 |
Volume 5, Number 1 Pages: 150 thru 191 |
Maasai Wildlife Conservation and Human Need
The Myth of "Community Based Wildlife Management"
by Navaya ole Ndaskoi
Co-ordinator, Indigenous Rights for Survival International
ndaskoi@uccmail.co.tz
© 2002 Center for World Indigenous Studies
1
Introduction
This paper investigates whether wildlife conservation really benefits local communities, the people who were original residents of areas around and/or in protected areas. Its aims are (a) to reveal the untold truth (b) to put to rest the fabrication that wildlife is a local community development factor and (c) to suggest alternative solutions to the crisis facing the wildlife sector. The paper analyses the livelihoods of indigenous communities, with particular reference to the Maasai, speakers of Maa. This paper analyses old conservation approaches and the new myth[1] of “Community Based Conservation” in the Greater Ngorongoro region encompassing all wildlife-protected areas in North-East Tanzania. Beyond this area, the study refers to general processes. Conservation, wildlife and communities, are all together emotive words that evoke fear, anger and guilt deeply rooted in history. The reason is that the Government had inherited a monstrously oppressive colonial system. It straightaway went to recognise the colonial legal framework with a few legislative amendments here and there (Lumumba, 2001 & Shivji, 2001). European conservationists sought to exploit the frightening notion that wildlife was about to disappear (see Grzimek, 1960: 20)[2]. The method for establishing wildlife-protected areas has not changed, and the establishment is praised as a conservation success. Conservation organisation is militaristic in style and action as survival for the fittest has always been the approach. This is not a place to go into details of this law of the jungle. Suffice it to mention that the principal danger of this situation is not just the denial of civil liberties; the serious danger is a lasting one: the perpetuation of established disorder. It is the contention of this paper that Tanzanians must ensure that wildlife must survive as long as they do, irrespective of whether or not there is an economic advantage in so doing.
2 The Background of the Crisis When
colonisers from Europe arrived in America shortly after 1492, they found the
Indians living on the land with a wide range of natural resources.
Colonialists gunned down herds of wildlife. The dimension of poaching in that
era has had no equal anywhere since. The Native Americans were also hunted
down like dogs. The European invasion of Africa was also followed by a hunting
spree, which was sustained for years. Several species of wildlife were brought
near the brink of extinction. The loss of some wild species led some
colonisers to campaign for conservation (Parkipuny, 1991). Wildlife conservation in Tanzania dates as far back as 1891 when laws controlling hunting were first enacted by the Germans. In 1921, the British established the Game Department. In 1928, Ngorongoro [Koronkoro was corrupted by Europeans to Ngorongoro] Crater Closed was established. A year later, the Serengeti [Siringet was corrupted by Europeans to Serengeti] Game Reserve was established (MNRT, 1998). In 1951 the Serengeti National Park, which incorporated the Ngorongoro Crater, was gazetted followed by several National Parks and Game Reserves. After “independence,” many wildlife-protected areas were established. Today Tanzania has set aside nearly 48% of its territory for wildlife conservation. This is in the form of 12 National Parks (4%), 32 Game Reserves (15%), and 38 Game Controlled Areas (8%). Ngorongoro Conservation Area (1%) plus over 8% to other de facto wildlife protected areas (MNRT, 1996) such as “corridors, buffer zones” etc., 570 Forest Reserves cover nearly 15% of which 3% overlap with other areas devoted to wildlife conservation (MNRT, 1998:4). The principal wildlife protected areas are shown on the map (p.5). There is also 1 Marine Park (%?). As such, Tanzania is among the leading of the few countries in the world that has designated a huge portion of its land area for wildlife conservation. Sadly, the contribution of the tourism sector to the national economy has persistently been dismal (see below). Tanzanians living in and/or around wildlife-protected areas have been in an unpleasant state of limbo regarding the role of the sector in alleviating the abject poverty facing them (Parkipuny, 1991). The inclusion of certain species into endangered ones is done on a global scale, that is, the endangered species may be abundant in one region, but globally endangered. This puts local communities in and/or around wildlife-protected areas at a very tight corner. Yet, conservationists want more land for wildlife conservation. The whole ploy is, virtually, to make Tanzania a tourism dependent economy. Adam Smith’s comparative advantage theory seems to be the hidden agenda. This Order makes it possible for the North to determine and control the prices of both exports and imports in developing economies. What would happen if Tanzania is dictated to reduce say, park-entering fees? It
is very dangerous for an African country like Tanzania to be a
tourism-depended economy due to a number of reasons. The main, among others,
is the fact that any suspicious of insecurity in the country concerned or even
in neighbouring countries is enough to divert tourists (Fosbrooke, 1972). For
example, a significant proportion of tourists to Tanzania begin their visits
in Kenya: approximately, 60% of tourists cross via the Kenyan border. But
political instability in Kenya has reduced the number of tourists to Kenya,
affecting revenues in Tanzania too (Mwinyiechi, 2001:2). Map
Of Tanzania Showing Core Protected Areas[3]
One obvious distortion that conservationists are perpetuating is the view that the tourism sector is contributing highly to the national economy. Irrespective of having a big share of the land (see Table 1), wildlife contribution to the Gross Domestic Product is about 2% (AWF, 2001b:ii & MNRT, 1998:33). It is equally absurd to suggest that the sector is employing many people. For out of about 33 million Tanzanians, the sector has been employing an average of 92,556 people per year from 1991-1999 (JMT, 2000).
