rmportal.net · web viewfinal report. policy guidelines for game farming and game ranching in...

Final Report

Policy Guidelines for Game Farming and Game Ranching in Tanzania

August 2000

Task Order No. 12Contract No. PCE-I-00-96-00002-00

Final Report

Policy Guidelines forGame Farming and Game Ranching in Tanzania

Prepared by:

Clark LungrenMalte SommerlatteCharles Mlingwa

Prepared for:

The Wildlife Division of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism

The United Republic of Tanzaniaand

USAID/Tanzania–EPIQGTZ-CBC Project

August 2000

Environmental Policy and Institutional Strengthening Indefinite Quantity Contract (EPIQ)Partners: International Resources Group, Winrock International,

and Harvard Institute for International Development

Subcontractors: PADCO; Management Systems International; and Development Alternatives, Inc.

Collaborating Institutions: Center for Naval Analysis Corporation; Conservation International; KNB Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc..; Keller-Bliesner Engineering; Resource Management International, Inc.; Tellus Institute;

Urban Institute; and World Resources Institute

Table Of Contents

Acronyms.................................................................................................................................vi

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................1

1.1 Game Farming And Game Ranching Consultancy.....................................................1

1.2 Purpose Of These Policy Guidelines...........................................................................1

1.3 Definitions...................................................................................................................1

1.3.1 Commonly Used Terms....................................................................................1

1.3.2 Variations to These Definitions........................................................................3

1.3.3 Game Ranching................................................................................................3

1.3.4 Game Farming..................................................................................................4

1.4 Essential Principles For Modern Wildlife Conservation.............................................5

1.4.1 Conservation of Potentials................................................................................5

1.4.2 Optimisation of Socio-economic Benefits.......................................................5

1.4.3 Local Communities Must Obtain Significant Benefits....................................6

1.5 Integration Of Game Farms And Ranches To Wildlife Land Use..............................6

1.5.1 Attributes and Management of Different Categories of Current Wildlife

Land Use...........................................................................................................6

1.5.2 Diversifying and Enhancing Wildlife Production in Tanzania........................7

1.5.3 Upgrading WMA Management to Unfenced Game Ranch Status.................13

1.5.4 Game Farming and Game Ranching as Components of

Ecosystem Management.................................................................................14

2. Game Farming.....................................................................................................................18

2.1 Forms And Models Of Game Farming......................................................................18

2.1.1 Different Purposes and Forms of Game Farming..........................................18

2.1.2 Subsistence Game Farming............................................................................18

2.1.3 Conservation Game Farming..........................................................................19

2.1.4 Commercial Game Farming...........................................................................19

2.1.5 Experience, Lessons and Trends of Game Farming Found Elsewhere..........19

2.2 Critical Issues............................................................................................................26

2.2.1 Impact Upon Conservation and Species in the Wild......................................26

2.2.2 Markets for Game Farm Products in Tanzania..............................................27

i

2.2.3 Jobs, Income and Revenue.............................................................................27

2.2.4 Impediments for Successful Game Farming..................................................28

2.2.5 Principle Elements of Successful Ventures....................................................29

2.6 Options For Game Farming In Tanzania...................................................................31

2.6.1 Models of Interest for Tanzania.....................................................................31

2.6.2 Wildlife Species of Interest for Game Farming in Tanzania..........................31

2.6.3 Development Of Game Farming In Tanzania................................................34

2.7 Monitoring And Law Enforcement Of Game Farming.............................................35

2.7.1 Conditions to be Met Prior to the Establishment of Game Farms..................35

2.7.2 Control of Human and Animal Movements on or About the Game Farm.....36

2.7.3 Systems for Monitoring and Law Enforcement of Game Farming................36

2.8 Approach To Setting Guidelines And Regulatory Mechanisms...............................36

2.8.1 Establishment of Basic Principles and Essential Standards...........................36

2.8.2 Participatory Policing Within the Industry.....................................................37

2.8.3 Registration and Licensing.............................................................................37

2.8.4 Promotion of Game Farming by the WD.......................................................38

2.9 Guidelines For Establishing And Managing Game Farming....................................38

2.9.1 Criteria and Procedures for the Establishment of Game Farms.....................39

2.9.2 Establishment of Norms for Game Farming..................................................42

2.9.3 Monitoring of the Game Farm, Records and Reports....................................43

2.9.4 Sale of Live Animals and Other Products from a Game Farm......................43

2.9.5 Inspection and Transport of Meat..................................................................44

2.9.6 Release of Animals from Captivity Back into the Wild.................................45

3. Game Ranching....................................................................................................................46

3.1 Development Of Game Ranching In Southern And East Africa...............................46

3.1.1 Past Management of Wildlife.........................................................................46

3.1.2 Changes in Wildlife Policies and Laws to Accommodate Wildlife Use........46

3.2 Ecological And Technical Characteristics Of Game Ranching................................47

3.3 Game Ranching Development’s Contribution To The Economy.............................51

3.3.1 Vested Interests of the Local Community......................................................51

3.3.2 Scale of Economic Benefits from Game Ranching for Different Sectors......54

3.3.3 Increasing Importance of Game Ranching for National Economies..............58

ii

3.4 Local Communities Involvement And Benefit Sharing............................................59

3.4.1 Revenue Sharing and Benefit Distribution.....................................................60

3.4.2 Training and Management..............................................................................61

3.5 Contribution Of Game Ranches To Biological Diversity.........................................61

3.5.1 Game Ranches and Environmental Rehabilitation.........................................62

3.5.2 Problems Encountered....................................................................................62

3.6 Key Issues When Developing A Game Ranching Industry......................................63

3.6.1 What Determines Success or Failure?............................................................63

3.6.2 Wildlife Policy and Laws...............................................................................64

3.6.3 Land Ownership and Tenure..........................................................................64

3.6.4 Investment Incentives and Management Benefits..........................................64

3.6.5 Guidelines for the Establishment and Management of Game Ranches.........65

3.6.6 Guidelines for Professional Operators in Wildlife Utilization.......................65

3.6.7 Wildlife Producers Association......................................................................65

3.6.8 Availability of Professional Wildlife Managers and Information on Game Ranching.........................................................................................................66

3.6.9 Creation of Conservancies and Community–Game Rancher Cooperation....66

3.6.10Ability of the WD to Monitor and Control Game Ranching Activities.........67

3.7 Policy Guidelines On Game Ranching In Tanzania..................................................68

3.7.1 Summary of Guiding Principles.....................................................................68

3.7.2 Management of Game-Fenced Ranches.........................................................69

3.7.3 Pre-feasibility Report.....................................................................................72

3.7.4 Feasibility Report...........................................................................................73

3.7.5 Management of Unfenced Game Ranches.....................................................81

4. Modifications Recommended To Policy And Legislation...................................................86

4.1 Analysis Of Current Wildlife Policies And Laws.....................................................86

4.1.1 Objectives of the Wildlife Policy...................................................................86

4.1.2 Review of the Wildlife Policy of Tanzania as to Game Farming

and Ranching..................................................................................................86

4.1.3 Wildlife Conservation Act of 1974................................................................90

4.1.4 Review of the Wildlife Conservation Act as to Game Farming

and Ranching..................................................................................................90

4.1.5 Tanzania Investment Policy of 1996 and Investment Act of 1997................90

iii

4.1.6 Land Policy of 1996 And Land Act of 1999..................................................92

4.1.7 Village Land Act of 1999...............................................................................93

4.1.8 CITES Regulations.........................................................................................94

4.2 Recommendations To Promote Game Farming And Ranching................................95

4.2.1 Wildlife Policy of 1998..................................................................................95

4.2.2 Wildlife Conservation Act of 1974................................................................96

4.2.3 Tanzania Investment Act of 1997..................................................................98

4.2.4 Village Land Act of 1999...............................................................................99

4.2.5 Land Act of 1999............................................................................................99

4.2.6 CITES Regulations.......................................................................................100

4.3 Impact Of The Game Farming/Ranching Policy On The WMA Guidelines..........101

4.3.1 Guidelines for Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs).................................101

4.3.2 Recommendations to Integrate Game Farming and Ranching to WMA Guidelines.....................................................................................................102

5. Recommended Actions By WD For Game Farming And Ranching.................................104

5.1 Wildlife Personnel...................................................................................................104

5.2 Facilities..................................................................................................................104

5.3 Scope Of Work........................................................................................................104

5.3.1 Collection, Evaluation and Analysis of Annual Reports and Returns.........104

5.3.2 Processing Applications, Registration and Licensing of Game Farms and Ranches........................................................................................................105

5.3.3 Inspection of Game Farm/Game Ranch Facilities, Wildlife Populations

and Habitats..................................................................................................105

5.3.4 Registration and Supervision of Outlets.......................................................105

5.3.5 Monitoring Wildlife Populations and Establishing Off-take Quotas...........105

5.3.6 Provision of Information/Advice to Investors, Landowners,

Communitiesand Managers..........................................................................106

5.3.7 Contact and Dialogue With Game Ranchers Association and

Conservancies...............................................................................................106

5.3.8 Facilitating Field Trips and Training Courses in Game Farming

and Ranching................................................................................................106

5.3.9 Coordinating Management Oriented Research in Game Farming

and Ranching................................................................................................107

iv

5.3.10Periodic Review of Policies, Laws and Regulations....................................107

5.3.11Encouraging NGOs and Aid Agencies to Participate in

Developing Wildlife Industries....................................................................108

Bibliography..........................................................................................................................110

Appendix 1: Scope of Work..................................................................................................114

Appendix 2: List of People Contacted...................................................................................124

Appendix 3: Itinerary Of Meetings And Field Visits............................................................128

Appendix 4: Documents Collected or Reviewed During the Consultancy............................131

Appendix 5: Partial Bibliography on Species of Interest for Game Farming in Africa........140

v

Acronyms

AA Authorised Association

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

CAWM College of African Wildlife Management

DW Director of Wildlife

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

GCAs Game Controlled Areas

GRs Game Reserves

IPA Investment Promotion Authority

MAC Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives

MLHSD Ministry of Lands and Human Settlement Development

MNTR Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism

NCA Ngorongoro Conservation Area

NLP National Land Policy

NPs National Parks

PAs Protected Areas

TAWIRI Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute

TWPF Tanzania Wildlife Protection Fund

UDSM University of Dar es Salaam

URT United Republic of Tanzania

VLA Village Land Act

vi

WD Wildlife Division

WCA Wildlife Conservation Act

WMA Wildlife Management Area

WPT Wildlife Policy of Tanzania

WTF Wildlife Trust Fund

vii

1. Introduction

1.1 Game Farming And Game Ranching Consultancy

The present document is the product of a study commissioned by the Wildlife Division (WD) of the Government of Tanzania (GOT), and jointly funded by USAID/Tanzania (EPIQ) and GTZ, to evaluate the potentials and propose guidelines for game farming and game ranching in Tanzania. The Terms of Reference, people interviewed, itinerary followed, and documents collected and/or reviewed during the consultancy are presented in appendices 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Based upon experience elsewhere, the potentials for productive wildlife management to significantly contribute to the sustainable socio-economic development of the Tanzanians are obvious. It was with real pleasure that the team carried out their mandate, in large part due to the welcome and open collaboration of the WD staff, the quality of EPIQ and GTZ support, and to the extraordinary people encountered in the field who are endeavouring their best to develop activities that foster conservation and economic enhancement.

