**Table 3.**


#### **Table 4.**

*SGRL revenue contributions 2004–2011.*

to have legal access to wildlife use" [4]. During informal discussion with one resident in Natta Mbiso (located close to SGRL) who preferred anonymity had this to say: "SGRL objective is not for conservation and development but to protect her lodges from disturbances (increase visitor attraction) as they own several lodges in the area including her luxurious lodges such as Sasakwa lodge, Sibora-Grumeti lodge, Zebra-Grumeti, Serengeti, Banguesi, Ramahi and Farufaru lodges."

#### **4.5 Compensation realized by the district council**

Between 2004 and 2011, the Serengeti District Council received compensation from SGRL amounting to TZS 863 million (US \$ 375,217) which in essence was supposed to be used for initiating or improving socioeconomic projects (**Table 4**). Taking into account the fact that the district has more than 50 villages, one can argue that the amount disbursed per village is too little to make an impact on people's livelihood. For example, if the compensation is equally distributed among 50 villages forming the district, each village will get approximately TZS 4 million/ annum (US \$ 1739) or TZS 11,000/day (US \$ 4.8). With the current average household size of six people in the district, each household is likely to receive about TZS 1833/day (US \$ 0.8). By all standards this is very little money for any meaningful poverty reduction contribution at community level. The game species commonly hunted by residents are mainly impala, Thomson's gazelle, wildebeest, topi, eland, buffalo, bohor reedbuck, and Grant's gazelle. Other wildlife species counted during the survey were the elephant, giraffe, hartebeest, and zebra.

#### **5. Population trends for selected wildlife species**

The population trends for selected wildlife species in IKONA WMA, that is, impala, Thomson's gazelle, wildebeest, buffalo, and eland, are presented in **Figures 4**–**8**. These species are preferred for bush meat.

Results indicate that for the first 2–5 years after the ban, the population showed an increasing trend before declining for impala, Thomson's gazelle, wildebeest, buffalo, and eland (**Figures 4**–**7**). The increase for the first 5 years before recording a decline could be attributed to fewer disturbances and/or the presence of conducive environment to wildlife. Hunting activities normally disrupt wildlife

**189**

**Figure 6.**

*Population trend of wildebeest.*

**Figure 4.**

**Figure 5.**

*Population trend of Thomson's gazelle. Source: Goodman [6].*

*Population trend of impala.*

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

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

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

**Figure 4.** *Population trend of impala.*

*Wildlife Population Monitoring*

*Source: DGO Office—Serengeti District Council. \*1 USD = TZS 2300; NA = not applicable.*

*SGRL revenue contributions 2004–2011.*

**Table 4.**

to have legal access to wildlife use" [4]. During informal discussion with one resident in Natta Mbiso (located close to SGRL) who preferred anonymity had this to say: "SGRL objective is not for conservation and development but to protect her lodges from disturbances (increase visitor attraction) as they own several lodges in the area including her luxurious lodges such as Sasakwa lodge, Sibora-Grumeti

**Year Amount in USD (US \$\*)**

2004 18,000 2005 75,000 2006 85,000 2007 85,000 2008 71,430 2009 142,850 2010 137,900 2011 133,300 Total 727,000

lodge, Zebra-Grumeti, Serengeti, Banguesi, Ramahi and Farufaru lodges."

Between 2004 and 2011, the Serengeti District Council received compensation from SGRL amounting to TZS 863 million (US \$ 375,217) which in essence was supposed to be used for initiating or improving socioeconomic projects (**Table 4**). Taking into account the fact that the district has more than 50 villages, one can argue that the amount disbursed per village is too little to make an impact on people's livelihood. For example, if the compensation is equally distributed among 50 villages forming the district, each village will get approximately TZS 4 million/ annum (US \$ 1739) or TZS 11,000/day (US \$ 4.8). With the current average household size of six people in the district, each household is likely to receive about TZS 1833/day (US \$ 0.8). By all standards this is very little money for any meaningful poverty reduction contribution at community level. The game species commonly hunted by residents are mainly impala, Thomson's gazelle, wildebeest, topi, eland, buffalo, bohor reedbuck, and Grant's gazelle. Other wildlife species counted during

**4.5 Compensation realized by the district council**

the survey were the elephant, giraffe, hartebeest, and zebra.

