombo landscapes. Its protected areas are far more than
reservoirs of biodiversity, vegetation, or wildlife. Tanzania’s national parks and game
reserves are an imagined and symbolic landscape with historical origins deep in the
early European encounters with Africa.
Conservation’s major role in landscape change is in re-imagining the landscape
in Tanzania, and then using these strong imaginations to reconfigure the landscape
according to its vision. Mkomazi’s supporters rejoice that the National Park’s
landscape (from which between 5 and 10,000 people were removed by the government
in the late 1980s) is (we quote) a “wilderness restored,” a “recovered pearl,” or a
chance to experience a landscape which “looks exactly the way East Africa is supposed
to.”45 We suggest that similar visions supporting other protected areas have been at
work in Tanzania, and East Africa more broadly, for decades.
The name for a vision that creates its own reality is a “virtualism.”46 To put it
another way, a virtualism is a model of reality whose followers, when testing the model
against the real world, expect the world, not the model, to change should they find any
discrepancies. The idea of virtualism was first used in the context of economic models
that were based on notions of rational thinking and market efficiency, and which
expected irrationality and inefficiency to be corrected appropriately. West and Carrier
Tim O’Connor, “On the Relevance of Non Equilibrium Concepts to Arid and Semi-Arid Grazing
Systems,” Ecological Applications 9 (1999), 798–813; Sian Sullivan and Rick Rohde, “On Non-
Equilibrium in Arid and Semi-Arid Grazing Systems,” Journal of Biogeography 29 (2002), 1595–1618;
Lindsay Gillson and Tim Hoffman, “Rangeland Ecology in a Changing World,Science 315 (2007), 53–
54.
44 Sachedina, “Wildlife Is Our Oil.”
45 James Malcolm, “A Visit to Mkomazi in Late March,” MS in author’s possession (1992); Mpiga
J.J. Mangubuli, “Mkomazi Game Reserve—A Recovered Pearl,” Kakakuona 4 (1991), 11–13; Rupert
Watson, “Mkomazi—Restoring Africa,” Swara 14 (1991), 14–6.
46 James G. Carrier, “Introduction,” in James G. Carrier and Daniel Miller, eds., Virtualism: A New
Political Economy (Oxford: Berg, 1998).
572 Dan Brockington, Hassan Sachedina, and Katherine Scholfield
have since applied the idea to ecotourism, noting that ecotourists often bring a vision of
what their destination should look like with them, which is then rigorously and liberally
applied by the destination managers in order to please and build their market.47
Virtualisms of the African landscape are rife in African conservation. Indeed
they have infested conservation from the very beginnings of the movement. In many
ways what has happened in Tanzania, and what is continuing to unfurl, is the power of
this virtualism writ large upon the national stage.
The imposition of European visions for Africa is well documented. Anderson
and Grove have argued that the dominating impressions of European encounters with
the African landscape were formed at an unusual moment in the history of the
continent.48 The late nineteenth century was a time when disturbances of slavery and
several new diseases (most especially rinderpest) had shaken East African society to
the core. Much of the landscape was severely depopulated, and it was into this
unpeopled land that late Victorian travellers went, and about which they enthused their
growing audiences back home. This, combined with the desire to find exotic paradises
untroubled by awkward natives, and opportunities to start anew on clean slates,
encouraged the vision of a peopleless Africa as the proper and desirable state for the
landscape.49
MacKenzie and Steinart have shown how complicated rituals of hunting shaped
land and wildlife use.50 These were heavily influenced by India and shaped by the
peculiarities (as they are now seen) of Victorian ideals of virile manhood. They
emphasized the nobility of the hunted (and their human predators), represented the
contest as one between equals, and facilitated a denigration of all who hunted for base
subsistence purposes and not noble sport. Thus local African use of wildlife was
demeaned and made excludable.
This vision of the land and its wildlife had political influence because of the
wealth and connections of explorers, safari hunters, and early entrepreneurs on the
continent. Neumann, and with somewhat different emphasis, Prendergast and Adams
and Adams, have all drawn attention to the power of the aristocratic Society for the
Preservation of the Fauna of the Empire (SPFE, now Fauna and Flora International)
and its role in furthering the establishment of national parks and game reserves in
Africa.51 They sought to preserve game for their own hunting (they were nicknamed
the penitent butchers). They perceived depredations of African hunting to be the main
47 Paige West and James G. Carrier, “Ecotourism and Authenticity. Getting Away from It All?”
Current Anthropology 45, 4 (2004), 483–98.
48 David M. Anderson and Richard Grove, “Introduction: The Scramble for Eden: Past Present and
Future in African Conservation,” in David M. Anderson and Richard Grove, eds., Conservation in
Africa: People, Policies and Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).
49 Ksekshus, Ecology Control.
50 John MacKenzie, The Empire of Nature: Hunting, Conservation, and British Imperialism
(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988); Steinart, Black Poachers.