The team trusts that this report will contribute to the promotion of game farming and game ranching as appropriate options for the conservation of the wide range of biological resources in Tanzania and for the wholesome socio-economic development of her people, especially those of the communities on the front line of conservation effort.

1.2 Purpose Of These Policy Guidelines

The purpose of the present technical review and policy study is to provide information and propose guidelines for the WD, local communities and private sector organisations and their development partners, so that: A) the WD can harmonise different strategies for natural resource use and facilitate the establishment and operation of game farms and game ranches within the framework of sustainable use and the conservation of biodiversity; and: B) local communities and the private sector can develop initiatives in the most-informed way, and: C) the Government of Tanzania, District Councils, local communities and the private sector can derive maximum benefits from game farming and ranching activities in Tanzania.

1.3 Definitions

1.3.1 Commonly Used Terms

With the recent worldwide development, proliferation and adaptation of wildlife uses and the attempt to regulate the wildlife trade, considerable confusion exists as to the meaning of different

1

terms used variously by different agencies and on different continents. To avoid undue confusion the following definitions are proposed and seem to be the most prevalent within the African context:

Game Ranching:

the extensive management of several or many wildlife species on relatively large surface areas where a wide range of complementary production systems and uses are professionally managed so as to render them compatible and beneficial, including sport hunting, cropping, sale of live animals, tourism and fishing.

Game Ranch: an area for wildlife management composed of at least two sites of different ownership,

Conservancy: operated as a game ranch, that joins together under one management in order to optimise1 conservation, financial, or socio-economic benefits (some private land owners or villages might opt to contribute village land to a WMA to profit from the increased benefit that would ensue).

Game Farming: the intensive husbandry (breeding/raising) of one or few wildlife species on relatively small surface areas wherever suitable infrastructures and services are available in urban or rural areas (usually less than 1 ha to about 25 ha), totally enclosed, and under more-or-less heavily managed conditions that tend to domesticate the animals, with live sales, meat and skins or other specific products being the main revenue; with or without tourism.

Micro livestock: small species of animal and bird of economic interest for especially household and family or village-level husbandry, usually involving relatively small investment with significant returns; some better-known international examples of micro livestock being profiled recently for their economic interest are: Vietnamese pot-bellied hog, grass-cutter (larger African cane rat), giant snail, agouti, and the green iguana. Micro livestock research and promotion is becoming an acceptable branch of agricultural development activity.

These definitions have less to do with the size of a game farm or game ranch than with the choice of production systems and the management style; although, for economic reasons, farms are obviously limited to relatively small areas and self-sustaining ranches tend to require large surfaces. However, the area of what might be called a “hobby ranch” or “tourist ranch,” that is highly subsidized by other than its primary wildlife production, could be smaller than that of the largest commercial farm. As a game ranch can be any site where multiple-use of many animal and plant species are professionally managed extensively to optimise benefits (where animals range free or semi-free in very large paddocks to graze or browse naturally; somewhat as in past 1 “optimisation” refers to the judicious mix and use of different management and utilisation systems for wildlife production (tourism, safari hunting, cropping, etc) that provides the highest overall benefit (see section 3.3.1.1). A particular mix of activities and management strategies can “optimise” the production for socio-economic benefit of the local population, or profit for the investors, or income for the State, etc, according to the particular attributes and problems of a given site. A given combination of activities and management can generate a balanced output of benefits that benefits all actors in a fashion deemed to be equitable.

2

times–but in a modern context), the term describes more an activity and a level of management than it does a land category or a legal classification.

1.3.2 Variations to These Definitions

Different forms and variations of game farming and game ranching exist due to the variable multi-faceted set of conditions and management options found at different sites. The following are the most common:

1.3.3 Game Ranching

Due to economic factors, the game ranch is usually on agriculturally marginal, arid or semi-arid land. The key management tools to increase and maintain animal stocks to a viable level of production are protection (anti-poaching), the careful development and control of water points, salt licks, prescribed burns and pastures, and habitat diversification. Game ranches usually cover 10.000 to 15.000 ha when fenced, but may involve over 100.000 ha under non-fenced conditions that are especially applicable to collaborative or joint community/ commercial investment. As the attributes of each site and the nature and goals of the community and investors will be different from site to site, so will be the format and operations, which, as well, must be able to evolve with changing ecological and socio-economic conditions. Thus, the use of fencing must remain flexible and responsive to site-specific and time-related imperatives. Several forms of game ranch can be distinguished:

Fenced game ranch: While the fencing of game ranches facilitates the manipulation of the habitat and livestock, the exorbitant cost limits the size and thus the profitability of the site, so the economics of the enterprise will tend to severely limit the number and size of fenced sites to special cases or highly valued species. This will be especially true when less-expensive options for unfenced game ranching with a community-based approach are available, such as being adopted in Tanzania. As well, products at successfully managed unfenced sites will tend to compete very strongly with those at fenced sites, so the latter will tend to be the exception in Tanzania. However, fenced game ranches may be the only option for highly settled agricultural areas. Also, the perimeters of game ranches may require partial fencing along the borders of agricultural areas, as might the outer perimeters of some game ranches collectively forming migration corridors between major dispersal areas such as formed by some national parks.

Unfenced game ranch: Unfenced game ranches can be on open ecosystems such as found in the northern part of Tanzania where management must take into account the seasonal migrations of wildlife that wander across land of various designation and ownership. Also, unfenced game ranches can be established in closed ecosystems such as those to be found in woodland savannas of southern Tanzania where animal populations are essentially sedentary, more-or-less restricted to daily movements about local topographical features and habitat formations, although some

3

localized seasonal movement may occur between soil types. Unfenced game ranches to become cost-efficient must certainly work in harmony with the surrounding community; thus a new dynamic has become evident: that of community involvement and benefit sharing. This certainly in tune with the modern imperative of poverty alleviation and sustainable development, and provides a new impetus for the conservation of natural resources in the least advantages areas of the continent.

Professional year-round management of an unfenced game ranch in collaboration with the surrounding community on land developed in an appropriate way (access roads, fire breaks, dams to provide water and flood low land pastures in dry-season, etc) can optimize the production of socio-economic benefits and generate significant revenues of the highest level possible within the socio-economic context for local villagers and local and national governments.

1.3.4 Game Farming

A game farm is of special interest to small investors or small landholders, and the farming of some species can start with very little investment.

The Tanzanian policy and management plan for avifauna adopted in 1993 uses CITES definition of “captive breeding” for what is essentially the farming of wild bird species.

The Tanzanian crocodile policy and management plan, also adopted in 1993 use the CITES term “crocodile ranching” to describe the commercial rearing of crocodiles from eggs or young collected in the wild. This somewhat confusing, so it needs to be remembered that this term refers to a specific form of crocodile farming. Once the manager breeds crocodiles on the premises and ceases to restock from the wild (except exceptionally to maintain biological vigour), the enterprise could then be legitimately be referred to as “crocodile farming,” according to the most commonly-used definitions given in the commonly used terms above.

As well, the Tanzanian ostrich policy and management plan (1993) cites the CITES definition of “ostrich ranching” as being the rearing in a controlled environment of specimens, taken from the wild, usually eggs, with the intention of engaging in trade. However, the plan goes on to specify that such operations must become self-sustaining after a period of five years, after a maximum of three egg-collecting seasons. Once the operation continues to reproduce its own young it could then truly be called “ostrich farming.” In Ghana, where the densities of royal python on farmland and pasture average 3.3 pythons/ha, game farmers “ranch” royal pythons by collecting wild gravid females in December/January that are released again at the end of April/May after laying and hatching their eggs in captivity. Again, according to the definition of the most prevalent use of the terms, this is a particular form of python “farming” that may not be desirable or even practical in another context; and that eventually could become true “farming”

4

when (if) wild stocks become less common and it becomes economical to breed and raise them in captivity.

1.4 Essential Principles For Modern Wildlife Conservation

Several basic principles for sustainable wildlife-based development are becoming very evident throughout the international circles; these are outlined below:

1.4.1 Conservation of Potentials

Maintaining all biological, ecological, social and economic options for socio-economic development and economic diversification must form two overriding themes for all development action, especially in times of ecological, social or economic instability; and that, in light of demographic processes that indicate a progressive intensification of ecological and economic problems of the sort already visible today. This is an important part of the rationale behind the conservation of biodiversity.

1.4.2 Optimisation of Socio-economic Benefits

Wildlife management must optimise the production of socio-economic benefits for the local people in order to become a viable land-use alternative that will compare favourably with other forms of land-use and assure the maintenance of ecologically viable habitat. While the preferred balance of benefits between actors may differ from case to case, this means that:

the most-productive systems and measures must be adopted that best assure attainment of the optimization targeted in each case (the blend of which will vary from site to site);

within the framework of overall plans, management components must aim to:

o enhance (increase quantity and quality) and secure the resource base;

o maximize sustainable production within the limits established for each component;

o include the best paying, or at least some high performing markets (if the optimization of benefits mitigates against targeting the highest-paying markets for all products);

Thus, the concept of “wildlife production” must form a large part of wildlife conservation, as, in reality, poor or mediocre performance is no longer good enough to finance year-round management nor to stem the pressure from competing economic options. As the growing demand for development resources for the high-profile sectors of health, education and basic infrastructure claim priority for the little resources available to emerging African states, it is currently unrealistic to expect national conservation efforts to be financed entirely from national

5

economies, although the urgency of environmental issues in some countries does well merit it. This means that the forces of private sector professional management must be integrated into the equation for wildlife-based development and must be given the latitude required to carry out engagements within a framework that assures sustainability and the appropriate distribution of benefits.

1.4.3 Local Communities Must Obtain Significant Benefits

In addition to the national economy, benefits to all the stake-holding communities located about a wildlife management zone must attain a significant level, so that, due to their interests, they become the first line of defense for the maintenance of wildlife production systems. This implies that, to the extent of their capabilities, they must participate in the concept, management, monitoring and benefit-sharing of wildlife conservation areas, drawing upon national technical services and private sector partners in order to upgrade their capacities and optimize their benefits. Locally, three essential levels of benefit must be realized: community, family or clan, and individual.

