**6. Initiatives that hold lessons on overcoming ecosystem-based management challenges**

There have been several initiatives in Tanzania aimed at overcoming challenges to Serengeti Ecosystem–based management approach, with different names and slightly different approaches and strategies. The one thing these initiatives have in common is that of main objective being to aim at maintaining the integrity and sustainability of Serengeti Ecosystem. However, their differences in approach have meant difference in effectiveness, success, and sustainability.

Unfortunately, to date, there seems to be no initiative that has been effective in delivering on its objectives and withstood the test of time to prove to be sustainable. In this chapter, we will look at two initiatives that seem to offer more lessons in designing effective, successful, and sustainable initiatives. One of these is the Serengeti Regional Conservation Strategy (SRCS). Although now closed, SRCS left behind considerable foundation of knowledge and institutional structures to build on or learn from.

The other initiative is current and has features that could very well make it the best initiative in overcoming ecosystem-based management challenges, if improved upon.

#### **6.1 The Serengeti Regional Conservation Strategy**

Perhaps the earliest of the Serengeti Ecosystem initiatives was a government project under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT) that was financed by the Royal Norwegian Embassy (NORAD). The project was called the Serengeti Regional Conservation Strategy (SRCS). According to the workshop report and project proposal [9, 20], the project concept was first formally declared and debated in 1986 at an IUCN and World Bank facilitated workshop at the then Seronera Research Station within Serengeti National Park. The concept was further explored with selected villages that include Robanda, Makundusi, Mbiso, and Nyiberekera in Serengeti District. The workshop to resolve the concept was attended by relevant leaders in the three Serengeti wards of Isenyi, Ikona, and Natta, and an agreement reached to start the project within identified communities. The SRCS Project was formerly initiated in 1989; the 2 years in between were used for fundraising, organizational development, and construction of the project headquarters at Fort Ikoma.

The SRCS Project worked with the following communities, Robanda, Makunwelusi, Mbiso, Singisi, and Iharara in Serengeti and Mgeta, Kyandege, Nyaliwanda, Nyamatoke, and Hinyari in Bunda District. Each village had a Natural Resources Committee of eight members, which was also a subcommittee of the Village Government. Ten individuals, at least two of whom had to be women, were elected by the Village General Assembly to be trained as Village Game Scouts at the Community Based Natural Resources Conservation Institute in Likuyu, Songea District.

Preparations also included the following activities:


*Towards Overcoming the Challenges to Adopting Ecosystem-Based Management Approach… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.113998*

In working with other related institutions/entities, SRCS was accorded the observer status in all meetings. Such institutions included the Serengeti National Park (SENAPA), the Community Conservation Service, the Frankfurt Zoological Society (FZS), and the Wildlife Division.

Among SCRS' major achievements was its involvement in the establishment of Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) in the area in partnership with other stakeholders. By the year 2000, SCRS had worked with over 20 communities in the establishment of Ikona WMA in Serengeti District, Eramatare in Loliondo Division, Lake Natron in Loliondo Division, and Makao WMA in Meatu District. In establishing WMAs in those area, SRCS engaged in activities and provision of services listed below:


The project was subsequently phased out when funding stopped in 2006 [21], and there was no take over initiative to carry the initiated work forward. Although the headquarters has since been converted into WMA offices, the Project left behind a very important mark in efforts to protect the integrity of the Serengeti Ecosystem in the form of WMAs. It also left behind infrastructures that have improved the well-being of the communities living adjacent to the Serengeti Ecosystem, which is crucial in deterring illegal consumptive use of natural resources in neighboring protected areas. The Natural Resources Committees and Village Game Scouts are very important in conserving the natural resources of the area. Another important mark from the project is the conservation education it imparted to communities living adjacent to the Serengeti Ecosystem, which must have translated in some way into improved attitudes and behavior towards protected areas personnel and natural resources conservation in general.

Overall, the Serengeti Regional Conservation Strategy Project served as an important stepping stone for further work on Serengeti Ecosystem–based Management and provided lessons to aid other initiatives towards the cause. Thus, every initiative towards protecting the integrity of the Serengeti Ecosystem will do well to make reference to the Serengeti Regional Conservation Strategy Project work before concretizing its strategy, plan, and objectives.

#### **6.2 Greater Serengeti Conservation Society (GSCS)**

Another initiative aimed at facilitating ecosystem-based approach to managing Serengeti Ecosystem is what is known as the Greater Serengeti Conservation Society (GSCS, or simply, the Society). Founded by the Late Dr. Markus Borner and Hatim Karimjee as a Serengeti Ecosystem multi-stakeholder non-governmental organization seeking to maintain the integrity and resilience of the ecosystem for the benefit of present and future generation, GSCS is probably the best initiative thus far in involving all stakeholders in ensuring sustainable management of protected area resources in Tanzania.