Table
1: Estimates of land use patterns in Tanzania[4] Small-scale
cultivation
5.1% Large-scale
cultivation
1.5% Range
lands (for livestock and wildlife)
39.4% Forestry
and woodlands (for mainly wildlife) 49.1% Others
5.0% Total
100.0% Source: (Calculated by me from Shivji, 2001 & MNRT, 1996). In 1981, the UNESCO declared both Ngorongoro Conservation Area and Serengeti National Park the World Heritage Sites in recognition of their “outstanding universal value for humankind.” Yet Tanzania is among the 10 poorest countries in the world![5] Over 50% of the human population is living below the “poverty line” (visit tanzania.go.tz). The Serengeti Maasai were ejected to give room for wildlife (Fosbrooke, 1972). The fate of the Ngorongoro Maasai is uncertain as conservationists threaten to eject them altogether from their ancestral land (Shivji, 2001). The said two wildlife-protected areas are estimated at 23,060 km2. The total land area designated for wildlife-protected areas in the Greater Serengeti Region is bigger than Switzerland. The latter is 41,293 km2. It can be said undoubtedly that UNESCO can never dare to make a similar recognition in, say, Europe. It does not take much effort to imagine how the Swiss would accept this state of affair, being ejected to give room for the “World Heritage Site” for the Maasai tourists to visit and bring in the “badly need foreign currency” or anything else. Land Act 1999 and Policy 1995[6] The corpus of land tenure regime developed during the colonial times continued to apply fully after independence with only one change: ‘President’ replaced ‘Governor’. All public lands were vested in the President as the head of the executive under the control and administration of the state bureaucracy. The jurisprudence developed by the courts until recently considered customary tenure, that is deemed rights of occupancy, inferior and less secure to granted right of occupancy. Major shifting of customary holders like the villagisation programme was carried out without any fundamental change in the land tenure regime. Similarly, the state after independence alienated village lands for various, so-called public purpose, without first following due process provisions of compulsory acquisition of the Land Acquisition Act, 1967 (Shivji, 2001:30). The new Land Act 1999 and Village Land Act 1999 were drafted by the British consultant, Professor Patrick McAuslan, whose work was funded by the British Overseas Development Administration, now Department for International Development (DfID). He is the man “trusted” by the Tanzanian Government to sort out the grave mess resulting from the British colonial state’s Land Ordinance 1923. Significantly, Professor Shivji was not involved in the drafting of the Act, although he had spent two years (1991-1992) as a Chairman of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into Land Matters. The Act advocates individualisation of land tenure. This is paramount to create security of land tenure and ensure freedom of exchange of land as a commodity with a market value. Contrary to the Presidential Commission’s recommendations (URT, 1994), the Ministry of Lands officials are still in-charge of land administration (Nangoro, 2001). The two pieces of Legislation, basically, reflect the National Land Policy 1995 that has retained the Colonial Legacy and globalisation system. The Village Land Act 1999 reduces a village land title to a village land certificate, which is less powerful than the former. The Right of Occupancy type of land tenure is as virgin as before. Title to land remains to the President. The Government does not take into account the marginalised communities. The policy and lawmakers have once more misunderstood the pastoral mode of production as “irrational” and “unviable.” The policy condemns pastoralism for bringing land use conflicts and destruction of the environment. On the other hand the policy does not mention hunter-gatherers at all (Porokwa, 2001). The laws are elaborate piece of legislation. The vesting of radical title in the President continues with one difference. The President holds all lands in trust. Whether this will be treated as a legal trust or only a political trust remains to be seen (Shivji, 2001). The national land policy vested even more power in the executive arm of the state over control and management of land (Kapinga, 1997:16). The implication of these two pieces of land legislation is the predicament of rural people, pastorals in particular (Francis Shomet pers.comm. 04.09.02). Despite several informed calls to formulate a fair Land Act, “McAuslan’s” Land Act was approved by the parliament in May 2001 (Ndaskoi, 2002). The Government as a custodian of public rights may need a legislation like the Land Act 1999 and Village Land Act 1999, but surely with some conditions. No one should have a right and powers to decent life under any cover. Under the present system, not only that the Government decides unilaterally on rates of compensation, but also it is not compelled to compensate when it repatriate land. What is to be expected of the people who are vacated from their ancestral lands? (ibid: 6). These are just the salient features of the Tanzanian profile. There are many details that have been left out not because they are not important, but because the aim of this paper is to reconstruct some specific processes which have a bearing on the discussion at hand. The issues that have been highlighted in this chapter are those related to historical background of conservation in Tanzania, the size of land designated for wildlife conservation, contribution of the tourism sector to the economy and the donors dictation in policy and law making in Tanzania. 3 What is Wildlife Conservation in Tanzania for?Tourism is considered the jet engine empowering the Tanzanian exchequer. The Government benefits financially[7] and rhetorically from wildlife conservation. It is argued that policies must serve political, social, cultural as well as economic ends. But the revenue earned from the tourism sector is much more of a priority for the international multimillion companies and Government officials than the plight of rural people. At the same time, some conservationists claim that wildlife should not be valued in economic terms and that existence values are reasons enough to conserve wildlife and that attaching a 'market' value will lead to the extinction of species (WCMC, 1992). Conservation
was aimed at securing future German generations the chance to find leisure and
recreation in African hunting in the future times. A decree made by Hermann
Vos Wissmann, the Imperial Governor in the first general Wildlife Ordinance
for the then German East Africa in 1896 is evidence. He said, "…I feel
obliged to issue this Ordinance in order to conserve wildlife and to avoid
that species become extinct for our future generations" (Kakakuona,
April-June 2000). It must be said that no fair-minded person can underestimate the role that this decree played in conservation of wildlife in Tanganyika. But to the Germans, just like other Europeans of the time, an African was regarded generally as a poacher, a thief, actual or potential. He was a liar and a layabout. He was a parasite and, of course, he was most definitely a danger to the lives of white men, women, children and African wildlife, if not a potential rapist as well (Vambe, 1972:105). The humanity and dignity of the “natives” did not count in the eyes of the “whites” (Shivji, 1986:75). Conservation was (is) meant for tourists from the “nations of European Stock”, a people who are thirsting for recreation in the wilderness (WTO, 1992). Tourists were (are) granted hunting permits that are as good as legalised poaching. This is exactly what brought several wildlife species to extinction or near the brink of extinction. It is impossible to comprehend the reasons under which the Hadza (singular Hadzabi), the Mbugwe, the Maasai, the Iraqw, the Rangi, ethnic groups living round Tarangire and Lake Manyara National Parks would kill a rhino or an elephant. But Tarangire was a home to thousands of black rhinos. Disturbingly, today there is no rhino in the park (Business Times March 3-9, 2000). It was a home to a large number of elephants that were about to be eliminated altogether by the European “hunters”. The Hadza can no longer crop what traditionally belongs to them because they are blindly branded “poachers” (Fosbrooke, 1972). A major goal of the narrow-minded and rather arrogant conservationists is to eliminate hunting by Africans, which colonial Governments believed threatened to wipe out wildlife. For instance Frederick Selous claimed that of every 1,000 hunted elephants, Africans killed 997. Selous had no evidence for this assertion, but it served the purpose of those who wanted to guarantee the availability of wild animals for the aristocratic hunters (Adams & McShane, 1992:46). Joseph Thomson, who explored Maasailand in the 1880s, had a bleak view. Thomson exaggerated the threat the ivory trade posed to elephants, but not by much (Adams & McShane, 1992 & 1996). The
slaughter of elephants by white hunters, particularly in southern Africa, was
staggering. A well-outfitted hunter could shoot upward of two hundred
elephants in a single safari, and several thousand if he made a career of it.