It is within the context of these principles that the following evaluation and proposals have been made.

1.5 Integration Of Game Farms And Ranches To Wildlife Land Use

Existing wildlife land uses cover several categories of Protected Area (PA), being classified or reserved land, namely: A) National Parks; B) Game Reserves; and C) Game Controlled Areas. However, wildlife is also present on; D) Communal Village Land; as well as on: E) General Land.

1.5.1 Attributes and Management of Different Categories of Current Wildlife Land Use

National Park (NP); managed by Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA), with minimal development of infrastructures (buildings, roads, dams, etc); and where, essentially, no consumptive human activities are allowed and financial benefits for the local community tend to be minimal.

Game Reserve (GR); managed by the Wildlife Division, with minimal development of infrastructures, however some consumptive human exploitation of the wildlife is allowed in the

6

form of safari hunting in addition to game viewing; usually allocated to a hunting concessionaire for a 5 year period, also with very limited benefits for the local community2.

Partial Game Reserve (PGR); can be designated by the MNRT to protect specific classes or species of animal, in areas where other human activities are allowed, including agriculture, grazing, forestry, and fishing. Safari and resident hunting blocks can also be established in PGRs; hunting follows the same rules as for game reserves. Currently, there are no PGRs.

Game Controlled Area (GCA); designated as such by the MNRT, where, although wildlife is protected, other human occupations are allowed, including agriculture, grazing, forestry, fishing, etc. GCA including village land as well as open, public or general land. Safari and resident hunting blocks are also established in GCAs, and hunting follows the same rules as for game reserves; benefits for the community are greater than for other PA classifications, with, however, very little monetary benefit at the village level.

Wildlife Management Area (WMA); is the designation of a new category of wildlife area that will be organized on village land in some of the old GCAs for ownership and management by the rural communities who wish to do so, and who can set aside sufficient land for at least minimal requirements and obtain permission to manage the wildlife resource under a special authority by the MNRT as provided for under the new Wildlife Policy of Tanzania. In all probability, in order to establish sites of appropriate configuration for wildlife management, some adjacent village or general lands will end up being included at some sites (and classified as village land), especially where enclaves of non-classified land, such as where boundaries follow river bends, project in towards the heart of the GCA. The WMA will be managed by a “Authorized Association” (AA). The AA can choose to develop and directly operate different production options of natural resource uses that are compatible with wildlife management and/or enter into an agreement with an investor to lease the WMA or operate a joint venture on the WMA, etc, if they so choose in order to upgrade the quality of management and increase their benefits.

2Hunting-Block concession (HB): With the exception of the Selous and Rukwa game reserves where donors are contributing to pilot management programmes, registered hunting concessionaires pay an annual block fee of US $ 7,500, of which 25 percent goes to the Tanzania Wildlife Protection Fund (TWPF) and 75 percent goes to the Treasury; from which 25 percent goes to the WD. Game fees (also known as trophy taxes) are payed by sport hunters as per animals shot, according to a variable schedule that is periodically revised; 25 percent goes to the TWPF with 25 percent of the remainder being paid to the District Council and the rest to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT). A conservation tax of 2,000 Tsh/day is charged to tourist hunters, 100 percent of which is payed to the TWPF. The TWPF pays costs of wildlife protection in wildlife areas, including National Parks, if deemed necessary.At the Selous and Rukwa game reserves, 50 percent of block and game fees are retained by the zone management for maintenance and development of the reserves; the reminder is split between TWPF (25 percent) and WD (25 percent); of which WD directs 25 percent of its share to district councils. The game reserve zone management also collects 50 percent of the conservation tax, with 50 percent being paid to TWPF.

7

1.5.2 Diversifying and Enhancing Wildlife Production in Tanzania

Provision should be made to integrate the different forms of game farm and game ranch into the national legislation, as, amongst other things, they will definitely:

1. tap fairly quickly into new investment capital to finance the extension of effective wildlife management and provide for the acquisition of expertise by semi-rural and rural Tanzanians;

2. increase and strengthen the benefits from conservation sites;

3. increase the profile for conservation before the average citizen;

4. expand the scope of wildlife-based economic activities.

A summary comparison of the different types and attributes of the classical and newer conservation areas being promoted is shown in Table 1. This helps to appreciate the complementarity of the different forms and the potential benefit of incorporating the game farming and ranching concepts.

The different categories of adjacent conservation area benefit from the increased synergy resulting from the addition of different types of conservation area in combination; for example: unfenced game ranches can generate many more jobs than a NP, and thus help gain significant support from the local population for the overall wildlife sector, while a GR can provide fallback pastures in the event of a destructive wildfire on the game ranch; or, acting as a breeding sanctuary, help assure stocks in the event of poor management on the game ranch (or vise-versa). The combined increased wildlife habitat area may provide habitat necessary for large-area species like elephant, lion, cheetah and the African hunting dog; in the process, as well, increasing the tourism attraction.

8

Table 1. Comparison of Wildlife Land Uses with Integration of WMAs, Game Farms and Ranches

Designation National Park Game Reserve WMA

Game Ranch Fame Farm

Unfenced Game RanchFenced Game

RanchCommercial Game Farm

Conservation Game Farm

Subsistence Game Farm

Open Ecosystem

Closed Ecosystem

Source and/or category of land:

Reserved land Reserved Land Derived from Game Controlled Areas, Village Land and General Land

Private (long-term lease) on acquired General and/or Village land, (possibly conducted on WMA)

Private (long-term lease) on acquired General and/or Village land, (possibly conducted on WMA)

Private (long-term lease) on acquired General and/or Village land

Private (long-term lease) on acquired General and/or Village land

Private, General, or Village Land, or land donated by the Government

Private (short or long-term lease), on acquired General and/or Village land

Animal movements:

Sedentary and migratory




Free movement but sedentary by nature

Semi-captive conditions; no animal movement in/out

Captive conditions; no animal movement in/out

Captive conditions no animal movement in/out

Captive conditions; no animal movement in/out

Intensity of wildlife husbandry:

Extensive Extensive Extensive Extensive Extensive Extensivetending towards semi-intensive

Intensive Intensive Intensive

“Ownership” and Investment:

Government of Tanzania

Government of Tanzania

AA Community investments with perhaps NGOs and donor investment

Private leasee Private leasee Private leasee Private leasee Private leasee or Government of Tanzania

I Individual or family

Management structure:

TANAPAPark Warden and staff

WDHead Warden and staff

AA (Village Committee or Federation of village committees)1) villages co-operate to manage; or 2) AA hires a manager and staff, or 3) leases site to a professional or 4) enters some form of joint venture with a private investor

Private investormanager and staff



PrivateInvestormanager and staff

Can be run by 1) WD staff, or 2) Private or project donor or 3) manager and staff hired by donor, or 4) staffed by volunteer and/or students, or 5) combinations of above

Operated by an individual or family

9







Open Ecosystem

Closed Ecosystem

Production modes:

Non consumptivegame-viewing tourism only

Some sites game viewing allowed or safari (tourist) hunting (not both at the same time)

All compatible resource use feasible (fishing, bee-keeping, plant/wood harvesting, photo tourism, hunting (subsistence, resident, safari), cropping, capturesome restrictions will apply in migratory areas

All compatible resource use feasible (fishing, bee-keeping, plant/wood harvesting, photo tourism, hunting (resident, safari), cropping, capturesome restrictions will apply in migratory areas

All compatible resource use feasible (fishing, bee-keeping, plant/wood harvesting, photo tourism hunting (resident, safari), cropping, capture

All compatible resource use feasible (fishing, bee-keeping, plant/wood harvesting, photo tourism, hunting (resident, safari), cropping, capturecan breed and offer rare species that are protected in wild

Breeding, rearing, and either slaughter for sale of meat and other products; or sale of live animals

Breeding, rearing, with release program

Breeding, rearing, and either slaughter for subsistence or sale of meat and other products; or sale of live animals

Structural developmentAnd investments:

Perimeter and access roads, fire-guards, water points, salt licks, viewing hides, staff, administrative and visitor accommodations





Perimeter road and fence, access roads, fire-guards, water points, salt licks, viewing hides, staff, administrative and visitor accommodationsre-introduction might be required

Perimeter fence/wall, holding and handling structures, cages, pens, paddocks, etc, administrative buildings with/without staff housing

Perimeter fence/wall, holding and handling structures, cages, pens, paddocks, etc, administrative building with/without staff housing

Cages, pens, etc possibly inside a walled compound with/without a shed or building

Length of production season:

12 months(year-round)

Hunt 6 months Jul-DecTourism 9 months

Hunt 6 months Jul-Dec12 months non-consumptive uses

12 months(year round)






Establishment of quota:

–

Set by WD AA proposes quota in collaboration with WD

Manager proposes quota for approval of WD

Manager proposes quota for approval of WD

Quota established by manager with information to WD

Quota established by manager



Establishment of trophy fee: – Set by WD Set by AA (WMA) Set by manager Set by manager Set by manager – – –

10







Open Ecosystem

Closed Ecosystem

Management measures:

Anti-poachingcontrolled burningperiodic game count

Anti-poachingcontrolled burningperiodic game count

Anti-poachingControlled burningPeriodic game count

Anti-poachingcontrolled burninggame counts each yearecosystem approach

Anti-poachingcontrolled burninggame counts each yeaecosystem approach

Anti-poachingcontrolled burninggame counts each year

– – –

Registration and licensing:

–

Registered with WDAnnual license by WD







Registered with WDLicensing by District Wildlife Officer

Advantages for manager and/or Investor:

– –

Minimal initial investment outlay compared to game ranch

Brings benefits of private sector professionalism into conservationMore control of operations and can significantly increase production

Brings benefits of private sector professionalism into conservationMore control of operations and can significantly increase production

Brings benefits of private sector professionalism into conservationBest control of operations to minimise expenses and optimise productionCollateral for bank loans

Brings benefits of private sector professionalism into conservationBest control of operations to minimise expenses and optimise productionCollateral for bank loans

Ability to control and assure the safeguarding of endangered species

Little investmentSimple and inexpensive technologySignificant profit

11







Open Ecosystem

Closed Ecosystem

Advantages to country:

Conserve natural wilderness and biodiversityEarn foreign exchange revenues for State

Integrate local communities to NRMSecure increased area of wildlife habitat and enhance protection of wildlife populationsIncrease rural revenuesTend to influence improved management in adjacent conservation areas

Conserve natural wilderness and biodiversityEarn foreign exchange revenues for State

Secure increased area for conservation of migrant populations and species requiring large areasInfluence improved management in adjacent areasSignificantly increase community and State revenuesStabilise and optimise production systemsTraining of local pop. Significant promotion of sustainable socio-economic development

Secure and enhance conservation areas., especially for species requiring large areasTend to influence improved management in adjacent conservation areasSignificantly increase community and State revenuesStabilise and optimise production systemsTraining of local pop.Significant promotion of sustainable socio-economic development

Expand and secure conservation areas, especially for most-valuable speciesSignificantly increase community and State revenuesStabilise and optimise production systemsSignificant promotion of sustainable socio-economic developmentAcquisition of expertise and local capacity building

Reduce pressure on wild populationsMake conservation visiblePromote sustainable socio-economic development

Conserves endangered species

Reduce pressure on wild populations and provide an alternative to poachingMake conservation visible and popularPromote sustainable socio-economic development at individual and family level

12

1.5.3 Upgrading WMA Management to Unfenced Game Ranch Status

Communities would have much incentive to seek to develop their WMA along the lines of an unfenced game ranch because unfenced game ranching could provide them with the highest benefit from their land, as well as for the investors, and local and national governments. This would certainly be true if the sites are appropriately designed (zoned according to the ecosystem concept, well-organized with the community as to a clear understanding of the role and responsibilities of each actor in each zone) and professionally-run to harmoniously incorporate and manage all beneficial activities, with some separation of activities by time or space.

