Wildlife boosts poverty in rural communities

By Aloyce Menda

While the Government of Tanzania earns substantial income from wildlife tourism, the same wild animals enhance poverty in certain rural communities to the extent that worries researchers on poverty alleviation.

Under the auspices of the Research on Poverty Alleviation (REPOA), two scholars are currently conducting a comprehensive research to determine the benefits of the wildlife proximal to villages or what should be done to make them beneficial to poor communities. The research is titled; Wildlife on village and general lands: Can it contribute in poverty alleviation in rural Tanzania?

Dr. Alexander Songorwa and Dr. Jumanne Abdallah started their research work one year ago in five villages of Wami-Mbiki rural area located in Bagamoyo and Morogoro districts of Tanzania. So far they have surveyed three villages among the targeted five and in April this year, presented preliminary findings and issue recommendations during the 10th REPOA annual workshop held in Dar es Salaam.

The current system of in-situ wildlife conservation does not ensure continuous ‘production’ of wildlife and protection of its habitat, they cautioned. “Therefore, with the existing situation in the study area and if human population keeps increasing, wildlife cannot and will not sustainably and significantly contribute to poverty reduction through in-situ conservation”.

The three villages surveyed so far are Mziha, Kibindu and Difinga. Male and female villagers of age ranging from 22 to 85 were interviewed as samples by the researchers. “According to the preliminary research report an overwhelming majority (83.3%) were peasant farmers whose income depend almost entirely on annual agricultural crops, mainly maize. A few (14.4%) depend on other income sources such as small businesses, livestock keeping, masonry, and lumbering in combination with farming.

Respondents were asked to name three factors that were limiting agricultural production in their households. “Results show that problem animals are the major limiting factor (34.24%) followed by lack of capital (21.36%), unreliable rainfall (13.90%), unavailability of inputs and implements (10.51%), illnesses (6.10%) and insect pests (4.75%)”.

The villagers said many wildlife species are problem animals as far as agricultural production is concerned. “Even bushbuck eats cowpeas,” a villager at Mziha told the researchers.

Most villagers particularly those of Kibindu said they lack means such as get nets, poison and game scouts with guns and ammunition for protecting their farms against destructive animals. They recalled past years when the government used to assist them with means for protection against destructive wild animals.

The researchers observed further that large households with seven or more people are more vulnerable to poverty than small ones with less than six people.

In 2003, the government had to supply food aid to Kibindu villagers and other nearby communities due to famine, attributed by a number of causes one of the major one being destructive wild animals.

“A lot of farmers’ time is spent protecting crops against problem animals from the days seeds are sown to the day when harvests are transported from the field,” observed the researchers. Maize, the main crop is normally planted in two seasons annually. During the short rain seasons (vuli) in mid November the first planting commence and farm guarding should start immediately. Guarding continue for three months until late January or early February when harvesting is complete. The process is repeated immediately in February after the vuli crop is harvested and fresh maize seeds are planted.

When the second round of maize is harvested other crops such as beans and cowpeas are planted and hence necessitates another round of guarding until August.

A villager told the researchers that guarding crops is necessary after planting because wild pigs unearth even sown seeds. Other destructive animals include baboons, monkeys, guinea fowls and francolins during the day. Wild pigs and rats (panya buku) harass at night.

In Tanzania, poverty reduction strategy is aimed at reducing income poverty; improving human capabilities; survival and social well being; and containing extreme vulnerability among the poor. The preliminary results of the current research concur with the results of the 1995 “Voice of the Poor” study by the World Bank.

Referring to the World Bank study, the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PSRP) reports that the poor majority in Tanzania attach importance to secure land tenure, availability of agricultural inputs, credit and suitable technology, good transport, access to markets, the potential to save, and quality health services. Unavailability of any of these contributes to or even causes poverty.

Currently, wildlife protected areas without permanent human settlements (that is 162,638 square kilometers of national parks and game reserves) account to 18.46% of the total land area of the Mainland Tanzania (881,289 square kilometers). Though a big area has been allocated for wildlife conservation, a big number of wild animals are wandering outside in areas officially categorized as general lands, village lands and reserved lands that are not specifically for wildlife conservation.

This is another testimony of the abundant natural wealth endowed to Tanzania, and supposed to contribute in rural poverty alleviation. Unfortunately, the case could be the opposite according to the preliminary findings of this research of REPOA. In 2000 it was estimated that one half of 35 million citizens of Tanzania are poor and that about one-third lived in abject poverty – below one US$ per day. Various study reports estimates that poverty level has increased to over 50% in the Mainland Tanzania since 2000. According to PSRP, the poor majority is in the rural areas where subsistence agriculture is the backbone of livelihood.

During the two-day annual REPOA workshop of April 07 to 08 this year, 34 accomplished and progressive researches were discussed by various scholars. Among these 14 were tabled in the group of researchers on Resource Management, 10 were discussed in the Socio-Political group and another 10 were scrutinized by researchers in the Economic and Management group.

This research on wildlife effects was presented and discussed in the Resource Management group. Participants recommended various changes to improve the work by Dr. Alexander Songorwa and Dr. Jumanne Abdallah.
ENDS