**4. Results and discussion**

### **4.1 Demographic characteristics**

On average the majority of the respondents were female which formed 46% (N = 100) except in Natta Mbiso where the majority were males (**Table 1**). As for age about 74% were aged between 18 and 45 years implying that the majority of the sample populations were youths and therefore an economically active workforce.


**185**

**Figure 2.**

*Awareness on hunting ban.*

animals.

*Resident Hunting Ban in Serengeti District and Its Implications to People's Livelihood…*

sub-township nature compared to the remaining two villages.

**4.2 Awareness and people involvement in the hunting ban**

At specific village level, Machochwe and Natta Mbiso had the highest proportion of youths with 82 and 77%, respectively. In terms of education, the majority (72%) had attained primary school education, 9% have not been to school, and 19% had secondary school education and above. Of the three villages, Natta Mbiso had the highest proportion of people with secondary education. This could be attributed to its strategic location as it is along the Musoma-Arusha main road and the village's

On average 95% of household respondents in the three villages were aware of the ban (**Figure 2**). The high awareness could probably be attributed to the fact that these communities have for a long time been linked to bush meat hunting and/ or consuming. The fact that they are no longer enjoying access to bush meat as it used to be has probably made them to be aware of the ban. On whether they were involved in meetings and/or discussions before implementing the ban, 95% argued that they were not involved at all, and the remaining proportion were not sure. However, the District Natural Resources Officer (DNRO) and District Game Officer (DGO), when asked about community involvement, both argued that the decision was reached through the Serengeti District Full Council, and therefore councilors being community representatives had the duty to give feedbacks to them. According to Tanzania administrative setup, each ward should have a councilor who is normally elected by village members (aged >18 years). A Ward may consist of

Local communities were further probed to comment on whether the ban has led to conflicts or not. Results indicate that in Natta Mbiso and Machochwe, 92% had the view that the decision has not led to conflicts (**Figure 3**). However, in Park Nyigoti, 62% argued that the ban has led to increased conflicts. Human-wildlife conflicts in particular between elephants and local communities are widespread in Africa and are a major concern for both elephant conservation and rural development [7]. The increase in conflict in this village could be due to its location. The village is almost an island as it is surrounded by several protected areas (Serengeti National Park, IKONA WMA, and Ikorongo Game Reserve). This has made the village to have very little livelihood options mainly because of very limited land for crop production, increased crop destruction, and livestock predation by wild

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.83827*

more than three villages.

#### **Table 1.**

*Demographic data of the sample population.*

*Resident Hunting Ban in Serengeti District and Its Implications to People's Livelihood… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.83827*

At specific village level, Machochwe and Natta Mbiso had the highest proportion of youths with 82 and 77%, respectively. In terms of education, the majority (72%) had attained primary school education, 9% have not been to school, and 19% had secondary school education and above. Of the three villages, Natta Mbiso had the highest proportion of people with secondary education. This could be attributed to its strategic location as it is along the Musoma-Arusha main road and the village's sub-township nature compared to the remaining two villages.

#### **4.2 Awareness and people involvement in the hunting ban**

On average 95% of household respondents in the three villages were aware of the ban (**Figure 2**). The high awareness could probably be attributed to the fact that these communities have for a long time been linked to bush meat hunting and/ or consuming. The fact that they are no longer enjoying access to bush meat as it used to be has probably made them to be aware of the ban. On whether they were involved in meetings and/or discussions before implementing the ban, 95% argued that they were not involved at all, and the remaining proportion were not sure.

However, the District Natural Resources Officer (DNRO) and District Game Officer (DGO), when asked about community involvement, both argued that the decision was reached through the Serengeti District Full Council, and therefore councilors being community representatives had the duty to give feedbacks to them. According to Tanzania administrative setup, each ward should have a councilor who is normally elected by village members (aged >18 years). A Ward may consist of more than three villages.