Operation of WMAs by the surrounding communities will probably take several forms:

WMAs could be directly managed collaboratively in sections by each participating village, or collectively by all villages composing the “local community” under the authority of an Authorised Association (AA) formed by a Federation of Village Communities composed of the committees from each participating village located about the WMA. However, while potentially contributing to improvement of conservation and village standards of living, the village management style and capacities would not be able to optimise production and benefits.

The AA could opt to hire a manager and his staff to run the WMA as a single management unit; who, if experienced could develop a much higher level of production and increase benefits. However, the level of salary required for professional management will probably be socially unacceptable to the community (especially at the beginning before the system proves itself). Thus management of the average WMA will probably remain at an elementary level: essentially harmonising villager use of resources and preparing and overseeing contracts with some different operators for different parts of the WMA (tourism operator for photo tourism; a collaborating Professional Hunter to who brings his clients to the WMA, etc), which may well remain the standard for many WMAs. This will enhance, but not optimise benefits for the community.

Eventually, the community management may evolve, or accept to pay a professional-level salary. Alternatively, the community could lease the site to a professional operator capable of raising wildlife populations to their optimum level and of bringing international standards and markets into the equation, with salaries and a guaranteed minimum income (shares or rental of some sort) constituting major benefits to the community. Renting or leasing the site, or engaging in joint ventures would not alter the basic statutes of the WMA or its ownership by the AA, while obtaining the injection of cash and expertise needed to launch a most-productive form of management of the WMA. If the community chooses to manage the WMA as a game ranch in order to

13

optimise financial profits and other benefits, the AA and/or operator should be able to request from the WD and acquire “Unfenced Game Ranch” status for the site. This would imply certain standards of investment and management accompanied by a wider scope of operation (for example: extend the production season to 12 months). The manager’s ability to carry out his responsibilities towards his employer or partner community and better-serve conservation goals would definitely be increased. If the management standard were to regress to less than well run (as evidenced by wildlife population trend or delay in payments to the community), or not respect the contractual agreement for the site, the Unfenced Game Ranch status could be revoked to that of a simple WMA.

1.5.4 Game Farming and Game Ranching as Components of Ecosystem Management

The villages located within the influence zone of about 10 km about the boundaries of an area managed for wildlife conservation (or whatever distance judged appropriate in Tanzania) should be considered to compose the “local community” of that wildlife area. Each village should designate their wildlife management committee and the game managers (or scouts) who will have the daily task of protecting and managing their wildlife zones. One or more village committee members would participate on a greater ecosystem management committee, on which also would include the managers of any national park, game reserve, hunting concession and game ranch working within that same wildlife management ecosystem. Any game farms would be located in or about the villages, thus located outside the areas specifically managed for wildlife production.

In a well-designed wildlife ecosystem involving commercial game ranching, village-managed hunting zones would be established about the central game ranching concession. As well, pastoral zones or reserves would be established between the village-managed hunting area and each village; and then closer to the settlements, areas for rotational wood-lot management and bee-keeping and/or cattle grazing, in such a way that human activities become more intensive going towards the village. At some sites, preferably located on the other side of the village away from the wildlife areas, the zones for agricultural intensification would be established. The villagers should have the option to shoot animals, which traverse these outer zones to penetrate their agricultural areas, if they so choose (which they may well not choose to do, if they know that they can collect a substantial trophy tax for the animal from hunting clients).

Thus, a well-designed unfenced game ranch should be surrounded by wildlife areas managed by the local villagers, so that the local wildlife technicians (formerly called poachers) are directly involved in daily management, generate income directly to the village accounts and have to dialogue directly with the professional game ranch manager. Thus, in addition to other community revenues (taxes, dues, rental/lease payments, or dividends) and individual income (employment), the local hunters have a direct stake in the success of the overall operation. This

14

makes them the first line of defence for protection from unsanctioned activities, be they poaching of game or fish or simply unauthorised movement about the game ranch. Animals (largely bachelor males) spilling over from the professionally managed game ranching core would help to attain and maintain the hunting quality of the village-managed zone.

The village-managed wildlife fringe can be managed in the form of a village-owned hunting zone for their own hunting. Alternatively, they could provide services for their own clients holding national or resident hunting licenses; or reserve their quota for clients guided by their game ranching partner, according to the success of villagers towards protection of their area; with trophy taxes going in whole or in part to the village accounts (possibly with a part reserved for the State, depending upon the packaged deal worked out site by site; the trophy tax in some areas, or for some species, may include the national trophy tax plus a local supplement).

The commercial game rancher could also request the village-based committee or scouts to write permits for people of their village wishing to penetrate the ranch for fishing, honey collection, etc, as per pre-established schedules; which would have to shown to the anti-poaching patrols upon request; with copies of such permits joined to monthly reports sent on to the game ranch concessionaire and the local wildlife officer for monitoring purposes.

Figures 1 and 2 demonstrate possible organisation and zoning schemes of well-structured unfenced game ranching ecosystems, designed so as to optimise the production of ecological and socio-economic benefit. Figure 1 presents a closed ecosystem, while Figure 2 describes an open system involving other areas for wildlife conservation. These are only examples of the designs that could be used in Tanzania, depending upon the goals, attributes and difficulties of each site.

15

Figure 1. Example of a Well-Designed Wildlife Ecosystem Incorporating Open System Unfenced Game Ranches, Organised to Optimise Benefits

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1

2 2 W+P W+P W+P W+P W+P 2 1

3 3 P P P P P

4 4 VHZ VHZ VHZ VHZ VHZ

5 5 NATIONAL GAME RESERVE VHZ

6 6

7 7 WMA

8 8

9 9 on village land

10 10

11

12

13 VHZ VHZ VHZ VHZ

1 P P P P P

1 2 W+P W+P W+P W+P W+P

2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Village 1 1 1 1 Village 1

1 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

LEGEND: See Figure 1

Area with wildlife is shaded; heaviest densities are in professionally managed sites; densities diminish as approach village settlements.WMA on the right forms a corridor to other parts of the wildlife system further to the right; it could eventually be managed by the community as a game ranch, or leased to a commercial game rancher

17

2. Game Farming

Many of the factors and issues relating to game farming in Tanzania still need to be identified, satisfactorily addressed and publicised in order that all actors of the public, community and private sectors may increase their understanding and experience in the field. The following chapters attempt to provide initial basis for this process.

2.1 Forms And Models Of Game Farming

2.1.1 Different Purposes and Forms of Game Farming

Three types of game farm are evident, with differing levels of investment, management complexity and impact. They are described below according an increasing level of management complexity:

2.1.2 Subsistence Game Farming

Once people are informed as to the opportunity and benefits and that the activity has become legal, the subsistence game farm will probably become the most numerous, and backyard farms will spring up everywhere where people have an interest in small animal husbandry with a significant cash return.

For example, only about 6-8 m2 would be needed to maintain a basic 1-unit grass-cutter (larger cane “rat”) farm including a walled family pen or cage with a floor space of 2 m2, a second such unit for growing out females and young males of less than 5 months and a bank of 40 x 40 cm cages for fattening males to 4.5 kg at 1.5 years of age. This would house 1 family of 5 breeding females and 1 male, and their offspring until sold, with an annual off-take of about 40 animals. This would represent a production of about 160 kg of meat, which at 3000 Tsh/kg from sale to a restaurant, less costs of about 15,000 Tsh for maize feed, would give an income of 465,000 Tsh. Alternatively, the young females and 20 percent of the males could be sold at 18.000 Tsh for starting up other farms with the remaining males sold for meat: for a total of 616,000 Tsh/year. The animals would eat fresh thick-stemmed grasses from the marsh, sugarcane, cassava, potato, carrot and yam peelings and bread crusts from the kitchen and perhaps about 15,000 Tsh of maize/year. The family would pocket an extra 600,000 Tsh/year, unless of course they became somewhat partial to roast grass-cutter!

This level of farm should be promoted by keeping the rules as simple as possible. Registration with the WD should be required, via the District Wildlife Officer; with the annual licence renewal occurring at the district level. A ceiling could be set for the number of animals that could be maintained (such as 10 families, in the case of the grass-cutter) before being obliged to upgrade the status of the farm to the commercial category, according to the species involved.

18

2.1.3 Conservation Game Farming

Game farms can be managed as part of a conservation program to breed wild animals in captive or semi-captive states for safeguarding rare or endangered species and/or for reintroduction to the wild, often in areas where conservation programs are restoring the natural environment. Such a program is currently being organised by Burkina Faso and Mali (GEF Trans-border Biodiversity Conservation Project), where some collaborating individuals will be assisted to breed the red-necked ostrich and possibly other species for reintroduction at new sites being conserved under community management. Funding for such programs is usually hard to organise, and will certainly be the exception in Tanzania, but may support the capital investments and running costs for a number of years until the farm can support itself from sales of the livestock produced.

2.1.4 Commercial Game Farming

Forming the largest body of game farming, farming for profit is based upon the commercial value of specific products. These may be live animals of species for which farming is more profitable than live capture in the wild, usually due to their rarity or to difficulties leading to high cost associated with the nature of the terrain or political situation. Such species will usually be sold to stock other farms or game ranches, or exported to zoological gardens and animal fanciers in Europe and the USA, or world-wide, for that matter.