The population trends for selected wildlife species in IKONA WMA, that is, impala, Thomson's gazelle, wildebeest, buffalo, and eland, are presented in

Results indicate that for the first 2–5 years after the ban, the population showed an increasing trend before declining for impala, Thomson's gazelle, wildebeest, buffalo, and eland (**Figures 4**–**7**). The increase for the first 5 years before recording a decline could be attributed to fewer disturbances and/or the presence of conducive environment to wildlife. Hunting activities normally disrupt wildlife

**5. Population trends for selected wildlife species**

**Figures 4**–**8**. These species are preferred for bush meat.

**188**

#### **Figure 5.**

*Population trend of Thomson's gazelle. Source: Goodman [6].*

**Figure 6.** *Population trend of wildebeest.*

**Figure 8.**

*Population trends for species not in hunting quota. Source: Goodman [6].*

ecological systems and make wildlife timid and less productive. The reasons for the decline after the fifth year could not be established. However, this can be attributed to poaching as illustrated in **Table 5**. According to [12, 13], incidences of wildlife crimes and/or animal killed led the wildlife to flee to nearby protected areas and/or distant protected areas particularly for wide-ranging animals such as elephants. The discussion with one elder who preferred anonymity had this to say: "after the ban communities have now intensified poaching to compensate for the previous opportunity of getting bush meat at a cheaper price."

Population trends for other wildlife species (normally not included in hunting quota in the area), namely, elephant, giraffe, zebra, and hartebeest, are presented in **Figure 8**. Field findings indicate that the population for zebra fluctuated over time, but for the rest (elephant, giraffe, and hartebeest), the population remained constant. For the first 2 years, the population of zebra increased before dropping for 2 years and then rose to the maximum (about 5000) in 2008. It then dropped and rises again. The rise in the first 2 years can be attributed to the safe environment after the ban and availability of habitat. The decline could be associated with hunting for commercial and subsistence. In the study area, zebra meat is highly preferred bush meat by the community due to its deliciousness (Magoiga, pers. comm.).

**191**

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

**Year Wildlife crime incidents Animals killed Traditional weapon** 147 238 1573 330 824 4826 342 325 3295 481 1387 6160 353 524 371 300 395 2019 315 278 1571 271 406 2792 361 216 2346 238 213 848 266 152 1884

The study concludes that the ban has significantly boosted the District Council revenues. Despite this positive development, the livelihood of the communities has been significantly affected in many ways including increased human-wildlife conflicts, food insecurity, malnutrition, and lack of bush meat which to many is regarded as cheap source of protein. In addition, the ban led to the increase of wildlife populations particularly in the first 2–5 years. This increase corresponded with increased human-wildlife conflicts as a result of crop destruction and livestock predation. The study recommends the need for involvement of communities in major decisions affecting people's livelihood such as hunting ban. We also recommend that before instituting hunting ban(s), this has to be informed by research.

We are thankful to the Department of Geography and Environmental Studies,

University of Dodoma, for the permission to collect data for this study.

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

**6. Conclusion and recommendations**

*Trend of wildlife crime incidents, animals killed, and traditional weapons caught.*

**Acknowledgements**

*Source: Mwakalobo et al. [12].*

**Table 5.**

**Conflict of interest**

Authors declare no conflict of interest.

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


**Table 5.**

*Wildlife Population Monitoring*

**Figure 7.**

**Figure 8.**

*Population trend of buffalo.*

ecological systems and make wildlife timid and less productive. The reasons for the decline after the fifth year could not be established. However, this can be attributed to poaching as illustrated in **Table 5**. According to [12, 13], incidences of wildlife crimes and/or animal killed led the wildlife to flee to nearby protected areas and/or distant protected areas particularly for wide-ranging animals such as elephants. The discussion with one elder who preferred anonymity had this to say: "after the ban communities have now intensified poaching to compensate for the previous oppor-

Population trends for other wildlife species (normally not included in hunting quota in the area), namely, elephant, giraffe, zebra, and hartebeest, are presented in **Figure 8**. Field findings indicate that the population for zebra fluctuated over time, but for the rest (elephant, giraffe, and hartebeest), the population remained constant. For the first 2 years, the population of zebra increased before dropping for 2 years and then rose to the maximum (about 5000) in 2008. It then dropped and rises again. The rise in the first 2 years can be attributed to the safe environment after the ban and availability of habitat. The decline could be associated with hunting for commercial and subsistence. In the study area, zebra meat is highly preferred bush

meat by the community due to its deliciousness (Magoiga, pers. comm.).

tunity of getting bush meat at a cheaper price."

*Population trends for species not in hunting quota. Source: Goodman [6].*

**190**

*Trend of wildlife crime incidents, animals killed, and traditional weapons caught.*