51 Neumann, Imposing Wilderness; William M. Adams, Against Extinction: The Story of
Conservation (London: Earthscan, 2004); David K. Prendergast and William M. Adams, “Colonial
Wildlife Conservation and the Origins of the Society for the Preservation of the Wild Fauna of the
Empire (1903–1914),” Oryx 37, 2 (2003), 251–60.
Preserving the New Tanzania 573
threat and advocated game reserves, but also thought that national parks, on the
exclusive Yellowstone model might, although they would disrupt the hunt, be the best
way of ensuring the complete safety of viable populations.
The continued influence of these ideas is unmistakable. When Bernard Grzimek
launched his famous campaign to set up and support the Serengeti National Park,
supported by popular films (1956 and 1960) and a book, he tapped deep into these
ideals and was rewarded with large funds, awards for his films, and an enthusiastic
following. Films like No Room for Wild Animals emphasised the incompatibility of
wildlife with (African) co-residents, and their suitability as companions for western
tourists.52
Often these visions of Africa are circulated by conservation non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) as part of their fund and awareness raising activities. What began
with the SPFE has expanded into a multi-billion dollar movement involving thousands
of organizations worldwide and hundreds active in Africa. A survey of over 280
conservation organizations on the continent shows that Tanzania commands
considerable interest from conservation organizations, less than Kenya or South Africa,
but still a high number (Table 4).53 The majority of these are based in the wealthy
North (Table 5) and are important conduits of ideas and images (as well as funds)
between Africa and the west.
Visions of a people-less Africa are remarkable for their continuity and power
even to the present day, and their proliferation and reproduction throughout diverse
media. Images of a peopleless Africa pervade tourist brochures, film, conservation
literature, and children’s books. The vision has got richer and more complicated with
time. Tourists now also seek to relive colonial relations of privilege, to taste the life of
luxury that fired the imagination when tales of the Happy Valley excited Britain
struggling with misery of war. Films like Out of Africa and the lives of adventurers
provide a social landscape into which tourists can place themselves. Many brochures
will invoke images of colonial luxury, perhaps also appealing to unvoiced thoughts that
their experience offers a chance to see an unspoiled Africa, as it was when Europeans
were still in charge.
Alternatively tourists can imagine themselves in more contemporary roles. The
work of charismatic/celebrity conservationists offers wonderful lives that tourists can
briefly participate in on their safari holidays, and good causes to which they can add
their voice and support.54 The vicarious enjoyment that is integral to celebrity allows
tourists to continue participating in wildlife conservation long after their holiday has
52 William Beinart, “The Renaturing of African Animals: Film and Literature in the 1950s and
1960s,” in Paul Slack, ed., Environments and Historical Change (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1999); Dan Brockington, Celebrity and the Environment: Fame, Wealth and Power in Conservation
(London: Zed, 2009).
53 Katherine Scholfield and Dan Brockington, “The Work of Non-Governmental Organisations in
African Wildlife Conservation: A Preliminary Analysis,” MS available at http://www.sed.manchester
.ac.uk/idpm/research/africanwildlife/ (2008).
54 Brockington, Celebrity and the Environment.
574 Dan Brockington, Hassan Sachedina, and Katherine Scholfield
Table 4: Distribution of Conservation NGO activity within Africa. The table shows the number of organisations working in each
country and the money they spend there.
West Africa
Central Africa
East Africa
South Africa
Country
NGOs
Annual $
Country
NGOs
Annual $
Country
NGOs
Annual $
Country
NGOs
Annual $
Liberia
6
1,085,126
DRC
29
10,414,426
Tanzania
36
13,811,495
South Africa
55
13,661,116
Sierra Leone
4
833,052
Gabon
4
7,229,380
Kenya
64
13,723,455
Madagascar
22
10,612,681
Nigeria
13
776,347
Congo
9
4,587,024
Uganda
17
4,172,423
Zambia
25
5,495,338
Guinea
3
664,934
Cameroon
12
4,105,047
Ethiopia
12
1,571,405
Mozambique
9
4,179,575
Ghana
7
530,940
Rwanda
8
2,519,820
Sudan
3
133,213
Namibia
27
3,992,435
Ivory Coast
5
394,462
CAR
6
1,645,803
Eritrea
1
12,085
Zimbabwe
18
3,641,267
Senegal
3
373,374
Angola
6
577,620
Djibouti
2
3,216
Malawi
15
2,192,147
Guinea-
Bissau
4
309,169
Burundi
2
337,891
Somalia
3
-
Botswana
23
1,223,728
Niger
3
148,070
Eq Guinea
1
188,290
Swaziland
5
575,237
Gambia
4
142,814
S. Tome &
P’pe
1
2,949
Lesotho
1
575,237
Cape Verde
1
81,641
Chad
1
-
Burkina Faso
5
54,491
Togo
2
15,676
Mali
5
230
Benin
2
-
Total
67
5,410,327
Total
79
31,608,249
Total
138
33,427,292
Total
200
46,148,759
From Scholfield and Brockington “The Work of Non-Governmental Organisations in African Wildlife Conservation.”