Local communities were further probed to comment on whether the ban has led to conflicts or not. Results indicate that in Natta Mbiso and Machochwe, 92% had the view that the decision has not led to conflicts (**Figure 3**). However, in Park Nyigoti, 62% argued that the ban has led to increased conflicts. Human-wildlife conflicts in particular between elephants and local communities are widespread in Africa and are a major concern for both elephant conservation and rural development [7]. The increase in conflict in this village could be due to its location. The village is almost an island as it is surrounded by several protected areas (Serengeti National Park, IKONA WMA, and Ikorongo Game Reserve). This has made the village to have very little livelihood options mainly because of very limited land for crop production, increased crop destruction, and livestock predation by wild animals.

**Figure 2.** *Awareness on hunting ban.*

*Wildlife Population Monitoring*

content analysis and memoing.

**3.2 Wildlife population estimates**

followed standard procedures [6].

**4.1 Demographic characteristics**

*Demographic data of the sample population.*

**4. Results and discussion**

picking the household sample. The sample was approximately 7–9% of the village population and can be argued to be an appropriate sample for the study. A total of 100 household respondents were interviewed. As for District officials, officials involved were the District Natural Resources Officer (DNRO) and District Game Officer (DGO). At village level, Village Executive Officers from the three villages were the main respondents. Socioeconomic data were analyzed using SPSS version 16, and this was supplemented with qualitative data analysis techniques such as

Between August 16 and August 21 of 2010, the survey of wildlife (large mammals) was undertaken in the census area (data presented are for IKONA WMA). During game census, the census was preceded by a generally above-average wet season rain. The 2 months prior to the census were, however, well below average. No

Temperatures were generally moderate to warm. Three methods were applied to estimate wildlife populations in IKONA WMA. These include (i) "known groups" method, (ii) total area aerial counts, and (iii) sample aerial counts. In the "known group method," an attempt was made to count all groups and individuals in the population by individual and group recognition. This was only suitable for the rarer

For aerial counts using a helicopter (90 m above ground), two forms of aerial counts were implemented simultaneously, namely, total area count and sample estimate based on distance sampling principles [5]. The techniques were implemented following the standard procedures as described by [6]. The air speed was between 40 and 60 knots. Transects were flown morning and afternoon, up to maximum of 3 hours. The hottest part of the day was avoided, as animals tended to rest under the shade at this time and as a consequence are more difficult to spot. Data analysis also

On average the majority of the respondents were female which formed 46% (N = 100) except in Natta Mbiso where the majority were males (**Table 1**). As for age about 74% were aged between 18 and 45 years implying that the majority of the sample populations were youths and therefore an economically active workforce.

**Village N Sex (%) Age (%) Education (%)**

Machochwe 35 35.5 64.5 17.6 23.5 41.2 17.6 11.8 82.4 5.8 Average 33.3 45.8 54.2 25.5 15.9 32.9 25.7 9.2 71.5 19.3

**M F 18–25 26–35 36–45 >45 Inf. Pry Sec**

35 47.4 52.6 31.6 10.5 21.1 36.9 15.8 68.4 15.8

30 54.5 45.5 27.3 13.6 36.4 22.7 0 63.6 36.4

rain was recorded in August and none fell during the census.

species, and so far, it was only attempted for the roan antelope.

**184**

**Table 1.**

Park Nyigoti

Natta Mbiso

**Figure 3.**

*Ban and increased conflicts.*


#### **Table 2.**

*Perceived benefits of hunting ban.*

Failure to attach conflicts to the ban in Natta Mbiso could be attributed by the socioeconomic benefits local communities are currently enjoying from SGRL. Natta Mbiso currently has a suburban environment as a result of several business enterprises (lodges, hotels, shops, tourist souvenirs, etc.) and the fact that most SGRL employees are settled here. Furthermore, SGRL is currently supporting income-generating enterprises to adjacent communities. As for Machochwe, the possible explanation could be continued poaching as the village boundary is very close to SNP and therefore easy to poach without being easily noticed. In some parts park boundaries are less than a kilometer from the village boundary (Senior Author, pers. Obs.).