Some hunters killed so many elephants that ivory overflowed their wagons and
had to be abandoned in the bush (Thomson, 1885 cited in Fosbrooke 1972). Similarly, it was the selfish German and British poachers, farmers and ranchers who mercilessly butchered rhinos. The late Henry Fosbrooke, the former Ngorongoro Chief Conservator, testifies: Some
of the disappearance [of rhinos] is due to shooting, for pleasure or profit,
as witness the bags of the early sportsmen. Sir John Willoughby and three
brother officers from the Indian army shot 66 in the Taveta region near
Kilimanjaro in the course of four months. Count Teleki and his party, [“]
discoverers [”] of Lake Rudolf, shot 99 in the course of their safari.
Another party was alleged to have shot 80 around Machakos in 1893 in less than
three months. Further cases on the German side of the border are Dr. Kolb, who
killed 150 before one killed him; Herr von Bastineller, killed 140, Herr von
Eltz, killed 60, Dr. Oscar Baumann, the first European to see Lakes Manyara
and Eyasi in 1892, killed three in Ngorongoro and so on (Fosbrooke 1972:97ff).
These figures reveal not only the bloodlust of the so-called sportsmen, but also the extraordinary density of the rhino population in Africa during those strange times of white men wandering. Africans also hunted but let it not be thought that they hunted for amateurs. Three men, one musket, one homemade muzzleloader, no tent, no shoes, and little more than rags for clothing, Africans go out hunting for survival (Adams & McShane, 1996:126ff). On the contrary Europeans appeared to get a thrill out of wildlife shooting (Fosbrooke, 1972). Let any Doubting Thomas listen to Thomson: I was more successful in finishing a sleeping rhinoceros. I crept up to it with the customary precautions, and in the process I experienced the usual sensations as of crawling centipedes about my spine, a wildly pulsating heart, a feeling of sweating blood, staring eyes, and gasping for breath, till on getting into actual danger, my nerves became braced up, my muscles like iron. When within a few yards, I took swift and silent aim. As the report echoed with startling roar I dropped to the ground like a hare. The great black mass instantly became animate. Jumping up, it stared wildly around, and then with blood spouting out of its nostrils like water from a fountain, it ran a short distance, to topple over dead. It had been shot through the lungs…After this…(Thomson, 1885 cited in Fosbrooke 1972:97).
Perhaps this is actually what he felt, or perhaps he had his eye on his book sales and the impact this fanciful writing was likely to have in Victoria clubs and drawing rooms! All in all, this hunting brought some wildlife species near the brink of extinction in Africa, Tanzania in particular. Serengeti attracted many scientists whose research plans called for shooting wildlife in protected areas, which was prohibited in Kenya and Uganda but not in Tanzania. As a result, between 1964 and 1971 researchers killed thousands of animals in the interest of science. Hundreds of orphaned calves were abandoned to die of starvation or were predated. The black rhino that once thrived in the Serengeti is on the brink of extinction (ibid.89). Serengeti National Park used to buy horns and ivory, supposedly to discourage poaching (Saitoti, 1986). This undoubtedly had fuelled poaching. Researchers, few of them Africans, have turned Tanzania (Serengeti and Ngorongoro in particular) into a laboratory in which doctoral dissertations are undertaken. This is mainly in the field of conservation biology as the Soules put it: “Conservation biology remains of interest primarily to members of university departments in Europe and North America”(Soule et al., 1986). Myles Turner, a warden in Serengeti National Park from 1956 to 1972, in his My Serengeti Years, noted: In those days there was little question of research being geared for park management, and a determined smash-and-grab raid for PhD’s was started by youngsters who regarded the Serengeti and its animals as a vast natural laboratory to be looted at will. Scientists are in charge of the animals these days. We just keep things going for them (Turner, 1989 cited in Adams & McShane, 1996). That statement is still true. Scientists working in the Serengeti and elsewhere in Africa often labour under the same myths that plague other aspects of conservation. Scientific research has usually occurred in a cultural vacuum, with little interaction with Africans. Biological and ecological examination of the minutiae of an African ecosystem not only misses the cultural forest in pursuit of exceptional trees, but scientists sometimes appear to be studying wildlife into extinction (Adams & McShane, 1996:86). No place on earth offers a better opportunity to observe the behaviour of large mammals than Serengeti, and Serengeti guarantee a comfortable climate nearly year around.[8]
The claim that a market value should not be attached to conservation is, in plain English, blatant lies! In practical terms, land allocated to wildlife conservation is reserved for tourists and investors who are significantly foreigners. Foreign investors own about 80% of the entire tourist hotels and lodges. They own nearly 90% of the air travel and about 90% of tourist hunting business and transport. About 60% of all tour operator firms (Business Times December 28, 2001-January 4, 2002). You can now understand why “the nations of European stock” [Baffour Ankomah’s latest phrase] are clamouring for wildlife conservation. If you do not, other thoughts must be developed! The Head of Delegation of European Union Commission, William Hanna, said, “During the European Summer the long-haul jets have been full of tourists arriving in Tanzania” (Utalii, August 2001). Professor Seithy Chachage adds: “…just after Christmas in 1996, two chartered planes landed in Zanzibar, straight from Italy with more than 2,000 tourists who were going to spend their time in the beaches of Zanzibar and then fly to Arusha and back home” (Chachage, 2000:186). At this point it may not be a bad idea to make assumptions. One, assume the said 2,000 tourists visited Ngorongoro Conservation Area. They were accommodated in a foreign owned hotel for two[9] days. Each tourist paid a total of US $ 150 fees for hotel expenses per day. The hotel owner (X) earned a total of US $ 600,000 in two days. Let this amount be what X earned in the year 1996. X was tax exempted.