Preserving the New Tanzania 575
Table 5: The location of head offices of NGOs working in sub-Saharan Africa, with
organizations working in Tanzania in brackets.
Country
Head Offices
Country
Head Offices
USA
65 (12)
Switzerland
3 (2)
UK
34 (6)
Uganda
2
South Africa*
33
Belgium
1
Kenya
16 (1)
Burkina Faso
1
Namibia
11
Burundi
1
Tanzania
11 (4)
Denmark
1
Botswana
10
Djibouti
1
Madagascar
9
DRC
1
France
8 (1)
Egypt
1
Germany
7 (1)
Ethiopia
1
Netherlands
7 (3)
Gambia
1
Zimbabwe
7
Ghana
1
Malawi
6
Guinea-Bissau
1
Nigeria
6
Israel
1
Zambia
6
New Zealand
1
Cameroon
4
Portugal
1
Canada
3
Rwanda
1
Sierra Leone
3
Somalia
1
Australia
2 (1)
Sudan
1
Liberia
2
Tunisia
1
Norway
2
Grand Total
278
From Scholfield and Brockington “The Work of Non-Governmental Organisations in African
Wildlife Conservation.”
ended.55 As with the colonial visions there is often a racial dimension at work here. The
heroes and heroines of African wildlife conservation are rarely black.56 This is a white man’s,
55 Dan Brockington, “Powerful Environmentalisms: Conservation, Celebrity, and Capitalism,” Media
Culture & Society 30, 4 (2008), 551–68; Chris Rojek, Celebrity (London: Reaktion Books, 2001); Graham
Turner, Understanding Celebrity (London: Sage, 2004).
56 Brockington, Celebrity and the Environment.
576 Dan Brockington, Hassan Sachedina, and Katherine Scholfield
and woman’s, burden. The lives of African wildlife professionals are, as Garland has so ably
shown, invisible.57
Conservation and wilderness visions, however, do not just imagine a peculiarly
European image of the past, and move people around accordingly. They actively obliterate
local memories of place. Creating new symbolic landscapes involves a profound, often
institutionalized, forgetting of their role and place in it. It requires histories to be rewritten to
celebrate the wild and its champions, and denigrate the people who had used and lived in it as
interlopers. The popular history of the Serengeti or Ngorongoro does not include the struggles
of the Maasai against it. Far less the struggles of less exotic peoples who live to the west of
the national park.58 When the conservation of the Mkomazi National Park is celebrated, its
former residents, present for generations before it was gazetted, have been dismissed as “not
indigenous,” or simply are not mentioned.59
Conservationists are by no means united around the idea of removing people from
conservation areas. Far from it, many advocate diverse forms of making conservation
meaningful and useful to rural African livelihoods and world views.60 Perhaps the most
comprehensive critique of the idea of removing people from protected areas is Adams and
McShane’s book The Myth of Wild Africa.61 They dwell at length on the historical
inaccuracies of this version of Africa, on the fact that these are landscapes that were much
more peopled than Westerners commonly recognize, and on the dangers of basing
conservation policy on such obviously false expectations and histories. They advocate more
inclusion of local Africans in the landscape and decision making.
Adams and McShane, however, overstate the importance of their argument. They
believe that “conservation based on myth is bound to fail.”62 Why should it fail because it is
historically wrong? If the ideas can generate money, gain the support of foreign and political
elites, and widespread public sympathy (“global” opinion) then these provide reasons for
their success. The alternative message, that use of wildlife (i.e., killing them) can be good for
conservation, is rarely palatable. It is often dismal and unheroic. It is difficult to encourage
wealthy westerners to support conservation policies that raise money for local people by
killing elephants. Fortmann has recorded considerable difficulty in getting the message across
in California that this form of safari hunting might be beneficial for wildlife.63 Myths that can
57 Elizabeth Garland, “State of Nature: Colonial Power, Neoliberal Capital and Wildlife Management in
Tanzania,” (Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago, 2006).
58 Jan B. Shelter, “Restoring People to the Historical Serengeti Landscape: How Western Serengeti
Peoples Came To Be ‘Poachers’” (paper presented at the African Studies Association, Boston, 2003).
59 Brockington, Fortress Conservation.
60 David Hulme and Marshall Murphree, African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance
of Community Conservation (Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2001).
61 Jonathan S. Adams and Tom O. McShane, The Myth of Wild Africa: Conservation without Illusion
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992).
62 Adams and McShane, The Myth, 245.
63 Louise Fortmann, “What We Need is a Community Bambi: The Perils and Possibilities of Powerful
Symbols,” in J. Peter Brosius, Anne. L. Tsing, and Charles Zerner, eds., Communities and Conservation.