The founders, both late now, were driven by their passion for wildlife conservation and knowledge of the dynamics involved in managing Serengeti Ecosystem as a single conservation entity against the different interests and demands of a multitude of stakeholders. Markus Borner had worked in the Serengeti as a representative of the Frankfurt Zoological Society for 40 years and served on TANAPA Board of Trustees for several years. He also sat on other wildlife conservation Boards, including that of TAWIRI, and Mweka College of Wildlife Management. He was also involved in research in the Serengeti.

Hatim Karimjee, a well-known businessman in Tanzania, coming from a family with several business lines in the country and a history of philanthropy, had also served on TANAPA Board of Trustees for several years. The impression I got of Karimjee, when we served on the TANAPA Board of Trustees together, was that, though coming from the private sector, he was very knowledgeable and had great passion for wildlife conservation. And, apart from the business acumen gained from the many years of managing the family business empire, he also had very good analytical skill, and he was good with numbers. Thus, Hatim Karimjee and Markus Borner were a very good combination of people to found a Serengeti Ecosystem management initiative, as they knew the inner workings of TANAPA, had the knowledge of Serengeti Ecosystem, and the passion and skills necessary to found an initiative with better chance of being more successful than the ones preceding it.

The founders of the initiative saw the exponential growth of human activity around the Serengeti Ecosystem as the major threat to its survival, as it was seen to have transformed the Greater Serengeti Ecosystem (Serengeti National Park and all the protected areas that surround it, as well as buffer zones and dispersal areas) and that it was encroaching on the ecosystem borders with unprecedented intensity [22]. They consequently set the initiative's vision to be, "to ensure a resilient and thriving Greater Serengeti Ecosystem to the benefit of the local and global communities." The motto of the initiative is, "Serengeti forever."

In practice, the initiative seeks to bring together Tanzania, Kenya, and international leading conservation professionals and scientists for common action in advancing the cause of saving and working to maintain the ecological integrity of the area and its natural resources, as well as its environment. To this effect, the Society was set up as an NGO with a status of a membership society based in Tanzania but with members from Tanzania, Kenya, as well as interested scientists and individuals abroad. And, in conformity with Tanzania's law, the Society is headed by a Board of Directors based in Tanzania.

Currently, the Society is also registered as a Charity Organization in London, England as well as in the USA [23]. The two charities constitute the main source of funding for the operations of the Society. The Chairman and President of the two charities, respectively, together with the Chairman of the Board of Directors for the Society in Tanzania, constitute the Board of Trustees of the Society.

#### *Towards Overcoming the Challenges to Adopting Ecosystem-Based Management Approach… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.113998*

The stakeholders constituting the Society's membership include managers of all protected areas within the ecosystem, major conservation entities, and individuals in Tanzania such as the Wildlife Division; Tanzania Wildlife Management Authority (TAWA); government leaders in surrounding districts; Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI) and other relevant research institutions and individuals; conservation professionals and scientists both from within and outside Tanzania; conservation NGOs; relevant entities in Kenya including Kenya Wildlife Services, Maasai Mara National Reserve, Narok County, etc.

The Society meets once every year in an Annual Stakeholder Symposium, a forum to deliberate on issues pertaining to maintaining the integrity and sustainability of the Serengeti Ecosystem. The Symposium deliberates on pertinent issues, come up with resolutions, and makes recommendations that are then reported in the Society's newsletter. Implementation actions on recommendations are subsequently deliberated on at the following year's symposium, except for actions deemed urgent and for which respective stakeholders are required to take action before the following symposium.

The society's day-to-day activities are run by a management unit consisting of a Website Manager, a lawyer, and an accountant; all of them volunteers, and working on part time basis. The Unit is virtually based in Dar es Salaam, with the lawyer and accountant accommodated at the Board Chairman's Office and the website manager based overseas. The team is working under the Oversight Committee, which is composed of chief executives of the main relevant institutions in Tanzania and Kenya viz. TANAPA, NCAA, TAWA, TAWIRI, Director of Wildlife, Director of Kenya Wildlife Services, Chief Park Warden (Kenya).

On technical issues, the Society is served by a Scientific Committee and a consultant. The latter is working on part-time contractual terms; currently working 2 days per week. The consultant is the chief technical resource person of the Society, serving largely as a technical coordinator in organizing the annual symposium, serving as a rapporteur, compiling symposium reports, and coordinating the implementation of the Society's decisions, recommendations, and plans eg training. The consultant also works with the accountant to prepare the society's budget.