[10] Two, assume the said planes belong to another investor (Y). A tourist paid US $ 2400 as air fair for the whole safari. Y earned a gross total of US $ 4,800,000 in 1996. And British Airway and KLM are the leading airlines ferrying tourists to and fro Tanzania (Ndaskoi, 2002:9). As stated earlier, the majority of Tanzanians live far below the “poverty line” earning less than US $ 1 per day i.e. US $ 246 (in 2001) per capita. Remember the average income per capita is obtained by an arithmetically equal distribution of wealth, which no Utopia is expected to achieve. Even so, it will take an average Tanzanian over 2,430 and 19,500 years to earn what X and Y respectively earned in just one year. And the average life expectancy in Tanzania is estimated at 48 years. This is a parasitic stratum. It strengthened tour and travel companies in the same way in which local communities are weakened. It is polarisation of wealth and poverty at two opposite extremes. It is all sheer robbery, criminal plunder of the weak by the strong. To borrow the late Dr. Rodney’s (1970: 254) phrase, “capitalism is parading in without even a loin cloth to cover its nakedness.” The Western world is full of records about wild Africa. Some of the documents wreaths to attract tourists while conservation crusaders aim at benefactors. For example, du Chaillu’s editors refused to publish his account of his journey, Exploration and Adventures in Equatorial Africa, until he had revised it twice so it met their high standard of sensationalism. They knew the European marketplace, if not the African forest. The book, finally, published in 1861, sold over 10,000 copies in two years (Adams & McShane, 1992:211), so is almost the story about wild Tanganyika (see Schillings, 1906). Dick Persson, and his ilk have left an “indelible” mark in wildlife cinematography in Tanzania. They produced “great” films thus they are winners of several awards: Baron
Hugo Van Lawick and his close assistant Edith Brinkers have attracted a good
number of wildlife conservators, tourists and nature lovers to Tanzania with a
strong zeal to find out in bushes what they saw on screen…Hugo has spend
more time with [Tanzania] wild animals than with people… He has spent 25
years in his tented camp near Lake Ndutu in the Serengeti National Park making
nature films which has taken the world by storm. These include Savage
Paradise, Race for Life-Africas Great Migration, Cheetahs: In the Land of
Lions, Lion: Pride of Africa, Leopard Son and his latest-Serengeti
Symphony…Among the Wild Chimpanzees, The Baboons of Gombe and The People of
Forest…He earned…six Emmy Awards, a Kodak Prism Award, L’Ordre du Merite,
the Bradford Washburn Award, the Order of the Golden Ark from Prince Bernhard
of Netherlands, and a British Academy nomination (Kakakuona,
October-December 1999). It must be emphasised that their target is the West and the urban centres in Tanzania. The point just made need not be belaboured. Suffice it to say rural people in Tanzania neither speak English nor do they have televisions[11]. Worse even, documentation was/is being used to demonise Africans! A case in point is Elspeth Huxley, a great liar, typical of wildlife crusaders. He wrote, “The Olduvai Gorge used to be full of rhino. And then, in 1961, in the space of six months, the Leakeys counted over fifty rotting carcases in the Gorge, all speared by Masai. Whether or not their motive was political, they had taken the profit; every horn had been removed. Since then the Leakeys have not seen a single rhino at Olduvai” (Huxley, 1964). In 1966, over 70 rhinos inhabited Olduvai (Goddard, 1967 cited in Fosbrooke, 1972). The question of territoriality for rhino is very critical. “Rhino may stay in their own territory and die rather than seek pasture new…. With an animal of such static habits it is clearly impossible that the population built up from nil to 70 between 1963 when Huxley was writing, and 1966” (Fosbrooke, 1972). Huxley owes his audience an explanation. Other beneficiaries are the self-appointed emancipators calling themselves advocates of this and that right of the ruined communities. Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) claim a role of human rights guardians. At the same time they behave as authoritarian pseudo state agencies, with parasitic behaviour. Many NGOs thunder for rights of communities especially women (see Hunter et al., 1990 & Thomas, 1992). The executive directors feed on the sufferings of the communities under whose interest the organisations claim to exist. NGOs sit on both sides of the fence, scolding for human rights and begging funds in the name of local people (see Hanlon & Sikoyo, 2001:18). There are several Western NGOs supporting disadvantaged groups in Africa. All have hidden agendas, mainly funds and popularity. Commenting on the hullabaloo by Survival, United Kingdom-based NGO that supports tribal peoples, Dr. Katumile Masire (“the clever baboon”) former President of Botswana said it all: …They
[Sans] are disadvantaged people. We want them to join the rest of the Batswana,
to have schools, to go into settlements, where they can have clinics and
hospitals. But those who want to do anthropological studies feel that this is
interference, because, they say, we are poaching into their hunting grounds (Misser,
2002). The Government of Botswana may well, for ill or good, be “brutally evicting the last Gana and Gwi from their ancestral lands”. But why organisations like Survival, which are neither neighbours nor in-laws of the Sans, are roaring? Welcome back to fund rising and rhetoric. Nothing else explains it! After all, in Britain they say, “there is nothing like a free lunch”. Civil society has failed to embolden communities to stand the challenge of bargaining for their rights (Lumumba, 2001:5). NGOs, but not all, are correcting evil by spreading it. In fact one of the blights on the affairs of Tanzania is the role of NGOs funded by Western Governments, individuals and institutions. It will be in everybody’s interest for the NGOs to re-examine themselves. Meanwhile there are consultants, if consultants they could be called, working shoulder to shoulder with the Government in policy making. They defend their sadistic behaviour in the name of earning bread. However, not all of them are guilty. But some are chameleons of development, making themselves up with the latest instant tints. As a genus, chameleon consultants have a wide distribution. There are tropical species, but many are from the temperate North (Chambers, 1997).