#### **4.3 Perceived benefits of hunting ban**

Communities had the view that probably the hunting ban has led to increased social services infrastructures (e.g., construction of water wells and dispensary) particularly in Park Nyigoti and Machochwe villages (**Table 2**). The question of what happens to local people is one that remains poorly addressed in conservation literature. This is because it is being produced in an institutional and ideological climate in which there is a widening gap between rhetoric and reality [8]. In such a context [9], it becomes easy to present facile paradigms of how local people will participate in and benefit from conservation interventions.

According to the contract between Serengeti District Council and SGRL, the former is obliged to support social infrastructure developments in the district. SGRL apart from the contribution as per contract also have corporate social responsibility of supporting local communities. In Park Nyigoti other perceived benefits include student bursary, increased tourists, and reduced levy contributions. SGRL

**187**

**Table 3.**

*Perceived costs of hunting ban.*

*Resident Hunting Ban in Serengeti District and Its Implications to People's Livelihood…*

continues to sponsor District Council staff and local communities to pursue different short and long courses within and outside the country. Employment and increased number of tourists were also mentioned as benefits. Selling of farm products such as horticultural crops, meat, eggs, milk, etc. to SGRL staff was also seen as benefit. As for levies, the contribution of SGRL in supporting socioeconomic projects has to a greater extent reduced local community contributions toward development projects. On the other hand, wildlife experts viewed increased revenue to Serengeti District Council (SDC) as a benefit since before the initiative the Council used to receive an average of US \$7000/annum (District Game Officer,

Local community's perceived costs after hunting ban include decreased cash income, food insecurity, malnutrition, increased human-wildlife conflicts, disease transmission, funds' failure to trickle down to primary beneficiaries, and denial of human rights (**Table 3**). Resident hunting has denied village governments and/ or local communities to sell game meat, and this has directly denied them from realizing cash income. Local communities used to sell excess bush meat and the former Serengeti Regional Conservation Project (SRCP) had community cropping scheme which made communities to access bush meat at a relatively cheaper price than cattle meat. [10] argue that illegal hunting in the Serengeti has been flourishing, despite stringent law enforcement, because its returns were 45 times greater than those provided legally through the Serengeti Regional Conservation Project com-

Failure to access bush meat has also led to increased protein deficiency in the area. Bush meat was a relatively cheap source of protein, and now most local communities are unable to buy cattle meat due to high price attached to it. During the time of survey, the price of a kg of meat stood at TZS 4000 (US \$ 3). This is a relatively high price taking into account the fact that the majority live below a dollar per day. According to [11], per capita income of communities adjacent to Western Serengeti National Park was about US \$ 280/annum, an equivalent of US \$ 0.77/day. Increased human-wildlife conflicts were also seen as costs inflicted to communities. The conflicts are of different forms ranging from loss of life due to increased wildlife particularly elephants, transmission of zoonotic diseases to domesticated cattle, and crop destruction by wildlife. Other costs were denial of human rights to access wildlife use contrary to the country's wildlife policy and failure of funds to reach the wider community. The Tanzania Wildlife Policy has the following statement related to wildlife use: "Resident hunting is the right of indigenous Tanzanians

**Park Nyigoti Natta Mbiso Machochwe** Decreased income Decreased income Decrease in income

animals

Increased zoonotic diseases Increased loss of life Increased loss of life

Protein deficiency/malnutrition Lack of game meat Funds do not reach communities

Increased poverty Food insecurity Food insecurity Denial of human rights

Increased destructive animals

Increased destructive animals Increased destructive

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.83827*

**4.4 Perceived costs of hunting ban**

munity cropping scheme.

Pers. Comm).