Preserving the New Tanzania 577
raise money are likely to succeed, irrespective of their truth or falsehood. Indeed, arguing
thus substantially misses the point that these myths, as virtualisms, can create and become
their own truth.
Conservationists have been generally slow to appreciate this because of the
dominance of another powerful idea—the notion that conservation that does not have local
support is bound to fail.64 This can be true, and there are many protected areas that have
failed because of local opposition. But it is not necessarily true. Where the opposition is weak
and disunited, or facing overwhelming force, then the opposition, not the park, will fail.65
Indeed, it can fail spectacularly, allowing the violent conservation model to go on and
become a model of successful, good and repeatable conservation suitable for the world over.
It is only relatively recently that the histories of American Indian removal and displacement
that underlie Yellowstone National Park are being written.66
Attention to the power of local resistance has diminished our understandings of the
power of myth of wild Africa. It is important to understand how the myth works and how it
reworks, reproduces, and reinvents itself. We have already discussed its genesis and
importance to the European psyche. We have touched upon the diverse media in which it
becomes visible, but there are other aspects. We have to recognize that the images of
wilderness, wildlife, and wild places that pepper conservation fund-raising literature are
themselves commodities.67 They are sold in calendars and on t-shirts; they are used to raise
money.68 The creation of protected areas itself provides the vistas and pleasing prospects that
fuel a small industry in wildlife and landscape photography for postcards, coffee table books,
and fund-raising images. Protected areas and their supporters exist in symbiosis, each creates
conditions amenable to the other’s continued existence.
Tanzanian conservation also benefits from the influential visions of the super-rich.
The billionaire financier Paul Tudor Jones has sunk millions into Grumeti Reserves
Limited.69 The project’s vision draws on deeply held western notions about what these
Histories and Politics of Community-Based Natural Resource Management (Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira,
2005).
64 David Western, “Taking the Broad View of Conservation—A Response to Adams and Hulme,” Oryx
35, (2001) 201–203; Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, T. Banuri, Taghi Farvar, Ken Miller, and Adrian Phillips,
“Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas: Rethinking the Relationship,” Parks 12 (2002), 5–15.
65 Dan Brockington, “Injustice and Conservation: Is Local Support Necessary for Sustainable Protected
Areas?” Policy Matters 12 (2003), 22–30; Dan Brockington, “Community Conservation, Inequality and
Injustice: Myths of Power in Protected Area Management,” Conservation and Society 2, 2 (2004), 411–32.
66 Mark D. Spence, Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of National Parks
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999); Karl Jacoby, Crimes against Nature. Squatters, Poachers, Thieves and
the Hidden History of American Conservation (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001).
67 Dan Brockington, Rosaleen Duffy, and Jim Igoe, Nature Unbound: Conservation, Capitalism and the
Future of Protected Areas (London: Earthscan, 2008).
68 Timothy W. Luke, “On Environmentality: Geo-Power and Eco-Knowledge in the Discourses of
Contemporary Environmentalism,” Cultural Critique 31, (Autumn 1995), 57-81; Timothy W. Luke, “The
(Un)Wise (Ab)Use of Nature: Environmentalism as Globalized Consumerism,” MS in author’s possession
(1997)
69 Robert M. Poole, “Heartbreak on the Serengeti,” National Geographic (February 2006).
578 Dan Brockington, Hassan Sachedina, and Katherine Scholfield
landscapes should look like, and who can rightfully use them. First they have to be cleansed
of people. The Tanzanian Government evicted people from the Grumeti and Ikorongo Game
Reserves in 1994 (before Jones began working there).70 In addition, Grumeti Reserves Ltd. is
also attempting to negotiate a compensation package that would relocate an entire village. It
is promoting a form of ethical hunting where by clients “kill” animals with a camera shaped
like a gun, which marks where they would have shot the animal had they been firing a bullet.
Conclusion
Conservation has been a powerful force in shaping the environments and land use of
Tanzania, and has been for decades. Tim Caro and Paul Scholte, in a recent essay in African
Journal of Ecology, were downbeat about the achievements of parks in Africa. They reported
that the trend from divergent long term studies was that wildlife populations were declining,
even within national parks, and that conservationists should just get used to the idea of much
less abundant wildlife populations, and accept a continent “containing isolated pockets of
large mammal diversity living at low population sizes, just like Europe.”71 The data from
Tanzania are not so universally depressing for conservation biologists. Some ecosystems, and
some species, differ from this general trend.72 The impact of Tanzania’s conservation policies
distinguishes the country from the rest of the continent.
Why has the state made such a deep commitment to conservation in this country?