In spite of the country being a wildlife treasure-trove, the indigenous population trail far behind. They constitute the bulk of beneficiaries of natural resources found in their “independent” country. Some members of local communities are employed in the tourism sector as sellers of baskets, scalp, and mainly pose for pictures normally in exchange of T-shirts, sweets, etc. The concept of cultural tourism has of late been among the main problems facing the Maasai as a people but Ngorongoro Maasai particularly. After a few bends drive up the crater rim from the lower gate-house one sees the Maasai readily available to pose for tourist cameras. Some behave in typical pauper manners (Joel ole Rakwa pers.comm. 04.09.02). The Cultural Heritage in Arusha and others have been using the Maasai warriors, ilmuran, to entertain tourists. Nobody in responsible circles is seriously concerned with this phenomenon because it is not regarded as a problem (Lomelok ole Naigisa pers.comm. 05.09.02). But it is a tragedy so great that one is often overcome by despair due to the fact that the Maasai are being reduced to deformed frogs, which beg tourists. 4 Communities’ ShareIn Tanzania there is much talk on the need of wildlife neighbouring communities to share the benefits of wildlife and other national reserves. This loud cry is neither supported by enforceable legislation nor by clearly spelt out Government policies. To Government functionaries, it is enough to proudly talk of the earnings from wildlife and highlight it as a percentage of the national income. If the successes of conservation in terms of the welfare of rural people in and/or adjacent to wildlife-protected areas are gauged, obviously they are failure. Yet the villages in and around protected areas have little or almost no Government-supported infrastructures. For example: There are no Government-sponsored but only three privately owned advanced level secondary education schools in the five Districts (Babati, Kondoa, Kiteto, Simanjiro and Monduli) bordering Tarangire National Park and in Ngorongoro Districts (Ndaskoi 2002:21). Even after 40 years of Tanganyika independence, the Government has refused (?) to build a District hospital in Ngorongoro (KIHACHA, 2002) inhabited by over 109, 000 people. And it may take a month to travel from Arusha to Loliondo depending on the season for there is almost no road (Watschinger, undated: 80ff & 109)… [Primary] school attendance and the teachers’ sense of duty are miserable… Of the 250 pupils on the register only 120 are usually present, sometimes far fewer; I have found schools with only 40 pupils present! And if there are seven teachers on the staff of a school, I can often find two… School inspections by the District education office hardly ever take place (ibid: 186). This situation brings to question the legitimacy of wildlife conservation vis-à-vis the right of rural people to lead a decent life given nature endowment in their localities. Communities are deceived! How
much for instance, of the earnings do precipitate down to a peasant or a
pastoralist who spent sleepless nights because of the menace caused by
wildlife? During the second phase Government, hunters in Loliondo and
Simanjiro simply built a grinding mill, or a cattle-watering trough to
thousands of villagers and gave local leaders “something” and part with
the rest. Very few, if at all, Maasai are, for instance, employed in the
tourism sector in Tanzania. Parkipuny put it: To this day, the Ngorongoro Maasai have no effective voice in the NCAA. They are denied employment on the pretext that they do not want to take up job opportunities. Yet more than 90% of the 260 employees in the Mara Reserve [Kenya] are individuals of the pastoral Maasai cultural group. Out of more than 180 employees of the NCAA, only seven are Maasai from within the area and another two come from Kiteto and Monduli Districts (Parkipuny, 1991:23). It must be noted that a licence to shoot an elephant for instance was US $ 4,000. This is what the Government earned. Between 1988 and 1992, 154 elephants were licensed to be shot (WWF, undated), which earned the Government US $ 616,000 as license fees only. How much did the local communities earn in this period? In any case whatever peanut was given to local communities was accounted by marvellous publicity. Government functionaries are invited as guests of honour surrounded by popular mass media! This (see Box 3) is [original emphasis] benefit from the “Community Based Wildlife Conservation” indeed (Ndaskoi, 2002).
Box 3: Pauperisation in Loliondo, Ngorongoro District
The owner of Otterlo Business Company (OBC), a Brigadier General from the
United Arab Emirates called "the Arab," received a ten-year permit
to hunt in Ololosokwan and ten neighbouring villages. In return, according
to Government regulations, OBC is required to pay 25% of their revenues to
the District Council. OBC
was also contracted to provide an additional $ 85, 000 to support village
water projects. Villagers claimed, however, that they were never party to
the contract, which was signed by the former MP on their behalf. Moreover,
there is no formal mechanism for local participation in decision-making
about hunting concession in the Tanzanian Government, which leaves local
communities at the mercy of higher authorities and private interests.
Villagers
report regular sightings of lorries carrying herds of young wildlife, been
transported to airfields for shipment overseas. In at least one case they
witnessed an aircraft being filled with young wildlife at the Loliondo
airstrip. "…is this conservation according to the Government?"
"We were told to allow these companies to enter our land, that they
would conserve the wildlife. Look what they are doing!" These were some
of the comments made by the local community. The initial shock has been
overcome by cynicism given the failure of the Government at all levels to
respond effectively to stop the plunder. At
the same time, the entire District Administration and the town along with it
depend on OBC for basic infrastructure support. This includes electricity
for most of Loliondo; the local airport (rehabilitation and maintenance);
road repair and maintenance, as observed and reported to us. Source:
(Adapted and modified from Mbilinyi, 2000).
What shocks even more is the fact that villagers are not and have never been in a position to negotiate or to be part of the negotiating sides on how to share the earnings from the wildlife, because they are not well informed. This skimpy understanding disarms villagers from assessing the fairness of what they get (see Tables 2 & 3). Nowhere are the percentages of earnings are stipulated as far as local communities share is concerned. They receive what they are given as purely a token!
Table 2: Tarangire National Park (TNP) visitors’ statistics[12] Year
Total visitors
Revenue (TShs). 1998/1999
41,147
789,304,100 1999/2000
50,668
894,374,471 2000/2001
58,060
1,095,987,776
Source: Interview
with Tarangire National Park
Table 3: Handouts from TNP to villages (and schools) from 1997/1998-July
2001
No.
of projects handed over
No. of Villages
No. of Districts
Amount (TShs)
42
18
5
165,614,139.60 Source: (Porokwa, 2000) & interview with Tarangire National Park These
“projects” are aimed at, among other things, reducing poaching.