*Resident Hunting Ban in Serengeti District and Its Implications to People's Livelihood… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.83827*

continues to sponsor District Council staff and local communities to pursue different short and long courses within and outside the country. Employment and increased number of tourists were also mentioned as benefits. Selling of farm products such as horticultural crops, meat, eggs, milk, etc. to SGRL staff was also seen as benefit. As for levies, the contribution of SGRL in supporting socioeconomic projects has to a greater extent reduced local community contributions toward development projects. On the other hand, wildlife experts viewed increased revenue to Serengeti District Council (SDC) as a benefit since before the initiative the Council used to receive an average of US \$7000/annum (District Game Officer, Pers. Comm).

#### **4.4 Perceived costs of hunting ban**

*Wildlife Population Monitoring*

**Figure 3.**

**Table 2.**

*Ban and increased conflicts.*

Increased tourists Reduced burden on levy Construction of deep wells

*Perceived benefits of hunting ban.*

Failure to attach conflicts to the ban in Natta Mbiso could be attributed by the socioeconomic benefits local communities are currently enjoying from SGRL. Natta Mbiso currently has a suburban environment as a result of several business enterprises (lodges, hotels, shops, tourist souvenirs, etc.) and the fact that most SGRL employees are settled here. Furthermore, SGRL is currently supporting income-generating enterprises to adjacent communities. As for Machochwe, the possible explanation could be continued poaching as the village boundary is very close to SNP and therefore easy to poach without being easily noticed. In some parts park boundaries are less than a kilometer from the village boundary (Senior

**Park Nyigoti Natta Mbiso Machochwe**

Student scholarships Sell of farm products

Construction of dispensary Employment Construction of dispensary

Communities had the view that probably the hunting ban has led to increased social services infrastructures (e.g., construction of water wells and dispensary) particularly in Park Nyigoti and Machochwe villages (**Table 2**). The question of what happens to local people is one that remains poorly addressed in conservation literature. This is because it is being produced in an institutional and ideological climate in which there is a widening gap between rhetoric and reality [8]. In such a context [9], it becomes easy to present facile paradigms of how local people will

According to the contract between Serengeti District Council and SGRL, the former is obliged to support social infrastructure developments in the district. SGRL apart from the contribution as per contract also have corporate social responsibility of supporting local communities. In Park Nyigoti other perceived benefits include student bursary, increased tourists, and reduced levy contributions. SGRL

**186**

Author, pers. Obs.).

**4.3 Perceived benefits of hunting ban**

participate in and benefit from conservation interventions.

Local community's perceived costs after hunting ban include decreased cash income, food insecurity, malnutrition, increased human-wildlife conflicts, disease transmission, funds' failure to trickle down to primary beneficiaries, and denial of human rights (**Table 3**). Resident hunting has denied village governments and/ or local communities to sell game meat, and this has directly denied them from realizing cash income. Local communities used to sell excess bush meat and the former Serengeti Regional Conservation Project (SRCP) had community cropping scheme which made communities to access bush meat at a relatively cheaper price than cattle meat. [10] argue that illegal hunting in the Serengeti has been flourishing, despite stringent law enforcement, because its returns were 45 times greater than those provided legally through the Serengeti Regional Conservation Project community cropping scheme.

Failure to access bush meat has also led to increased protein deficiency in the area. Bush meat was a relatively cheap source of protein, and now most local communities are unable to buy cattle meat due to high price attached to it. During the time of survey, the price of a kg of meat stood at TZS 4000 (US \$ 3). This is a relatively high price taking into account the fact that the majority live below a dollar per day. According to [11], per capita income of communities adjacent to Western Serengeti National Park was about US \$ 280/annum, an equivalent of US \$ 0.77/day.

Increased human-wildlife conflicts were also seen as costs inflicted to communities. The conflicts are of different forms ranging from loss of life due to increased wildlife particularly elephants, transmission of zoonotic diseases to domesticated cattle, and crop destruction by wildlife. Other costs were denial of human rights to access wildlife use contrary to the country's wildlife policy and failure of funds to reach the wider community. The Tanzania Wildlife Policy has the following statement related to wildlife use: "Resident hunting is the right of indigenous Tanzanians