Economics, as we have seen, provide some explanation. There are clear gains to be had from
a large area of safari hunting estate, which commands lucrative fees, and from photographic
tours. Furthermore, to a rational state actor there are obvious “strategies of extraversion” to
employ here.73 The numerous overseas-based conservation NGOs in the country are ideal for
such strategies. The occasional billionaire investor, or Arabian prince with hunting interests,
can make a useful business partner. As the country opens its borders to more corporate
investment, and seeks to integrate more closely with the national economy, these trends will
continue.
The importance of revenues for conservation sentiment in government is visible in the
hostile reaction of the central state to a productive innovation on the East of the Serengeti that
allowed one village to earn tens of thousands of dollars by conserving wildlife on its lands.
The village of Ololoskwan had entered into a co-operative arrangement with a photographic
tour company worth $50,000 a year, but has done so on land that the Wildlife Department
had allocated for hunting.74 The government fought the decision and the agreement has been
declared unlawful in court. It can prove frustrating for all sides for such an obvious win-win
arrangement to be denied.
Nelson and Agrawal have compared the relative performance of community
conservation strategies in different southern and east African countries. They observed that
Tanzania was marked by the relatively important levels of revenues from conservation that
70 Nelson, “The Evolution and Impacts.”
71 Tim Caro and Paul Scholte, “When Protection Falters,” African Journal of Ecology 45 (2007), 233–35.
72 Stoner, “Changes in Large Herbivore Populations.
73 Jean-Francois Bayart, The State in Africa: The Politics of the Belly (London: Longman, 1993).
74 Nelson and Makko, “Communities, Conservation and Conflicts.”
Preserving the New Tanzania 579
had been successfully captured by the central state, which was also characterized by high
levels of corruption. They argue that it is simply not in most officials’ interests to devolve
power or revenues to lower levels of government, and that this explains the relative failure of
community conservation in this country, and elsewhere in the region where these
characteristics are found. Conversely, devolution tends to be more successful where they are
absent.75 In a similar vein, Brockington has previously suggested that Tanzania’s political
economy is characterized by a “environmental-conservation” complex,76 comprising its
protected area estate, tourist and hunting revenues, and donor interest. Supporting the
complex occupies much government resources and attention.
But, while we believe that the complex exists, it is not a satisfactory explanation for
the country’s growth in protected areas. Why has it proved so easy for the wildlife interests
within the state to have their way over, for example, plans for agricultural development, or
cattle rearing? Both can be lucrative. It is not as if Tanzania has a particularly sparsely
distributed population that makes setting up protected areas relatively easy. On the contrary,
as Table 1 shows, its population density is much higher than other countries at the top of the
table. The creation of protected areas has had many local costs, and could not have been easy
to impose.
Why should the state be motivated thus? Why, on Julius Nyerere’s death, did senior
politicians call for a national park to be set up in his honor? Whence conservation’s symbolic
power? The forces described above cannot quite explain why Tanzania should be so receptive
to all this western ideology and capital. We need to know a little more about how individuals
are operating within these power structures to appreciate how they are reproduced.
But if more insights into the mind of the Tanzanian state would be helpful, we can at
least be certain that conservation in the country is not really conserving it. Instead it is
forging it anew. Conservation policies alter the relative abundances of different wildlife
species and changes trends in vegetation dynamics. It introduces ecosystems without people,
which are, in the long term view of things, a radical innovation in the region. Conservation is,
in short, actively re-imagining and recreating Tanzania. It preserves a new country. It will
continue to do so on a larger and larger scale. We cannot be sure how much of the land may
have been successfully set aside in twenty years time, or when the growth of the protected
area estate will end. In fact, we believe that all we can be sure about, is that it will not.
75 Fred Nelson and Arun Agrawal, “Patronage or Participation: Community-Based Natural Resource
Management Reform in Sub-Saharan Africa,” Development and Change 39, 4 (2008), 557–85.
76 Dan Brockington, “The Politics and Ethnography of Environmentalisms in Tanzania” African Affairs
105, 418 (2006), 97–116.
... In many areas of eastern and southern Africa, communities were excluded from their traditional ancestral lands and resources to pave way for establishment of wildlife protected areas to serve the needs and aspiration of white populations. In East Africa, pastoralists were disempowered, marginalized, denied their needs, and received unwelcome attention from wildlife management institutions (Sachedina 2008;Borrini-Feyaraband and Tarnowski 2005). In many areas, this disempowerment has resulted in many threats to the survival of wildlife and their habitats, including loss of support to conservation from communities, large-scale environmental degradation, encroachment, and poaching (Kisingo 2013). ...
... As policy makers and land managers implement national park policy, vegetation will probably change to conform to policy. In particular, in Tanzania national park, regulations have visible impacts on vegetation, landscape, and wildlife distributions throughout the country (Brockington et al. 2008). Therefore, the ability to study vegetation change is important to determine if policy is affecting conditions in the park. ...