A little-developed but potentially large market exists in Tanzania for meat production from high performance species such as grass cutters, which reproduce and grow quickly, and/or fetch a good price. As well, meat export (to Gulf States and India) could be a major consideration in some cases (ostrich meat perhaps).

For some species, the sale of skins, hides or pelts (fur skins) will be the primary focus, but it can also form a secondary focus (ostrich farming), along with the sale of horns, hooves, claws, or eggs, etc. There is a possibility that exports of such products to oriental countries could provide a viable market for Tanzanian game farmers.

2.1.5 Experience, Lessons and Trends of Game Farming Found Elsewhere

Global Trend Towards Game Farming

Worldwide, there is a new focus on the environment and wildlife that is in part reflected by the burgeoning game farming activity, as a competitive alternative to the classical farm. Much of today’s domestic stock is bred for performance and taste (high fat content, that varies between 30 to 60 percent), and usually requires higher-grade nutrition than the hardier wild species. However, the growing health awareness, especially in industrial countries with high purchasing

19

power, has underscored the benefits of low-cholesterol meats; such as in the case of wild ungulates with fat contents that average from 2-3 percent.

In the past, ostrich farming in South Africa for feathers, the fur trade in North America and Russia (pelts from species as varied as chihuahua, mink, sable, fox) and the perfume industry especially in France, Arab and Oriental countries (civet species) were the most common forms of game farming. But, what was unimaginable 25 years ago, is now common, with farms of different species of deer (Cervidae), bison, llama, rhea and ostrich farms popping up all over the world, for the most part producing meat, skins, oil (such as from ostrich and rhea for the cosmetic and health markets), velvet (“fuzz” from the antlers of deer species for export to the health market in oriental countries, especially Korea, China, Hong Kong and Taiwan), as well as some feathers and eggs. Where 25 years ago none existed, game breeders and farmers associations are active in most industrialised countries, even to the unlikely extent of the Ostrich Growers Association of British Colombia, Canada!

The establishment of fallow deer and red stag farms has burgeoned throughout Europe. In many areas game farms are fairly small operations with farmers typically grouping to transform and market their products, but deer farming in especially New Zealand and North America has attained important proportions, with several thousand tonnes of meat being exported to Germany and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of velvet being shipped to oriental countries each year.

Then, from around the world, examples are becoming evident of a growing movement towards what is being called the farming of micro livestock, usually as a supplement to family-level incomes, but which also has the potential for investments of a commercial nature. Some of the species gaining popularity have special application for developing countries, as they often require little space, low investment, and make use of locally available inexpensive foodstuffs, such as course, thick-stemmed unpalatable grasses shunned by cattle (in the case of the grass-cutter).

Development of Game Farming in Africa

As the time and budgetary framework of this study does not permit an exhaustive review of game farming in Africa, the following paragraphs are intended to demonstrate the wealth of information and range of work currently underway and to provide some references for follow-up by interested parties (see the bibliography; and a list of references for farming and species of interest in Appendix 5):

In African countries such as South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Kenya and now Burkina Faso, game ranching and game farming of ostrich and other species has helped intensify national demand for game meat and has helped to create the social awareness and political will to

20

incorporate game meat production as a component for a workable conservation and socio-economic development. Of course, many Central African, and certainly most West African countries have “eaten” much of their wildlife right out of existence! But markets for game meat in many of the countries such as the DR of Congo (ex-Zaire), Gabon, Cameroon, Togo, Benin, Ghana, and Côte d’Ivoire, exist in practice and are now being legalised or are already regulated by appropriate legislation (Mali, Burkina Faso).

Research and trials for the farming of the greater grass-cutter (Thrynomys swinderianus), lesser grass-cutter (Thrynomys gregorianus), otherwise known as the greater and lesser cane “rats,” crested porcupine (Hystrix cristata), brush-tailed porcupine (Atherurus africanus), and giant Gambian rat (Cricetomys gambianus) began in Zaire and Nigeria in the 1970’s, and to a lesser degree, in other countries such as Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire. As well, trials investigated the giant forest rat (Cricetomys emini), the striped ground squirrel (Xerus erythropus). Part of the rationale behind the domestication movement was (is) the desire to help relieve poaching pressure on wildlife by producing a good-quality product that is farmed on a stable basis, and to convert wildlife poachers to into wildlife producers, especially those living around areas of remaining wildlife. The reduction of poverty is of course also served, as game farming expands because farmers are earning revenue.

The greater grass-cutter (“ndezi” in Kiswahili) was quickly taken up in a major way in Benin with the Beninois/GTZ project for grass-cutter domestication currently holding some 6000 animals of over 20 generations in captivity. The project has helped to establish some 3000 grass-cutter farms (called “aulacodiculture” in French) in Benin and adjacent countries. From the first of these farms in Burkina that has already reached the production phase, live animals for breeding stock are sold at the equivalent of $25/animal, with the bled-weight carcass of 4.5 kg at 1.5 years of age sold at $4/kg; currently 58 restaurants want 1050 kg/week, with only 1 restaurant being supplied at the rate of 50 kg/month or only 1/4 of what that single restaurant requires (other restaurants in Ouagadougou send pickups with ice boxes 800 km away to road-side collection sites along the highway in Côte d’Ivoire where people line up along the road to sell poached monkeys, duikers and grass-cutters!). This farmer currently maintains about 180 animals and netted 200.000 Tsh/month in 1999. Following several symposiums held in Benin, the Beninois/GTZ project has produced a manual for grass-cutting farming3.

3In fact, 5 different manuals for grass-cutter farming have now been prepared by several agencies (FAO, French Co-operation, GTZ, Belgian Co-operation) due to expansion of the activity, as suggested by the following list: Heymans, J.C., (1996) : L’élevage de l’aulacode (Thryonomys swinderianus). Cahier technique de la FAO no.

31p Jori, F., et Noel, J.M., (1996): Guide pratique d’élevage d’aulacodes au Gabon. VSF/Coopération Française. 64

p. PBAAu (1992): Actes, 1ère conférence internationale sur l’aulacodiculture: Acquis et perspectives, Cotonou,

Bénin, 226 pp. Schrage, R. et Yewadan, L.T, (1995): Abrégé d’aulacodiculture. Schriftenreihe der GTZ, no. 251, 103p. Van de Velde, M. (1991): Elevage d’aulacodes au Zaïre. Publication du Service Agricole–No. 27, AGCD, Place

du champ de Mars, 5, Boîte 57, B 1050 Bruxelles–Belgique–90 pages.

21

Ghana has also made considerable progress with the farming of grass-cutters, “ranching” of royal pythons for the export market (30,000 captive-born/year by 1994) and the giant African snails (Echatina sp. and Archachatina sp.)–to the point where Ghana exports canned giant snail to Europe. The giant snails have also been the object of research and farming trials at universities in Nigeria and Bénin, and in Bénin, a snail farming training program was financed by the FAO4. In Kenya, the snails are also farmed for supplying local restaurants with an important ingredient for the famous French cuisine. In Madagascar, thousands of farmed frogs complement those collected in the wild, where the main town markets provide local outlets with frog legs, which when fried, is considered to be a delicacy by the local population as well as with their French guests. Also in Madagascar, trials are underway to farm the tenrec, for supplying local restaurants. In especially Gabon, Cameroon, Benin and Ghana, farming of the giant Gambian rat (“panya buku” in Kiswahili) is gaining popularity, as meat sold in bars along with cold beer, fresh (fried, roasted and grilled) or smoked. Their low initial-investment cost, omnivorous diet, docility, and high productivity (females give birth to 24–26 young per year) make them an easy species to start with.

In Gabon, the international veterinary organisation “Vétérinaires Sans Frontières” is working with local and regional partners to conduct domestication trials on sitatunga (Tragelaphus spekei), red-river hog (Potamocherus porcus)5, crested porcupine and bush-tailed porcupine, as well as to propagate grass-cutter and giant snail farming; with some 50 local game farms developing so far. Meat production is the focus of their efforts. In May 2000, an international conference was hosted in Libreville to assemble actors from the region.

At the Pilot Nazinga Game Ranching Project in Burkina Faso, the African Wildlife Husbandry Development Association (AWHDA) in collaboration with the Ministry of the Environment of Burkina Faso conducted trials on the crested porcupine in addition to extensive management of wildlife. AWHDA is establishing a demonstration farm to research and train prospective farmers in ecologically friendly income-generating production systems that complement more-conventional agriculture in rural areas, especially villages located around wildlife conservation sites. The farm is incorporating wildlife and plant production and intends to work with a wide range of options incorporating production lines such as the grass-cutter (meat), warthog (Phacochoerus aethiopicus: for meat), common duiker (Sylvicapra grimmia) for live sales, bourgou grass (hay), upland hay cutting (hay), mushroom farming, date palms, etc; of which the first 5 systems have already been launched.

4Several manuals have been published on the farming of the giant African snails: Cobbinah, J.R. 1994. Snail farming in West Africa. A Practical guide. CTA, Wageningen. Holland. 50 pp. Hardouin, J., Codjia, J.T.C., et Heymans, J.C. 1993. Guide Pratique d’Élevage d’Escargots Géants Africains.

FAO/UNB Eds. 72 pp. Stiévenart, C. and Hardouin, J. 1990. Manuel d’Élevage des Escargots Géants Africains sous les Tropiques.

CTA, Wageningen, Holland. 40p.5West African species similar to the bush pig, both of which were formerly considered to be subspecies of the same species; the bush pig is currently designated as “Potamochoerus larvatus.” See Kingdon 1997.

22

In Kenya, the African Button Quail (Corturnix corturnix) and the wild Helmeted Guinea Fowl (Numida meleagris) are being farmed for sale to local hotels and restaurants. Considerable research for small-scale and commercial farming of the Helmeted Guinea Fowl has been done at the Kainji Lake Research Institute in Nigeria.

In Zimbabwe, Vivian Wilson (based at the Chipangali Wildlife Trust, near Bulawayo) heads up the Pan-African Duiker Project which is investigating use of the duiker across Africa and is attempting to assess intensive and extensive duiker husbandry for food production, as the various duiker species represent a high percentage of all protein consumed in rural Africa. It remains to be seen whether they can be economically raised on farms while competing with the prices of poached meat.

In fact, within the present context of socio-economic conditions that prevail in most countries, some species such as the porcupines and duikers, have turned out to be uneconomical for meat production due to slow reproduction, but reassessment of this conclusion might be possible in urban areas such as found in West Africa where the price of porcupine meat has recently risen up to the equivalent of $9 to $10/kg, with warthog being not far behind. Also the emerging national urban markets for live animals such as small ungulates, as “garden” animals (pets) brings another dynamic to the farming of species such as duikers, which currently sell for anywhere from $90 to $160 per live duiker in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.

