Trophy Hunters & Conservation: Exploring Certification of Sport Industries in Tanzania

1. Trophy Hunters & Conservation: Exploring Certification of Sport Industries in Tanzania Monique Borgerhoff Mulder Department of Anthropology, Graduate Group in Ecology, Center for Population Biology

2. 1. Sport hunting - the problem • Definition – for trophies, by foreigners • Less scenic areas than photographic tourism • Affects 420,000, 188,000 and 420,000 sq kms of communal, commercial and state land (SADC)

3. Sport hunting - vulnerabilities • “Canned” hunting • Corruption (bush & capital) • Centralization leads to exclusion of local communities from decisions and benefits OUTCOME – ecologically unsustainability; lack of social & economic justice

4. Sport hunting - Solutions • Ban (permanent or temporary) • Stricter governmental monitoring • Decentralization (WWF-LIFE, Namibia) • Major land reform (e.g., privatization)

5. Sport hunting – List of “Best Practices” • Maintaining quality and standards of the SH industry • Monitoring and administration of the SH industry • Quota setting • Maximizing economic & social benefits Barnett, R., and C. Patterson. 2006. Sport hunting in the SADC region: An overview. TRAFFIC

6. 2. Is More Regulation the Way to Go for Tanzania? • No panaceas • Case specific solutions • The Tanzanian case … • Inclination to decentralization & community control (Brooks et al. Cons. Biol.)

7. Tanzania – Land law • Land Act 1923 but • NP and GR land is state managed (25% area) • Alienation of land from customary control for agriculture, ranching and protective reserves (Land Act 2001, Village Land Act 2001)

8. Tanzania - Natural resources • Huge biodiversity • Current threats Killing of wildlife for trophies & meat Incursions into protected areas Land conversion

9. Tanzania – Policy • Arusha Manifesto 1961 … President Kikwete • 1974 Wildlife Conservation Act • 1996 Policy for Wildlife Conservation and Utilization (Policy and Management Plan for Tourism) No implementation, back to WCA 1974 “Hunting of Animal Regulations”

10. Tanzania – 100 yrs of SH industry • 1920s Annual licenses issued • 1950s Fees in Selous; Game Controlled Areas • 1960s Game Reserves; 47 blocks in Selous • 1973 Ban in order to nationalize SHI; reopened 1978 under TAWICO • 1988 TAWICO disbanded; Wildlife Division control • 1999 ~ 35 private operators (1100 clients) under WD • Worth $27.6m (Baldus & Cauldwell 2004) • 13.7% per annum increase • Worth less than photo safaris (13m of $68.5m in 1989) • Lower returns per area ($70/km2 vs. $130/km2 for photo safaris)

11. Tanzania – Structure of SHI • Resident hunters (low fees, modern weapons) • Sport hunters (expats, high fees, modern weapons) Industry under WD; some hunting blocks under the WD, others under the regional governments; chronic lack of coordination

12. What happens? Facts • 130 blocks (concessions) covering 250,000 km2 • 5 yr leases from Wildlife Division ($7500 p/ann.) • Complex set of additional fees to WD • Must take >40% of quota • Required antipoaching, block development and community development

13. What happens? Baldus and Cauldwell’s (2004) study • No transparent and open market competition for blocks • Quotas on guesswork, and too late • No centralized system of monitoring • Available data (Selous) suggest too low and too high utilization rates; & some species over-hunted • Subleasing • No control on resident hunting at all • No criteria for antipoaching, block and community development

14. What happens to the money? • Highly complex fee structure • 75% game fee to Treasury, 25% to WD (plus all other fees) • 1992 presidential directive • District 9%, • Wildlife Division 25%, • Game Reserves 37%, • Treasury 28% If we consider taxes and all other fees government WD and Treasury still get lion’s share

15. What happens – do communities receive any benefits? • Few tangible benefits, despite a commitment to Wildlife Management Areas (CBRNM) • Small successes • Selous Conservation Programme (GTZ) • Friedkin Conservation Fund, Cullman and Hurt Community Programme (voluntary programs) • CAMPFIRE; WWF-LIFE (Namibia)

16. What happens – Summary • A corrupt system • No ecological monitoring of sustainability • Financially inefficient • Little to no social benefits for Tanzanians