Chapter
Transect lines were laid down in Mkomazi National Park for the wild animals ground count exercise. This technique is applied as a ground truth of population density of animals. Forty transects were set to represent all major habitats, including grasslands, woodlands, forests, shrub land, scrubland, and riverine. Program DISTANCE was employed for data analysis. Normal cosine function was applied without any truncation from which mean population densities of each species were calculated separately with standard errors, encounter rate, and detection probability. A total of 22 species mean population densities were estimated, whereby African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) was leading, while gerenuk (Litocranius walleri) was the least. The Park is well protected at the core zone; however, areas close to boundaries are facing frequent disturbances from humans. Since some species of animals such as large carnivores and elephants were not observed, camera traps should be used to estimate carnivore population, whereas dung counts can be used to estimate elephant density. Continual investment in anti-poaching operations by managers is important to keep safeguarding habitats for wildlife. We recommend the use of these results as a benchmark for future population estimates, and these 40 transects be regarded as standard in future counting.
... In many areas of eastern and southern Africa, communities were excluded from their traditional ancestral lands and resources to pave way for establishment of wildlife protected areas to serve the needs and aspiration of white populations. In East Africa, pastoralists were disempowered, marginalized, denied their needs, and received unwelcome attention from wildlife management institutions (Sachedina 2008;Borrini-Feyaraband and Tarnowski 2005). In many areas, this disempowerment has resulted in many threats to the survival of wildlife and their habitats, including loss of support to conservation from communities, large-scale environmental degradation, encroachment, and poaching ( Kisingo 2013). ...
... As policy makers and land managers implement national park policy, vegetation will probably change to conform to policy. In particular, in Tanzania national park, regulations have visible impacts on vegetation, landscape, and wildlife distributions throughout the country (Brockington et al. 2008). Therefore, the ability to study vegetation change is important to determine if policy is affecting conditions in the park. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
The past three decades have seen increased involvement of communities in the governance of wildlife resources. In northern Tanzania, communities have been involved in wildlife conservation in a variety of ways, from the establishment of Community Wildlife Management Areas, establishment of conservation easements in village lands, to the establishment of land trusts and setting aside areas for wildlife based investments in villages. This chapter presents findings from a number of studies on community involvement in protected area governance in Northern Tanzania. The chapter adopts a V^3 leadership model in analyzing data from key informant interviews, focused group discussions, and a review of relevant documents in villages, districts, and community-based organizations (CBOs). The outcome of these initiatives, although not very impressive, does indicate a gradual change in some key aspects. In conservation, there have been increases in the sizes of land under conservation estate and a notable improvement in populations of key species. With regard to livelihood improvement, there are notable changes as some community members access both direct and indirect employment from wildlife-based organizations and enterprises, as well as the involvement of community members in micro-finance enterprises and wildlife based entrepreneurship. With regard to social benefits, there is more empowerment for community members and more involvement in advocacy and voicing their concerns. This is highly attributed to the involvement and training they received in the establishment of wildlife conservation areas from land use planning to governance and leadership training. There are great achievements, but there are also some notable setbacks. Some notable setbacks include possibilities of power capture by elite groups, recentralization tendency, and inadequate financial management by community-based organizations that give room for corrupt practices and embezzlement.
... In many areas of eastern and southern Africa, communities were excluded from their traditional ancestral lands and resources to pave way for establishment of wildlife protected areas to serve the needs and aspiration of white populations. In East Africa, pastoralists were disempowered, marginalized, denied their needs, and received unwelcome attention from wildlife management institutions (Sachedina 2008;Borrini-Feyaraband and Tarnowski 2005). In many areas, this disempowerment has resulted in many threats to the survival of wildlife and their habitats, including loss of support to conservation from communities, large-scale environmental degradation, encroachment, and poaching (Kisingo 2013). ...
... As policy makers and land managers implement national park policy, vegetation will probably change to conform to policy. In particular, in Tanzania national park, regulations have visible impacts on vegetation, landscape, and wildlife distributions throughout the country (Brockington et al. 2008). Therefore, the ability to study vegetation change is important to determine if policy is affecting conditions in the park. ...
Chapter
With particular reference to the College of African Wildlife Management, Mweka, this chapter provides an overview of activities involved in preparing students for careers in protected areas through fieldwork. A sample of 87 students in the diploma program consented to participate and complete a survey at the return of their solo and plain expeditions to Mount Kilimanjaro. The study results reveal that through fieldwork activities during their expedition, students acquire hands-on experience in aspects of nature conservation. In addition, wilderness training promotes the students’ appreciation and understanding of the wilderness area systems while instilling confidence in leadership capacity development. This study at Mweka College reveals that necessary resources can be harnessed to provide these supportive experiences for students.