Ironically, within the time framework in which TANAPA handed over the
“projects” to communities poaching escalated. In 1998, 23 poachers were
arrested in and round Tarangire National Park. 70 poachers were arrested in
1999. In the year 2000, 80 poachers were arrested (interview with TNP). Above
all, over 1,000 poachers were arrested in 1999, the highest number of arrests
made per year for the past 44 years in Tanzania (Guardian
April 7, 2001). TANAPA might be having the reason(s) for the escalation. Once more,
TANAPA has failed to understand that the interest of tourists from the West is
in conflict with those of rural people in Africa. The agency is trying to let
the rural people be tourists in wildlife-protected areas, like national parks.
It may test much to take a villager to visit the huge towns like London but
not to visit beasts in the local parks, something a Westerner would wish to do
before he die. In other words, what seems to matter to the outside world means
little to villagers. In a period of 5 years, “projects” (Table 3 above) were allegedly given to approximately 300,000 villagers living adjacent to the park. Strangely, about 100 park employees would get upward of TShs.370,166,494 as salaries and other benefits in 2001/2002 fiscal year (TNP, 2002:7). While Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA) may boast of the handouts, there are questions to be asked about “Community Conservation Services”, viz. 1. What is the value of the “projects”? 2. Who was an independent auditor? 3. Is it true that investment in social services were at the top of the priority list of the villagers? 4.
What is
the value of communities’ belongings destroyed by beasts in those five
years? In the
meantime, it is difficult to understand that what was channelled to local
communities is benefits accrued from the wildlife sector. This is because
while TANAPA was granting help to communities, it was almost the same time the
agency, with a bowl in hand as all the poor do, begging handouts from
international wildlife conservation agencies like African Wildlife Foundation.
Lake Manyara and Tarangire gained the status of national parks in 1960 and
1969 respectively. They received tourists 12 hours a day, 7 days a week and 4
weeks a month for over 33 long years. Sadly, the said parks depend on foreign
aid for even the basic infrastructure as clarified: United
States Agency for International Development (USAID), through Partnership
Options for Resources use Innovations project being implemented by AWF, has
provided equipment worth $ 643,413 to improve roads in Tarangire and Lake
Manyara National Parks. Water supply will be provided to seven ranger posts in
Tarangire, six to Lake Manyara, a visitor centre in each of the parks,
signposts and field guides and maps. 27 radios will be provided to improve
communication and combat poaching. Transport has been improved by the
provision of six vehicles. TANAPA has been assisted in improving community
conservation. The parks were expected in 1999 to receive about 55, 000
tourists each, about 10% of them Americans (The
Guardian January 1, 2000). It can be
said truthfully; too that African wildlife can just as well do without foreign
aid. It must be spelt out in no uncertain terms exactly where the billions of
shillings in royalties pumped into the parks or the treasury for the said over
33 long years have been going (Happiness ene Milia pers.comm. 08.09.02). If
not, then one can assume that the bulk of this money fell and it is still
falling into bottomless pits, of which Tanzania seems to be endowed with so
many. Even if the money was (is) committed to external debt payments that was
(is) one of the pits. Since Tanzania started in earnest paying for its debts,
the debt has kept on rising instead of diminishing! In all
honesty, why should TANAPA be a professional beggar or a receiver of crumbs?
Unfortunately the tragedy, like many others, is praised as “sustainable
development.” Development must be measured on the basis of how much better
the people ate, dressed and lived, but not in terms of export performance and
the badly needed foreign currency (Babu, 1981 & Gill, 1993). Money means
very little to rural people (World Vision, 1993). They have sources, which are
not easy to inspect. So, much empirical evidence is strikingly contrary
(Chambers, 1997). There is nothing with which one can compare with Ngorongoro (Grzimek, 1960:47). It is the only remaining best rangeland for the Maasai (Fosbrooke, 1972:94; Parkipuny, 1991 & Saibull & Carr, 1981). Thus the Maasai accepting eviction from Ngorongoro, Ngorongoro Conservation Area in particular in order to give room for wildlife or anything else is fatally damaging (Ndaskoi, 2002). 5 Good News for the Lion is a Terrible Tragedy for the DeerThe
Barabaigs traditional economic activity is agro-pastoralism. The Hadza and the
Maasai ethnic groups depended, almost entirely, on hunting, gathering and
pastoralism respectively. The Government supports the spontaneous and organic
immigration of peasant onto rangelands and hunters-gathers lands on the
grounds of exercise of common rights of all citizens for resources within the
borders of their country, irrespective of places of origin of individuals (Parkipuny,
1991b). The Government just gazettes the land for “national interest.” This denies indigenous
access to resources vital to the viability of flexible nomadism and
sustainable traditional hunting[13].
They are simply thrown out of their ancestral lands and left to find for
themselves space to make out a living. This in turn pushes these internal
refugees to enter territories of other people thus leading to tension. The Hadza whose home
is present day Mbulu District, particularly in the Lake Eyasi basin, are very
few. It is believed that they hunted in areas extending to present-day Lake
Manyara and Tarangire National Parks and in or adjacent to the Ngorongoro
Crater (Fosbrooke, 1972:156). They are, as stated earlier, not mentioned in
any Tanzanian legislation. This implies that they will sooner or later
disappear like American Red Indians. The Hadza today are wandering in more
marginal lands of Central Tanzania. Their land is being alienated by the
Government for various “development schemes” and engulfed by peasants and
pastoralists. The Barabaigs lived for several centuries in Hanang Districts of
Arusha Region (Lane, 1991) and Ngorongoro (Fosbrooke, 1972:157). It is said that
Maasailand extend from Mkomazi through Upare to the southern foothills of
Kilimanjaro and runs northward between Kilimanjaro and Meru (Kivasis, 1953).