Butterfly farming is being attempted at Nairobi, where the large numbers of tourists create local receipts and the frequency of air cargo flights to Europe for the exports of chrysalides to urban butterfly exhibits may render the enterprise viable.

The considerable interest shown for use of smaller animal species in the developing world has led to the beginnings of a new line of effort to support the farming development of viable species, such as the project called “Micro livestock as Food and Feed in Semi-Urban Farming Systems” of the Institut National pour la Recherche Agricole, Bénin. Extending to Africa, the Agronomic Sciences Faculty of the University of Gembloux, in Belgium, manages a centre for the exchange and distribution of micro livestock information, called the Bureau pour l’Echange et la Distribution de l’Information sur le Mini-Élevage (BEDIM). They publish a bi-yearly newsletter with the support of the FAO, CTA and IMT, and distribute articles, a video of micro livestock, etc.6

While the Tanzanian experience has been more towards the capture and export of animals from the wild, some attempts have been made to farm wild species for meat and skins (crocodiles,

6BEDIMFaculté Universitaire des Sciences AgroomiquesUnité de Zoologie Générale et Appliquée2, Passage des Déportés, B 5030, Gembloux, Bélgique

23

ostrich) or the sale of live animals (tortoises, snakes, birds) with varying degrees of success. It would seem that some of these attempts failed or were suspended (such as the Hambo Crocodile Village) due to policy changes within CITES that temporarily restricted the export of skins. However, some true game farming is beginning, as evidenced at several farms (such as noted at M.B.T’s Snake Farm and the Kaole Crocodile Farm, where the propagation of commercial species is reducing the need for wild capture). While Tanzania has very few game farmers, it is fortunate to have a considerable number of live animal dealers and with a long-term commitment and who are developing the appropriate technologies specific to breeding Tanzanian species in captivity. With time they could well become true farmers (breeding producers), depending upon future ecological and economic trends.

Some Lessons Learned From Game Farming Experiences

While a small family-level farm of several animals of some wild species can produce protein more efficiently than from some traditionally-farmed species, for their own consumption or for raising extra cash, the biggest lesson learned from past experience is that, to be viable commercially, game farming is first an economic exercise like any other business.

The viability depends upon many different factors and variables, such as:

Viability of a Given Species

the food habits and diets of the species to be farmed must be easy to satisfy; available and non-expensive;

the docility of the species being farmed will help determine the approach for handling, housing and transportation; the more docile, the easier to handle and the lowest cost;

the species must be robust enough to flourish under captive conditions with minimal medical care and expense (most species reproduce once their particular needs have been discovered and under are well-managed conditions, only minimal medical attention is usually required);

the species should have a high reproduction rate to render costs efficient by multiplying sales as quickly as possible;

the design of pens or cages must be simple, be able to use locally-available materials, and inexpensive as possible;

the commercial value of the species is important as it affects investment and profitability thresholds.

24

Availability of Technical Expertise

the availability of an appropriate technical support to diffuse husbandry techniques and promote appropriate farming norms has been a major factor towards the multiplication of game farming, from government offices established for that purpose, from NGO’s working in the community or from within the commercial wildlife industry sector itself; in other terms, someone needs to diffuse information and promote the activity.

Proximity to Markets

the presence and proximity of markets or marketing systems such as tourist hotels and urban butcher shops (airport for transportation to markets) that can mean highest prices possible is very important for commercial enterprises, so the location of the farm with respect to the market outlet is important.

Nature of Markets

export markets represent often the best prices, but are difficult to control as they are so often at the mercy of international politics and events beyond the power of national governments to influence;

local markets, while offering less-interesting prices, are more-subject to the influence of national governments, so if the right political and legislative framework is in place, can provide more-stable markets such as are the backbone of any good business;

local meat markets render the advantages and issues of sustainable conservation evident to a large national audience and help generate public support for the government’s conservation thrust;

for some species (such as Gambian rat) in some areas, the market may depend upon the drinking habits and purchasing power of customers who gather at local pubs and bars to chat, drink beer and consume meat: grilled, roasted, fried, boiled, steamed and/or smoked; high population centres with appropriate habits and adequate purchasing powers could be essential for some farming enterprises;

generally, the multiplication of game farming to many sites will help to create stable markets as a single or only a few producers of a given species will probably not be able to supply the demand, and the regular supply of a product such as game meat is needed before markets (hotels, for example) begin to carry them on a regular basis (although in some cases, would-be commercial game farmers, such as commercial ostrich farmers, who are called upon to support the research and development costs required to initiate a

25

form of game ranching in a region might wish to gain a guaranteed monopoly before committing to the enterprise).

Appropriate Policies and Legislation

If sanctioned, especially if promoted by the government, family-level game farming of meat species like grass-cutters with low investment and low overhead will spring up on little parcels of land all around urban areas.

However, reasonable land and investment security is necessary before businessmen will begin looking upon game farming as a viable business alternative, including national stability in policies, legislation and practices relating to ecological and technical issues (such as the participative establishment of husbandry norms and their periodical updating) as well as taxation, foreign investment and exchange, etc.

Each region and farm site will have a different set of variables, so the potentials of each site must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

2.2 Critical Issues

Discussion of a number of critical issues will help provides the context for guidelines on game farming and game ranching enterprises. Policy and legal framework issues are discussed in Section 4.

2.2.1 Impact Upon Conservation and Species in the Wild

The potential impact for game farming upon conservation, in general, will be very favourable, in the sense that it will bring conservation home to the majority of people where they live and make the program of the WD relevant to the “average Joe” on the street. This will be evident in the evenings such as, when around cold beer and “nyama choma,” the choice of and preference for grilled chicken, smoked warthog, or roast grass-cutter is loudly debated!

While there will always be some poachers who prefer the loose schedule and life-style of low-effort, low-investment poaching, and will never convert, game farming is a natural alternative for many wildlife-oriented villagers who would otherwise be the worst poachers. Policing by WD and self-policing by the industry, along with the appropriate registration and monitoring systems should render insignificant any possibility that game farming will tend to facilitate poaching under cover of the game farm.

Of course, taxation revenues from commercial game farming can and should be directed towards further conservation efforts.

26

Some forms of game farming such as crocodile “ranching” deliberately collects eggs from the wild for captive rearing as a way of compensating the otherwise high natural mortality of eggs and young crocodiles. If it reaches significant proportions, this can obviously have a negative impact on wild populations, so it must be monitored continuously, and reduced or stopped if necessary. However, in principle, the majority of game farming will only draw upon wild stocks if captive animals are not already available, and will aim to reproduce on-site as the most economical way to obtain new stock. Thus, generally, game farming should have an insignificant negative impact on species in the wild. Some breeding populations of rare or endangered species should obviously not be disturbed in their natural habitat; but there is also a case for careful, limited collection in the wild to form captive breeding groups at game farms of those species. This will have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

While game ranches will be another matter, the size of the largest game farm will tend to have an insignificant impact upon the free movement of wild populations.

2.2.2 Markets for Game Farm Products in Tanzania

While obviously not already functional as game meat markets, there is every indication that legal outlets will quickly open up and intensify once the opportunity can be legally pursued (as TAWICO found in Arusha: initial attempts to sell zebra meat met with little success but changed when the price was lowered; now, some years later, TAWICO can sell 20-30 carcasses/day). Some hotels have asked to import game meat, so would obviously be interested in handling a good-quality dependable local product. A marketing study would probably quickly identify interested actors and species of highest potential for different areas of the country.

2.2.3 Jobs, Income and Revenue

The WD envisages that the creation of WMAs and investment in game ranching and farming by the private sector, will open the door for a number of enterprise opportunities for the local communities that now benefit little from the presence of wildlife in their areas. The private sector is expected to take the initiative as game farming is perceived to provide jobs and income to local communities that currently benefit nothing or very little from the wildlife they have lived with.

This will hold true if game farms are appropriately designed and managed. The potential for game farming to offer employment opportunities to local people was demonstrated in a number of pilot wildlife farms and ranches visited in Arusha:

Mountain Bird, Tortoise’s Snake Farm & Reptile Centre employs between 50-100 people (depending upon the season), out of which 20-30 are permanently employed;

27

Meserani Snake Park has 40 permanent local employees.

Game farming offers employment at a much smaller scale at the Kaole Crocodile Farm in Bagamoyo, with only four salaries; however the farm is not engaged in commercially viable activities at this time.

Commercial game farming will provide a new source of revenue through taxes, fees and loyalties to the Government.

2.2.4 Impediments for Successful Game Farming

The potential impediments for successful game farming are many, such as summarized below:

Basic Feasibility

lack of technical expertise;

lack of markets;

unfavourable economic balances: low prices–high costs;

high cost of investment (construction, equipment);

high costs of functioning/maintenance (foodstuffs, water, electricity);

excessive cost of transport to market;

restrictive, unclear or unadapted government legislation, regulations, and practice;

restrictive international legislation and practices (CITES and non-harmonised unilateral policies of importing countries.

Installation Stage

lack of technical expertise;

socio-political pressure opposing captive game industries (less of a problem in Africa);

non availability of animals to stock the farm;

restrictive and/or poorly interpreted government regulations;

28

Development and Full-Phase Operational Stages

instability of costs and prices;

unfair competition from wild-hunted or wild-caught operations, or “fly-by night” operators who can afford to sell their produce less expensively;

lack of evolution of government regulations to follow changing socio-economic conditions such as markets trends and the opening of new markets that develop due to increasing urban wealth;

slow/complicated administration (WD, CITES, Customs) = expensive and untimely paperwork that is obtained months after the occasion or the production season is over;

lack of stability in national legislation and CITES type of international agreements for export; frequent and/or drastic changes can frustrate planning, and limit or nullify investments: which can be fatal to small enterprises who cannot afford to unexpectedly finance maintaining animal stocks for 6-12 months while CITES sorts out reversals or administrative bottlenecks before issuing quotas/permits, especially when the profit margins are very limited to start with.

Most of these issues are significant and must be adequately addressed before game farming ventures will succeed. They are discussed further in greater detail in the following sections.

2.2.5 Principle Elements of Successful Ventures

Availability and Nature of Markets

The availability and requirements of markets for game farming products is the issue of primary importance, as the demand for products is the only framework that will sustain the activity. This demand may be of a financial nature or of a conservation nature. Conservation agencies may support the captive reproduction of an endangered species in order to save the species, usually with the long-term intent to release it again into selected conservation areas. However, this will be limited in scope and to few species, although funding for this activity may be important. The great majority of game farmers will be raising animals for the sale of live animals or meat, as well as secondarily, materials for artisan or health industries such as: skins/pelts, trophies, feathers, eggs, claws, organs etc. Thus, the availability and exigencies of markets and more-specifically, the export markets which pay comparatively much more than local markets, will determine the species, nature and scope of game farming.