The Society has been in existence for a little over 6 years, and although quite lacking in institutional structure and organizational development, it has already made its mark in resolving some critical disputes deriving from the difference in stance between the Tanzanian Government policy and that of Kenya over grazing livestock in protected areas, allowing large commercial farms near protected area and cultivation in catchment areas. Initially, livestock grazing was allowed in Maasai Mara National Reserve and, this, in addition to large commercial farms adjacent to the Reserve degraded the habitat for ungulates. Cultivation in Mao Forest, on the other hand, degraded catchment area for Mara River, which had already been showing signs of drying [24]. There had also been a misunderstanding over Sasakwa dam on Tanzania side. The Kenyan side felt that by Tanzania damming Sasakwa, they were reducing water for the ungulates, which would ultimately alter the migration route. These issues could have been very complicated, if they had been approached differently and allowed political interests to filter in.

What can happen when multiple stakeholders with respect to a common natural resource have no common platform like one provided by the Society is very well demonstrated by what has been happening in Loliondo and NCA for the past two decades. Even with the government ceding 2500 km2 out of the 4000 km2 of the former Loliondo GCA to the communities and offering a very handsome resettlement package to those who volunteered to relocate, by providing them and their stock with relocation transport, ready-made modern homesteads, complete with modern houses, farming and livestock land, plus all necessary social services, has not completely resolved the conflict. There are those who have refused to go to government-selected area, Msomela in Handeni, Tanga Region, and demanded to be relocated to places of their choices. And, now (September 2023) a group of Maasai has taken the Government to Court contesting for the 1500 km2 of land that was upgraded into a game reserve to protect a bit of the Serengeti Wildebeest Migration route, the breeding ground, and water catchment areas (see **Figure 3**), all of which are of critical importance in retaining some measure of protection to the function and integrity of Serengeti Ecosystem.

The strength of the Society lies in the following attributes:


#### **Figure 3.**

*Map of eastern part of Serengeti Ecosystem showing Pololet GR and Malambo GR. Source: Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism.*

*Towards Overcoming the Challenges to Adopting Ecosystem-Based Management Approach… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.113998*


The Society, in its present form, appears to have the following weaknesses, which threaten its sustainability:


It is important to note, however, that, as an NGO, for national natural resources and environmental matters, the Society can only contribute to ecosystem-based management of Serengeti Ecosystem by working in partnership with or supporting the government as provided by pertinent laws and regulations. Currently, the Society has both the respective protected areas (within the ecosystem) and the WMAs to support or to work with. The Society can also support the government on any other initiative as deemed fit or necessary. The mode of engagement and operation, as well as choice of entity to work with would depend on what is legally permissible and mutually agreeable.

#### **6.3 Wildlife management areas**

Wildlife management areas (WMAs) are not one of the initiatives established to specifically overcome challenges to EBM for Serengeti Ecosystem. WMAs are a community-based wildlife conservation category of protected areas that can be established around any protected area in Tanzania, provided it fulfills the need for its establishment and satisfies the legal requirements. However, their inclusion here is necessitated by their default relevance as can be discerned from their mentions in other sections.

Indeed, in as much as HWCs are a major challenge to EBM for the Serengeti Ecosystem, WMAs, as a community-based conservation (CBC) initiative in communities around Serengeti Ecosystem, have a role to play. Besides, the shortcomings of WMAs and other forms of CBC have been variously blamed for people's negative attitudes towards protected areas and conservation, and consequent illegal utilization of natural resource in protected areas. Thus, any effort aiming to resolve HWCs, or overcome challenges to EBM, will do well to take WMAs into account. As discrete areas, with their coverage limited by the sizes of village land in question, the socioeconomic impacts of WMAs are equally limited, but their influence on mindsets and attitude towards protected areas and the resources within goes much beyond the communities concerned with the WMAs in question.

Wildlife management areas within the Serengeti Ecosystem include Ikona in Serengeti District, Makao in Meatu District, Elamantare in Ngorongoro District, and Lake Natron in Ngorongoro District. Apart from increased land under communitybased conservation, which means increased buffer area to respective protected areas, this year the government has published the WMA strategy that has basically changed the government narrative on WMAs and made it more positive to the livelihood needs of the surrounding communities. The stated overarching aim of the National Wildlife Management Areas Strategy (NWMAS) for the period 2023–2033 is to "align Tanzania on a path towards a rewarding community and livelihood-based approach with a high returns rate" [25].