17. 3. What to do? • Ban hunting • More government control • Decentralization • Major land reform • Certification • SFRC (Minnesota, Feb 2006) • SFTZ (Arusha-based NGO, August 2006) • IUCN London, Oct 2006 SF mission is to provide practical solutions for conserving African wildlife while mitigating human/wildlife conflict and reducing poverty in rural areas

18. Savannas Forever • Certify “outfitters” to make hunting more ecologically and socially responsible • Goal – to develop standards measuring ecological impact, community outreach and public communication • Strategy – regional chambers that seek solutions through certification • Rural communities, government, NGOs, wildlife dependent businesses

19. Process of certification • Following FSC develop standards with indicators that measure performance in the various domains • Get government on board • Get all other parties on board (regional chambers, lobbying, working with hunting industry) • Ensure certification will be independent of industry (and SF) • Ensure sustainability of program – industry must pay (survey of hunters & their clients)

20. DRAFT Certification Criteria (Principles, Criteria and Indicators) Pr 1: Sustainability of Wildlife and Habitat in the Hunting Area Crt. Antipoaching: HC should reduce illegal offtake of wildlife populations Ind. HC records all arrests and details of poaching within concession Pr 2: Promote Sustainable Livelihoods and Protect People Pr 3: Monitoring and Assessment Pr 4: Management Plan Pr 5: Compliance with National Laws Pr 6: Tenure and Use Rights and Responsibilities Pr 7: Communication Crt. HC shall communicate with district government to identify priorities for community development ind. HC produce records of annual meetings with District DO

21. 4. SFRC starts to monitor • Base line conditions • Systematic comparisons between affected and unaffected areas • Rigorous quantitative analysis

22. Progress in monitoring • Ecological monitoring. • National forum of users of LIDAR • Sociological monitoring • Pilot completed • 4 teams surveying (all Tanzanians) • Sample • Household heads, village leaders and focus groups • Economic measures, institutional features, conservation attitudes • Anthropometric surveys • Initial work in north

23. Thanks to Dennis Rensch, Jennifer Schmidt, and other students at UMN

24. Singisi Natta Thanks to Dennis Rensch, Jennifer Schmidt, and other students at UMN

25. Hypotheses under test • That communities can benefit from SHI outreach and communication (h 1)

26. HYPOTHESIS 1 Increase human welfare in rural areas impacted by trophy hunting ** SHI outreach & communication achieves certification * Perceived socioeconomic benefits of SHI outreach ** * Measured by certification body ** Measured by SFRC socioeconomic surveys and baseline protocol

27. Hypotheses under test • That communities can benefit from SHI outreach and communication (h1) • That the environment benefits from SHI ecological responsibility (h2)

28. HYPOTHESIS 2 Increased environmental value, measured in target species numbers and other environmental indicators *** More business/income to successfully certified companies * SHI ecological responsibility receives certification * Successful securing of block for multiple years ** * Measured by certification body ** Measured by SFRC socioeconomic surveys and baseline protocol *** Measured by SFRC (National Spatial Database Initiative)

29. Hypotheses under test • That communities can benefit from SHI outreach and communication (h1) • That the environment benefits from SHI ecological responsibility (h2) • That economic benefits confer environmental benefits (h3) or that environmental benefits confer economic benefits (h4)

30. HYPOTHESES 3&4 Increased environmental value, measured in target species numbers and other environmental indicators *** Increase human welfare in rural areas impacted by trophy hunting (h1) ** Increase human welfare in rural areas impacted by trophy hunting (h1) ** or Perceived socioeconomic benefits of SHI outreach and communication ** Increased environmental value, measured in target species numbers and other environmental indicators *** ** Measured by SFRC (socioeconomic surveys and baseline protocol) *** Measured by SFRC (National Spatial Database Initiative)

31. SFTZ-coordinated Conservation Stewardship Council (2009) to agree on PCI WD implementation Testing of hypotheses for appropriate initiatives for each country • SFRC run research with two goals: • Baseline measures for monitoring • Development of knowledge base for best practice (to inform CSC 2009) Top line work is mainly lobbying, facilitating and coordinating with key stakeholders (local communities, government, conservation organizations, development NGOs and hunting industry) Bottom line work is mainly research

32. Questions • Will expat hunters pay more for certified “outfitters” • Is there a set of PCI that all stakeholders can agree to? • Will areas/villages affected by responsible SH operators show differences in ecological, economic and social outcomes? • Or … will we be shot? http://www.savannasforever.org