To the West the Maasai took in the whole of Maasai Steppe extending southwards
to include today known villages on the Handeni-Kondoa road, Swakini, Kijungu
and Mgera. The extreme westerly limit of the Maasailand is the West of the
Serengeti (Fosbrooke,
1951; 1972; Mpaayei, 1954 & Thomson, 1885). Northern Tanzania
was previously part of an extended pastoral system whose rangeland resources
were commonly used by wildlife and livestock (Parkipuny & Berger, 1989;
Fosbrooke, 1972:94; Thomson 1885 & Grizmek, 1960). Besides pastoralists
there were hunters. When colonialists evicted the Serengeti Maasai, they were
promised land in Ngorongoro. Historically and legally, the Maasai are allowed
to live with wildlife in Ngorongoro. The provision is giving conservationists
who want the area to be a national park a hard time. Maasai used to reside in
Ngorongoro Crater (Fosbrooke, 1972; Parkipuny, 1991 & Shivji, 2001) until
1974, when they were ejected. It was initially promised that humans living in the area would not be marginalized. In the words of the Governor, Sir Richard Turnbull, addressing the Maasai Federal Council on August 27, 1959: “Another
matter which closely concerns the Maasai is the new scheme for the protection
of the Ngorongoro Crater. I should like to make it clear to you all that it is
the intention of the Government to develop the Crater in the interests of the
people who use it. At the same time the Government intends to protect the game
animals of the area; but should there be any conflict between the interests of
the game and the human inhabitants, those of the latter must take
precedence” (Parkipuny, 1991:22 & Grzimek 1960:246). This promise is as
dead as Turnbull himself in present day Tanzania. This was only a compromise
for swards were drawn[14].
All told, the Maasai under the leadership of their Member of Parliament,
Edward ole Mbarnoti, argued that if the Maasai do not eat wild meat, if the
Maasai do not cultivate, if the Maasai have all along lived side by side with
wildlife and if the Maasai were evicted from Serengeti and promised land in
Ngorongoro, what moral, legal or whatever grounds can anybody stand on and
order the Maasai to vacate Ngorongoro? But in order to live harmoniously with wildlife in Ngorongoro, “The Maasai were promised everything possible: wells, schools, dispensaries- but virtually none of these promises has been kept. Consideration is given to every gazelle, but much too little care is given to the people and their living space in these areas” (Watschinger, undated: 52). The rights of the Ngorongoro Maasai have never been given explicit primacy (Ndaskoi, 2002). The following quote is another testimony. The
villagers claimed that the Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority cares less
about the people in the area than it does for the wildlife and physical
environment (Arthem 1981:16)…. Once a unique effort to sustain both wildlife
and pastoralists, the Ngorongoro Conservation Area is today just another park
or reserve, and a poorly managed at that (Adams & McShane, 1996: 53)…Maasai
is a tribe in turmoil (Ndaskoi, 2002). And more is to be expected. A letter written to the Principal Secretary of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism by the Ngorongoro Chief Conservator, E. B. Chausi, on May 4, 2001 read: Jana
tarehe 3/5/2001, Menejimenti ya NCAA na Uongozi wa Wilaya ya Ngorongoro
tuliwasilisha matatizo ya kilimo kinachoendelea Hifadhini Ngorongoro na suala
la wahamiaji haramu NCA katika Mkutano wa Kamati ya Ushauri ya Mkoa wa Arusha.
Maazimio ya Kamati katika suala hili yalikuwa ni pamoja na: -…. (2) ….na
kuweka utaratibu wa kuhamishia nje ya Hifadhi idadi ya mifugo na familia za
wakazi zitakazozidi (3) Utaratibu wa kuwahamisha wahamiaji nje ya Hifadhi
ufanyike mara baada ya kupatikana maeneo ya kuwahamishia, nje ya Hifadhi na
kama itabidi nje ya Wilaya na Mkoa. The most persistent illusion in the conservationists’ vision of the Maasai is that the community is static. Pushed hard against the wall by development paradigms, the community is changing with alarming proportions. The late Ndooto ole Muress, oloiboni of Ngorongoro Highlands had never seen a printed page, but was graced with intellect and charisma. His concern was always his people, and their fight for survival (Saibull & Carr, 1981). He had a clear vision of what was in store. We
[iloibonok] had considerable
influence over our people in organising inter-tribal warfare, and our warriors
were once a fighting people who saw glory only in battle… There is nothing
left for us, and for them. Our people are on the verge of drastic change. It
is bound to happen… Perhaps not in my lifetime.
(ibid: 64). Ole Muress died six
months later. Cattle are gone. Agriculture may be an alternative. The illegal
immigrants and encroaching agriculturalists referred to in the above quoted
letter are, almost entirely, the Maasai. But agriculture is a threat to
wildlife survival. In order to save wildlife from extinction conservation
agencies, the slave-masters of globalisation era, resort to all sorts of
means-from deceiving to outright force- to alienate land for wildlife. The
following example is illustrative. Villages
like Engutotoosumbat, Ingurman, Oltulelei, Engung’u, Lorkujita, Orgilai,
Loomunyi, loondolwo and Ilkiragarie are located on a fertile mountain, Olormot.
There is the best rangeland in the area. A generous spring, Loong’arkutikie,
ensures a constant water supply. The Maasai started maize cultivation on this
area, the biggest threat in the eyes of conservationists. Conservationists
started to invest into social services such as water, education, health and
others down the barren plain, Engonini. These services have attracted many,
but not all, Maasai down there. As a result those who are resisting moving
down are being urged to do so. A sort of a national park is being cleverly
created on the best land (Maanda lole Koringo pers. comm. O7.09.02). Unfortunately, the
rural people have been incapable of seeing through the clever frauds that
conservation agencies have contrived in order to gain more wildlife-protected
areas in Tanzania. Moringe ole Parkipuny patriotically recorded how often
conservationists flattered the Maasai: When
Serengeti National Park, inclusive of the Ngorongoro Highlands, was first
established in 1940 the Maasai responded with categorical refusal to obey
Government orders, which required them to vacate their homeland. This created
the crisis which was settled by the 1958 compromise agreement. The Government
opted to split the land into two entities: Serengeti National Park and the
Ngorongoro Conservation Area which was to be run as a multiple land use area.
The Maasai conceded to this compromise but only after the Government promised
them guaranteed rights of occupation to the land, priority of interest and
development of compensation water in Ngorongoro… several dams were
constructed…boreholes were drilled…However, these water sources soon
proved inferior to the permanent natural supplies of Moru, western Serengeti
and Ngare Nanyuki, which the Maasai lost with the creation of the Serengeti
National Park (Parkipuny, 1991:21ff).