... In many areas of eastern and southern Africa, communities were excluded from their traditional ancestral lands and resources to pave way for establishment of wildlife protected areas to serve the needs and aspiration of white populations. In East Africa, pastoralists were disempowered, marginalized, denied their needs, and received unwelcome attention from wildlife management institutions (Sachedina 2008;Borrini-Feyaraband and Tarnowski 2005). In many areas, this disempowerment has resulted in many threats to the survival of wildlife and their habitats, including loss of support to conservation from communities, large-scale environmental degradation, encroachment, and poaching (Kisingo 2013). ...
... As policy makers and land managers implement national park policy, vegetation will probably change to conform to policy. In particular, in Tanzania national park, regulations have visible impacts on vegetation, landscape, and wildlife distributions throughout the country (Brockington et al. 2008). Therefore, the ability to study vegetation change is important to determine if policy is affecting conditions in the park. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Poaching is increasingly threatening the survival of numerous species in protected areas. However, information on how poachers work afield is sparse—especially in East Africa. Understanding how and where poachers work is an important step toward improving wildlife ranger patrols and, therefore, success of law enforcement practices. This study used observations from two years of fieldwork in the Serengeti ecosystem in northern Tanzania and volunteered information from ex-poachers to highlight poachers’ tactics and adaptability to avoid detection and arrest while committing crimes. Using available theories in criminology and socio-sciences, we uncovered ten strategies that poachers employ to avoid detection and arrest by rangers, sustain wildlife poaching, and supply wildlife products to illegal wildlife markets. We argue that increasing wildlife crimes related to bushmeat and high-value trophies such as ivory and rhino horns may have influenced adaptability in the strategies employed by poachers while operating afield. Possible options for improving detection of illegal activities afield, therefore reducing the supply of wildlife products to illegal markets, and saving the target species from decline are discussed. This information has a potential to improve wildlife crime detection and prevention by the wildlife rangers. It is also important for programs aiming at curbing wildlife crime within and outside the protected areas.
... In many areas of eastern and southern Africa, communities were excluded from their traditional ancestral lands and resources to pave way for establishment of wildlife protected areas to serve the needs and aspiration of white populations. In East Africa, pastoralists were disempowered, marginalized, denied their needs, and received unwelcome attention from wildlife management institutions (Sachedina 2008;Borrini-Feyaraband and Tarnowski 2005). In many areas, this disempowerment has resulted in many threats to the survival of wildlife and their habitats, including loss of support to conservation from communities, large-scale environmental degradation, encroachment, and poaching ( Kisingo 2013). ...
... As policy makers and land managers implement national park policy, vegetation will probably change to conform to policy. In particular, in Tanzania national park, regulations have visible impacts on vegetation, landscape, and wildlife distributions throughout the country (Brockington et al. 2008). Therefore, the ability to study vegetation change is important to determine if policy is affecting conditions in the park. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Tanzania, like many other developing countries, has experienced rapid population growth and urbanization in the past five decades. Its population has grown from 8,000,000 in 1961 to over 50,000,000 currently, and this population is projected to double in the next two decades. This growth is also notable around the wildlife-protected areas. Using existing literature and personal experience, this chapter reviews the major aspects related to wildlife conservation in relation to human population growth and urbanization. Using examples from different parts of Tanzania, this chapter provides highlights on the trends and causes of human population growth and urbanization in areas bordering wildlife-protected areas and the effects brought about by these trends. The chapter presents the repercussions caused by these trends on the population of large mammals and other wildlife species. Recommendations are provided on how best to minimize the negative impacts that human population growth and urbanization cause on large mammals.
... In many areas of eastern and southern Africa, communities were excluded from their traditional ancestral lands and resources to pave way for establishment of wildlife protected areas to serve the needs and aspiration of white populations. In East Africa, pastoralists were disempowered, marginalized, denied their needs, and received unwelcome attention from wildlife management institutions (Sachedina 2008;Borrini-Feyaraband and Tarnowski 2005). In many areas, this disempowerment has resulted in many threats to the survival of wildlife and their habitats, including loss of support to conservation from communities, large-scale environmental degradation, encroachment, and poaching ( Kisingo 2013). ...