Currently, in order of importance, the main markets of interest are:

29

live animal sales;

bird, reptile and animal fanciers;

stocking of game farms and game ranches;

zoological gardens;

conservation programmes (education, reproduction, reintroduction);

medical research;

slaughtered animal products:

meat sales for the butcher shop, hotel, restaurant, town and village markets;

sale of accessory products (skins/pelts, eggs, horns, hooves, claws, organs for artisan workshops or health shops).

Suitability of Game Farming Sites

Several general criteria can be cited relative to the suitability of game farming sites:

Game farming sites should be near to their intended markets or at least to a market depot, in order to keep logistics and travel/transport to an acceptable minimal level. This is important for all products, including the transport of live animals, as the complications and cost of transport can seriously reduce profitability if access routes are lengthy or in bad condition. The same is true for materials and foodstuffs which will be needed on a regular basis, thus must be located nearby. It must have year-round access, as stocks must be maintained year-round.

The site must have the right environmental and topographical profile, dependent upon the species to be produced (in general: not at the bottom of a flood valley, nor at the top of a rock pile; must have shade trees). Access to a guaranteed water supply plain is essential, as might be the case for electricity, depending upon the circumstances.

The choice of activity at the proposed site should encounter the agreement of the large majority of the surrounding community.

The promoter needs to have a secure access to the site before he/she will invest and evidence to believe that he/she will earn significant income.

30

Land Tenure and Security (see Section 4)

Compared to some countries, legally acquiring land for game farming in Tanzania could take some time, but the procedures are known, currently practised and land parcels of the size involved are available in most parts of the country.

Most game farms will only need 1 to 3 ha of land, although operations such as ostrich farming could require up to 25 ha, depending upon the scope of production to be undertaken. While private land ownership is a more-complicated issue, current land tenure legislation and practice provide for the long-term land use, either within the context of village land, unclassified general land or urban areas, as agreements to use land for extended periods of time can be obtained and certified at village and/or government levels, as is the case for other farming or commercial activities.

While some land classifications will hinder the establishment of game farms (national parks, etc), in reality, such zoning will probably not have an impact upon the establishment of game farms, which due to their nature will generally need to be close to the markets and/or the international airports (in the case of exports) located in high population centres.

For game farming in Tanzania, the issue of land tenure is not a critical one, although simplifying and speeding up procedures would certainly help to promote new initiatives.

2.6 Options For Game Farming In Tanzania

2.6.1 Models of Interest for Tanzania

The 3 game farming models already described in section 2.1.1 (subsistence, conservation and commercial game farms) could be of interest in Tanzania, but the conservation game farm will probably not be evoked for some time in the near future due to the other conservation options available. As well, conservation of rare or endangered species could be promoted by encouraging reputable game farms to breed up such animals, allowing them to regularly export a percentage in order to pay for the cost, accompanied by releases into the wild at selected sites under a well-researched and monitored program. Thus the 2 models of immediate interest are the family-run subsistence game farm and the commercial game farm, for which interesting species are described below:

2.6.2 Wildlife Species of Interest for Game Farming in Tanzania

Species for Which Technology and Conditions are Favourable

Bearing in mind that game farmers must be able to compete favourably with suppliers of wild-caught specimens, the species to be farmed must have some kind of sufficiently-concentrated value, such as a higher market demand than hunters can satisfy, or demand for a better quality

31

than can be provided by hunters having no access to refrigeration or to bulk transport, or to factors such as imposed by their rarity on the market relative to other species due to low natural populations or to the difficulties and/or cost of collecting them in the wild. A high value/low volume ratio is required to keep the costs of transport affordable, including the final volume of packaging/transport crates. Currently, this would indicate the following species and probable target markets, which ought to viable in Tanzania under the current socio-economic conditions of most urban and semi-urban environments:

List 1: Species indicated for meat/skin production

Giant African Snail (Achatina sp.; Archachatina sp.); meat for hotels/urban restaurants and export

African Button Quail (Corturnix corturnix); for hotels and restaurants

Helmeted Guinea Fowl (Numida meleagris); for hotels and restaurants

Giant Gambian Rat (Cricetomys gambianus): 2kg; for rural markets and urban bars (smoked)

Grass-cutter (Thrynomys swinderianus): 4.5 kg at 1.5 years; for urban restaurants and hotels

Nile Crocodile (Crocodilius niloticus); skins for export; meat for hotels/restaurants

Ostrich (Struthio camelus); skins for export; meat for hotels/restaurants/butcher shops

List 2: Species indicated for live sales (export)

all CITES species allowed by Tanzanian law, including ornamental toads, frogs, chameleons, turtles and tortoises, snakes including the Royal Python (Python regius)

other species having a marketable value yet to be identified

Market studies will be necessary to further complete this list.

The first five species on List 1 can be farmed with a minimum of investment and are of high interest for the small urban farmer or those of outlying suburbs. All of the species of this first list can and should be farm-bred as soon adult captive breeders are established from the wild-caught specimens (or, preferably, purchased from other farms).

32

However, seeing the current degree of domesticity reached in farmed grass-cutters in West African (20-25’th generation bred in captivity with selection for calmness, growth weight, etc) and the very high mortality of wild-caught grass-cutters during the first stages of the domestication process, it would be advisable for would-be grass-cutter farmers in Tanzania to purchase their start-up stock in Benin and have them air freighted to Tanzania; preferably after a week-long course on their farm at the Beninois/GTZ grass-cutter farming centre. Of course, such imports must be subject to the appropriate veterinary control. Such an operation might need the help of donor agencies, to cover the initiation costs of several pilot farmers to help establish demonstration farms.

Additional species of potential interest

Market studies will be needed to further identify species of potential interest, especially as regards the export of live animals. However, some species of potential interest for local live sales and/or meat markets, but which need to be verified, as they are probably not currently viable due to actual socio-economic conditions or to the presently unorganised and undeveloped state of markets, are:

List 3: Potential species for meat production and/or live sales

Crested Porcupine (Hystrix cristata); meat for urban restaurants/hotels, speciality butcher shops (reproduction is relatively slow; viability depends upon the price that can be obtained for meat and local costs of diet, which can be too costly to be viable)

Francolin species (not much research/trials known, but francolin are raised in Europe)

Grimm’s duiker (Sylvicapra grimmia); viability hampered by small size and slow reproduction; depends on the market for live sales as ornamental pets; and/or on high prices of meat at hotels and restaurants

Other duiker species (Cephalophus sp.); live sales as ornamental pets

Warthog (biological/economical feasibility and technology still being tested)

Red-river hog (biological/economical feasibility and technology still being tested)

Trials are underway on Grimm’s duiker at the Chipangali Duiker Research and Breeding Centre in Zimbabwe (and elsewhere), the warthog is currently being tested for game farming at the AWHDA farm at Wédbila in Burkina Faso and the red-river hog is currently undergoing domestication trials at Libreville, Gabon, at the Veterinaire Sans Frontieres farm.

33

Specific Areas or Zones to be Targeted for Game Farming in Tanzania

Spontaneous site selection

The ecological, commercial and logistical exigencies of game farming will dictate where game farms will flourish. However, as far as identifying specific zones for particular species or forms of game farming, this can best be done by the farmers themselves, according to the complex set of information, conditions and personal goals known best by each actor. Automatically, game farming will tend to occur in and around urban areas wherever viable markets are found.

However, the WD may wish to promote game farming in certain areas as part of a broader conservation strategy, such as zones surrounding conservation areas where game farming can provide an alternative to poaching. Disease control issues might be involved so collaboration with the Livestock Division (Ministry of Agriculture) will be important.

Official designation of areas for the promotion of game farming

The types of areas or specific zones to be targeted for game farming will be easier to identify than to legislate, as, while the successful functioning of a game farm depends upon factors found (and/or eventually modified) at those sites, one of the predominant factors is the motivation and passion of the farmer for the animals or the occupation. This cannot be legislated as an administrative exercise. The government must take care in general, and the WD in particular, to not overly frustrate would be game farmers by imposing unduly complicated or crippling procedures and paperwork, if game farming is to be promoted as an industry in Tanzania.

Thus if the WD wishes to promote game farming in certain areas as part of the national conservation strategy, it should incite the activity through the provision of pertinent information or special advantages, and facilitate the procedures for establishment and functioning of new initiatives in those areas. Strategic targeting of specific areas or zones can best be done in the form of incentives, to encourage farmers to establish operations at those sites. This can be done as land or tax concessions, by lifting restrictions on capture or by providing livestock in those localities, etc, accompanied by the diffusion of information especially to interest groups, such as game farming associations. In some cases away from population centres, the government may need to assure that transportation to markets is provided, before villager-level initiatives will be forthcoming.

2.6.3 Development Of Game Farming In Tanzania

Many influences will bear upon the development of game farming as an activity that will promote sustainable conservation, which means the wholesome socio-economic enhancement of Tanzanian people. The rapidity with which it will develop is also dependant upon several factors. The major influences and corresponding interventions are summarised below:

34

National and Sectoral Policies and Legislation

National policies and legislation will obviously permit or not the development of game farming as an activity that generates revenue for Tanzanians. This is within the power of the Tanzanian people and her government to make the strategic decision (which has already more or less been done). Once made, common-sense policies need to be established to help stimulate initiatives by interested competent individuals (this has also more or less been accomplished, even if some refinements are probably necessary).

Some elements need to be introduced to the current legislation (see Chapter 4). Provisional essential standards for game farm husbandry and a code of conduct need to be set and then periodically revised with the actors as the industry develops.

Wildlife Division

The WD will have a strong influence upon the development of game farming and the speed with which people assume the opportunities that the industry offers. This will be especially evident in the ways that the WD promotes and controls the activity. Rather than take a passive role and attempt to simply vet, licence, police and monitor private initiatives, the WD could take a more-active role by also promoting the industry as a participative form of conservation that places wildlife in the centre of human activity. This is in the best interests of the WD, as increasing the value and expanding the economic basis for conservation in Tanzania will increase the role and activity of the Ministry; so taking an active role in propagating game farming is entirely defendable from a Ministerial perspective. This does not mean that the WD should financially subsidise the development of game farms, but that it works towards promoting and channelling potential private investment potentials towards sustainable game farming as a catalyst for greater public support of workable conservation in Tanzania.