Probably, the Maasai will carry the burden of the above-referred blind compromise to their graves. The community must
take deliberate steps to defend its future. This is possible for: There
is nothing in the law to indicate, even remotely, that Maasai rights in
Ngorongoro were or have been extinguished. The problem arises in terms of the
extensive statutory powers of regulation that the Ngorongoro Conservation Area
Authority has over the lands in the area. Can it be said that these powers can
coexist and/or are compatible with the deemed rights of occupancy? What about
the statutory powers of the Authority to construct roads, buildings, etc. and
to prohibit, control and restrict residence and settlement in the area, and
even restrict and prohibit access to specified areas within the Ngorongoro
Conservation Area which directly impinge on the deemed rights? (Shivji &
Kapinga, 1998:30ff). The term
“agriculture” is narrowly being used to refer to crop cultivation.
Pastoralism is ignored! This bias has led to cultivation expansion on the
expense of herding. This in turn has led to tremendous contraction of
rangelands. The best land is appropriated and handed over to investors and
other schemes. Tanganyika Cattle Products Ltd. with the Government support
alienated 25,000 acres out of 115,000 acres controlled by Ololosokwan Village
authority. In 1987, recommendations were made to turn 34,176 hectares into
agrarian in Loliondo (NLUPC, 1987 & Parkipuny, 1990). The Government
supports this brazen land appropriation. The biggest fuss came in 1979 when
the Government alienated land to a German called Hermus Phillip Steyn who
established a ranch in Monduli District. Steyn and the Monduli District
Surveyors went off and demarcated 381,000 acres (approximately 400 square
miles) between Tarangire National Park and Simanjiro District. Sometimes later the
Government declared Steyn a prohibited immigrant. How he entered Tanzania in
the first place begs a bunch of questions. So bold was Steyn that he could
even fix the Government itself. Let its mouthpiece bear witness: Police
in Dar Es Salaam are investigating the smuggling of TShs.7,650,000 to Kenya,
the Inspector General of Police, Solomon Liani said. A Kenyan Superintendent
of Police, Norbert Oluoch Obanda, charged of corruptly
obtaining TShs.47,000 from
Hermus P. Steyn, a Tanzanian resident. The money, the prosecution claimed, was
an inducement to stop legal proceedings against Steyn for entering the money
into Kenya. Born on May 3, 1933 in Outjo in Namibia, Steyn owns two Cessna
planes and has a landing strip on his ranch. According to immigration sources
Steyn is of West Germany but of British origin according to the Registrar of
Companies. He is a Kenyan national and is a director of four limited companies
(Daily News July 8, 1981). The Government supported Steyn to put hundreds of thousands pastoralists of Monduli and Kiteto Districts at a very awkward corner[15]. When the Government ejected him, his 99-years lease was revoked. It reissued the lease to the National Food Corporation, instead of to villagers. There are many such people supported by the Government today contrary to the will of the indigenous people. Another writer
reports, “One Irish company was given a certificate of approval for a
project which involved granting of a right of occupancy in Simanjiro plains of
the then Kiteto District sometime in 1991. The proposal was to occupy land,
which fell across the migration path of wildlife, particularly wildebeest. The
occupier would shoot game when they stepped on his land and export game meat
to Europe where it is increasingly preferred to other red meat” (Shivji,
2001:25). The project had
earlier been rejected by the Wildlife Department on the ground that it would
have had very harmful effect on the production cycle of wildlife. The land
that was proposed to be appropriated also contained a number of pastoral
villages (ibid.). In the hunting blocks,
cheating by investors is a normal phenomenon. A pastoral Non-Governmental
Organisation argued that the African Wildlife Foundation is only interested in
having an investor in the pastoral land no matter how crude the contract
between villagers and the investors might be. The following are a few
examples. Emboreet village signed a five-year agreement between it and
Oliver’s Camp but the villagers do not trust the company because it has been
delaying payment of fees and it is not transparent (Sikoyo, 2001). Having
4,000 acres of rangeland in the hands of the so-called investor was the
decision of village authority, yet the Camp was playing tricks so as to grab
72,000 acres. In 1997, the authorities against the will of pastorals who
simply wanted their rangeland, signed an agreement between the village and
Rickshaw Safaris Ltd. Conservation agencies
extended deception to Lolkisalie Village also. Two rival tour companies namely
Bundu Safaris and Oliver’s Camp wanted to invest in the village. Hiding
behind Wildlife Management Areas, each of the said companies wanted the land
for its exclusive use. In this Lenox Lewis atmosphere, the rangeland was
threatened. The villagers were not involved at all. The concept of
“participation” was left to the whims of unconcerned staff of the African
Wildlife Foundation and the village authority. And there is little doubt that
the village authority was ignorant of legal technicalities such as “lease
agreement, contracts and negotiations” (Sikoyo, 2001:17). As long as they are at
the safe side, the village authorities take what they are given by the
investor(s) or the facilitator(s). Then they play blind leaving the masses of
villagers to sink deep into the seas of grave sufferings such as the loss of
livelihoods. In 1992, one of the
most remarkable land scandals, Loliondo Gate scandal I, in independent East
Africa happened. It was when the Government issued a 10-year hunting permit,
under the controversial agreement, to the Brigadier Mohammed Abdulrahim Al-Ali
of Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates who owns the Otterlo Business
Corporation Ltd (OBC). The grabbed land is a birthright of thousands of
villagers of Arash, Soitsambu, Oloipiri, Ololosokwan, Loosoito and Oloirien
villages of Loliondo Division, Ngorongoro. A Parliamentary Committee chaired
by Phillip Marmo, then Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly, was formed to
probe the saga. It revoked the dirty agreement. Unscrupulously, a similar
agreement was established. In January 2000, OBC
was granted another 5-year hunting permit in the same area. The company
constructed an airstrip. As usual, without the villagers’ consent. The
villagers have been witnessing live animals being exported through the
airstrip. OBC constructed structures near water sources. Hearing of the new
permit, the Maasai sent a 13-men protest delegation led by the traditional
leader, Olaigwanani, Sandet ole
Reya to Dar Es Salaam in April 2000. The intention was to sort out the issue
with the President of the Republic, Benjamin Mkapa. Unfortunately, they did
not see him. However, the delegation managed to hold a press conference at MAELEZO, National Information Corporation Centre. The Maasai contemplated a number of actions to be taken against both the Government and the Arab in connection with the plunder of the resources. They went to great lengths to |
