鶹ýƵվ

XClose

Sustainable Development Goals

Home
Menu

Are Tanzania’s wildlife management areas delivering on their promise to alleviate poverty?

Anthropologists at 鶹ýƵվ are exploring the impacts of Tanzania’s community-based schemes to manage natural resources, on the people they are designed to benefit.

SDG Case 鶹ýƵվ Target 1A Tanzania

7 October 2020

Rangers on patrol inEnduimetWMA,Tanzania.

People living in rural areas across the global southare balancingdemands for large-scaleagricultureandglobal conservationwhileat the same time trying to meettheir ownneeds.

“However,while this is howWildlife Management Areas(WMAs) in Tanzaniaare presented, manyobserverssee them as a way of commercialising natural resources formerly supporting local livelihoods,and as a means toderive state revenues and entrepreneurial profits from those resources,” explains Professor Katherine Homewood(鶹ýƵվ Anthropology).

WMAsarecommunalland areasset aside as habitats for wildlife, designed to bring economic benefits, while protecting habitats and ecosystem servicesincluding biodiversity.

“While the rhetoric emphasises benefitsto communities who exist within them, in realitycommunities receive only a very limited share,” says Professor Homewood.

TodayWMAsare being extended tocover aplanned 14–15%of Tanzania’slandareaand although such schemes arenowcommonacross the globalsouth, there are conflictingviews on how well they workand who benefitsfrom them.

In 2014,ProfessorHomewoodset out to evaluate the impacts of WMAs on local peoples’ lives and livelihoodsthroughthe Poverty and Ecosystem Services Impacts of Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas (PIMA) study. The International interdisciplinary collaborationincludesseveral Europeanuniversities, theTanzania Wildlife Research Institute,the Tanzania Natural Resources Forumand the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre.

“There are many dimensions and complexities to how WMAs affect ecosystem services and alleviateor exacerbatepoverty,”Professor Homewood explains.“Inevitably therearetrade-offs.

“For example, whilewildlife management areascanimposeconsiderable costs on local people, they do notguaranteean income from tourism,and in some casestheyhave generated land-based conflictsbetween communitiesand with externalactors, such as tourist operators.”

ThePIMAstudycomparessocial and ecological outcomes for established WMAs with matched non-WMAswithin the same ecosystemtoprovide robust evidence thatcan be usedlocally, nationally and internationally.

PIMA‘s framework approachalsofosteredchannels forpeople living within WMAstohighlightto policy makers and practitioners the impactsthatchangesin landuseare havingontheirwellbeing.

“Our work is helpingdeliver insightsthatwe hopewillbenefitthe million people already affected by WMAs,andwhich willhelp reshape policies on similar schemesin waysthat are needed ifthey are to promote positive local development,”Professor Homewood adds.

Related links

&;PIMA project