... As policy makers and land managers implement national park policy, vegetation will probably change to conform to policy. In particular, in Tanzania national park, regulations have visible impacts on vegetation, landscape, and wildlife distributions throughout the country (Brockington et al. 2008). Therefore, the ability to study vegetation change is important to determine if policy is affecting conditions in the park. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
The overwhelming demand of deadwoods outside protected areas has not given deadwoods enough time to remain standing for the formation of the tree cavities by birds and other natural agents. Consequently, cavity adopter and large-bodied species face difficulties in finding and establishing acceptable nest sites. The focus of biodiversity conservation has been mainly within protected area systems, and less attention has been given to areas outside protected areas despite the fact that these areas support a bigger proportion of bird community. A high pace of deadwood loss on the entire landscape on the southern slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro is an irreversible situation in which is increasingly becoming a growing concern for the conservation of biodiversity beyond protected areas. Here, we investigate what extent deadwoods have in providing nest sites among cavity-nesting birds. We do this through observations and by placing artificial nest boxes on trees within three different land-use types. We found that deadwood volume and number of natural tree cavities were lower at coffee plantations as compared to mixed farming areas and Kilimanjaro National Park (KINAPA). Likewise, tree cavity positions from the ground were higher at coffee plantations than in other two land-use types. However, application of artificial nest boxes reveals that a good number of larger artificial nest boxes had greater occupancy, as did boxes placed at higher positions on trees from the ground at coffee plantations and mixed farming areas than at KINAPA, suggesting a shortage of natural cavity-nesting sites for larger birds and an avoidance of nest predation or human disturbances, respectively. Therefore, provision of artificial nest boxes could offer nesting opportunities for a range of cavity-nesting birds if designs and constructions take into consideration all possible factors that might hinder their occupation by cavity-nesting birds. In this manner, application of cavity nest boxes could be a vital alternative tool for conservation of cavity-nesting birds beyond boundaries of protected areas.
... Similar observations have been reported from irrigation schemes in northern parts of Tanzania, where expansion of farming has reduced native species (Misana et al., 2012;Said et al., 2021). Brockington et al. (2008) and Rowcroft (2005) reported that agricultural innovation and technologies have transformed much of the habitats beyond their recovery, and still there is a failure to meet production cost in an effective way. ...
Article
Full-text available
Increasing agricultural land use intensity is one of the major land use/land cover (LULC) changes in wetland ecosystems. LULC changes have major impacts on the environment, livelihoods and nature conservation. In this study, we evaluate the impacts of investments in small-scale irrigation schemes on LULC in relation to regional development in Kilombero Valley, Tanzania. We used Remote Sensing (RS) and Geographical Information System (GIS) techniques together with interviews with Key Informants (KI) and Focus Group Discussion (FGD) with different stakeholders to assess the historical development of irrigation schemes and LULC change at local and regional scales over 3 decades. Overall, LULC differed over time and with spatial scale. The main transformation along irrigation schemes was from grassland and bushland into cultivated land. A similar pattern was also found at the regional valley scale, but here transformations from forest were more common. The rate of expansion of cultivated land was also higher where investments in irrigation infrastructure were made than in the wider valley landscape. While discussing the effects of irrigation and intensification on LULC in the valley, the KI and FGD participants expressed that local investments in intensification and smallholder irrigation may reduce pressure on natural land cover such as forest being transformed into cultivation. Such a pattern of spatially concentrated intensification of land use may provide an opportunity for nature conservation in the valley and likewise contribute positively to increased production and improve livelihoods of smallholder farmers.
... The extent to which this conservation rhetoric translates into practice, however, has been called into question in recent scholarship (Benjaminsen, Goldman, Minwary, & Maganga, 2013;Bluwstein, Moyo, & Kicheleri, 2016;Goldman, 2011;Wright, 2017;Noe & Kangalawe, 2015). Brockington (2008) offers a reminder that scholars must attend to the various forms of exclusion that are less visible than the physical displacement of local communities from conservation areas in Tanzania. ...
Chapter
Mkomazi National Park in north eastern Tanzania was gazetted to a national park in 2008 by upgrading the Mkomazi-Umba Game Reserves. It is possible that national park policy, management, and additional park visitors may change the vegetation within the park. This study examines vegetation changes in Mkomazi National Park using MODIS yearly land cover data and scripts in Google Earth Engine for 2001 and 2013. Results indicate few significant changes in land cover between the two dates. However, grasslands increased by approximately 13% between the 2 years (69–82%), and there were many additional smaller changes. The relatively subtle changes in Mkomazi National Park’s vegetation cover between 2001 and 2013 are most likely reflective of the subtle changes in land management policy after its conversion from two separate game reserves.
Article
Full-text available
This paper examines the ways in which Tanzanian conservation authorities utilise biodiversity "extinction narratives" in order to legitimise the use of violence in redrawing protected areas' boundaries. Militarisation and violence in conservation have often been associated with the "war on poaching". Drawing on the history of conservation and violence in Tanzania, and using an empirical case from Loliondo, the paper suggests that violence in conservation may be legitimised when based on extinction narratives and a claim that more exclusive spaces are urgently needed to protect biodiversity. It argues that the emerging militarisation and use of violence in Tanzania can be associated with both global biodiversity extinction and local neo-Malthusian narratives, which recently have regained predominance. When combined with "othering" of groups of pastoralists by portraying them as foreign "invaders", such associations legit-imise extensions of state control over contested land by any means available, including violence.
Article
Full-text available
The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.
Article
Full-text available
Article
Gives an overview of the current status of wildlife conservation in East Africa, followed by an historical account of the rise of these perceptions, in connection with the evolution of the policy of wildlife conservation. Central parts of pastoral ecological strategies that infringe on wildlife conservation are then discussed. -from Author
Article
The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.