This can be as simple as defusing information and encouraging the development of a game farmers association. It could also mean reinforcing the capacities and means of the game farming/ranching desk officer of the Wildlife Utilisation Section to deliberately seek NGO and donor assistance that can help with the appropriate training of individuals who have shown some initiative and develop a few demonstration projects. As experience in Benin, Gabon and elsewhere shows, this more-active approach would provide the right environment needed to accelerate farmer initiatives and wholesome development of the industry.

Markets and Marketing Actors

Due to the preponderant role of markets and marketing agents in developing outlets that will render game farming feasible, potential commercial actors should be included in the discussion and action relative to development of the activity. Some potential key players should be identified and invited to participate with the goal of forming human or commercial focal points

35

from which the marketing of products will expand. This would include a few representatives of each type of actor; including market women who sell smoked meat or manage sidewalk kiosks (low-end products), meat wholesalers, village and urban butchers, restaurant and hotel managers.

2.7 Monitoring And Law Enforcement Of Game Farming

2.7.1 Conditions to be Met Prior to the Establishment of Game Farms

Clearly the development of game farming needs to be monitored and supervised, with adequate provision to reassure the government that such control is feasible, and to assure the wholesome development of the industry. This implies registration of the game farms and production plans, monitoring the respect of those plans when issuing annual commercial licences and being able to track the movement of animals and products whenever necessary. Submission for registration of a game farm should be accompanied by a dossier giving sufficient details to assess the capability of the applicant and the viability of the proposed operation.

While the species and intended uses must comply with national and international legislation, the dossier components should not be assessed in an overly critical manner by the WD, but more as preparatory steps that demonstrate the capability of the prospective game farmer and his understanding of the factors, dynamics and issues involved, and that assist the prospective farmer to adequately prepare the enterprise.

2.7.2 Control of Human and Animal Movements on or About the Game Farm

As for all other productions systems that tend to concentrate commodities, increase the value of those commodities and generate cash, game farmers will need to monitor and manage the movements of people about the domain. This will probably be done by erecting and maintaining fences, walls, etc, and by hiring staff to assist in this task.

The movements of animals on or about the farm must be limited according to the type of species and farming involved; most certainly by walled or fenced cages, pens, enclosures, paddocks, etc. This will be dictated by the biological nature of the species and the technical nature of the operation involved.

2.7.3 Systems for Monitoring and Law Enforcement of Game Farming

Systems for monitoring and law enforcement need to be as simple as possible in order to not unduly increase the conservation cost to the State. Annual reports from the game farmers at the time of license renewal, adequate mechanisms for the registration and monitoring of producers (self-imposed conditions and guidelines expressed in farm management plans) and marketing agents, documentation issued when products are sold, appropriate penalties for non-respect of

36

regulations, self-policing by the industry, as well as spot checks by conservation officers will help to ensure the minimum required.

2.8 Approach To Setting Guidelines And Regulatory Mechanisms

2.8.1 Establishment of Basic Principles and Essential Standards

Much of the impetus for establishing game farms will come from the community and private sector, once they learn of the opportunities available. However, the WD can stimulate and facilitate this by creating the right institutional and legal framework, and by orienting policies and practice to encourage such initiatives. A minimum of top-down involvement or restriction will help to avoid what is so often perceived by would-be investors as unilateral administrative heavy-handedness that deflects potential actors off into other sectors. Capture, husbandry, sales and transportation of live wild animals and products are intrinsic components of daily game farming, so rigid and restrictive controls might have a significant negative impact upon game farming operations. Therefore, in collaboration with game farmers, regulatory control should establish basic principles and in detail be limited to only the most essential elements, preventative measures and monitoring.

2.8.2 Participatory Policing Within the Industry

The game farmer who does not use appropriate methods, diets, or holding structures of minimum standard for the species involved, will obviously not be reproducing, rearing or selling many animals; nor will he be making any benefit! So it is in the farmer’s best interest to acquire the knowledge and practice good husbandry if he is to protect his investment, let alone earn any profit. This, the industry can best promote through a game farmers association once the minimum standards have been set with the WD to assure the conservation of wild stocks, prevent undue mortality and maltreatment of animals in captivity and the wholesome transport, marketing and export of farmed “wild” livestock.

Self-regulation within the industry will help to keep the cost of inspection and monitoring by WD to a minimum. It can do this by passing the responsibility of supervision to the industry (where appropriate) and the cost of ensuring that the right practices are followed on to the user. The establishment of norms for each species and the development of operational and advisory guidelines in co-operation with relevant experts and organisations through collaboration with a game farmers association would help evoke the responsibility of the farmers. The game farmers association should also help establish appropriate codes of conduct to reflect concerns for animal welfare and contribute to the basis of control over all aspects of the industry (capture, transport, keeping, breeding, trade, etc.).

37

However, as the WD will ultimately remain responsible for enforcing codes of conduct that are adopted together with the industry, a representative from the WD game farming/ranching desk should participate in his/her official capacity in the farmers association, even if only as an observer and to facilitate continuous dialogue between the farms and the WD.

Self-regulation and participatory policing does not detract from the WD’s prerogative to seize any illegally captured, transported, kept or traded animal; or to take appropriate action in the event of failure to register, or non respect of basic standards, code of conduct or guideline established with the game farmers association by the pertinent Minister relative to those activities.

2.8.3 Registration and Licensing

In order to foster the wholesome development of the industry, it would be appropriate to ensure that game farmers are suitably-skilled individuals whose registration would be subject to proof that the prospective farmer had an adequate understanding of the activity and whose annual licence renewal would be subject to compliance with established minimal guidelines. This will help to promote a sense of responsibility amongst the farmers and reduce or eliminate ill-prepared or irresponsible actors who would otherwise create unwholesome situations for the new industry.

Three levels of procedure and licensing would be advisable: 1) subsistence and small-scale game farming; 2) conservation farming; and: 3) commercial game farming. These categories represent real differences in scale, basic technical norms, use of resources and potential impact. They should be described separately to simplify and yet adequately address pertinent issues of control and monitoring.

Subsistence game farmers should not be subject to overly complicated supervisory and control procedures. They will be mostly dealing with common species, some of which are considered pests in other circumstances. Delivery of the Game Farm License implies that the farmer is knowledgeable, has training and/or experience, and is equipped to keep, breed, sell and transport the wild species that are the object of his farm management plan (to get started this may have to be interpreted somewhat loosely at the beginning).

2.8.4 Promotion of Game Farming by the WD

It is fairly obvious that, for game farming to develop and contribute in any significant way to wildlife conservation and the betterment of the standard of living in Tanzania (it does have the capacity to do exactly that), a lead agency or agencies will have to take up the challenge of promoting the industry. The Government of Tanzania should seek and retain the support of one or more international agencies that have experience in the areas of subsistence and commercial

38

game farming, to work in conjunction with the WD. If the WD decides to pursue such options, the existing game farming desk within the WD should be reinforced for the purposes of promotion of the industry which has much potential for contributing to the family-level economy, but which, like all new endeavours, needs to be demonstrated before being assumed by the population.

The following recommendations provide a preliminary draft of guidelines to harmonise such an approach and to assure that the industry will be invested by fully prepared actors, ready to assume their responsibilities as well as their privileges. With acquisition of experience within the industry, the procedures for licensing can probably be simplified and/or relaxed. However, the following guidelines are suggested for the initial phase of development:

2.9 Guidelines For Establishing And Managing Game Farming

The following section summarises:

criteria and procedures for the establishment of game farms

establishment of norms for capture of wild stocks, farm husbandry and transport of wild species

monitoring of farm activities

2.9.1 Criteria and Procedures for the Establishment of Game Farms

Registration of game farms

1. A game farmer must be registered with the WD following a written request from the candidate to that effect;

2. The WD will acknowledge the request within 30 days of its reception, with notification of the registration number;

3. The registration number must figure on all documents relative to that farm.

Application for registration

1. Subsistence game farm: The prospective game farmer must initiate a 1-step application:

The application dossier must include the following:

summary description of the game farm site and its ownership;

39

a statement of the farms goals and species to be used;

a description of the cages, pens, or building

indication of the intended market;

a letter of endorsement by the village elder/chief or town mayor.

Requests for registration of a subsistence game farm can be processed via by the District Game Officer.

1. Conservation or commercial game farm: Requests for registration of conservation or commercial game farms must follow a 4-step process:

Step One: Submission of a preliminary Letter of Intent by the applicant, providing a preliminary feasibility summary of no more than 3 pages, citing:

the objectives of their project, species, scale of operations

location and accessibility, size, ownership status

sources for water and nutritional supplies: type and sources

summary of financial expectations; summary annual budget, sales and projected margins (not all items would apply to conservation farms, which would however provide an estimate of annual costs and funding sources)

Step Two: Screening by the WD to determine if an Environment Impact Assessment would be required, if so, the level and subjects to be covered. The dossier would fall into 1 of 4 categories:

full EIA required

summary assessment required

EIA not required

Preliminary feasibility study and/or project rejected

The EIA, if considered necessary, would be conducted, at the applicant’s cost, by a qualified person or agency jointly chosen by WD and the applicant. A copy of the report must be sent to all concerned, including the applicant. If the EIA is favorable, the applicant would be so

40

informed, with attention drawn to any recommendations emitted by the report. The applicant could go to Step Three.

In most cases, EIAs will not be necessary for game farming due to the very limited scope of game farms. But if EIAs are deemed necessary, they will need to focus primarily on the following issues, impacts and risks and the potential solutions or mitigating actions:

impact on the environment, issues related to the effect on wild populations, the nature of vegetation and habitat destroyed to create the site, watershed and wastewater, visitor impact;

ecological and socio-economic significance of displacement of existing activities (wildlife, forestry, fisheries, grazing, agriculture) and impact on those activities found on adjacent land;

short, mid and long-term negative potential economic impacts to the area;

potential release of chemical or pathogenic agents to the surrounding area.

Step Three: Submission of a detailed project proposal dossier must include the following:

Executive Summary (approximately 3 pages)

description of the project objectives,

species to be used, distribution, population status and trends in the wild and any data known on captive experience

husbandry methods and practices to be used

description of the site, maps, accessibility

statement of land ownership and photocopy of lease title or agreement of owner;

plans of the intended farm layout, buildings, cages/pens, transport boxes or crates, etc;

summary descriptions of anticipated procedures, systems, and markets;

provision for sanitation, animal health and veterinary services;

41

a presentation of experience already acquired or of the availability of expertise including veterinary services;

personnel and management structure;

summary of the intended development, production, pricing and marketing plans (business plan);

evaluation of the prospective farm’s viability;

economic impacts: expected revenues to Government, employment and other exchange and benefits for the surrounding community;

systems for monitoring and record keeping;

endorsement from community and district governments.

Step Four: Approval of the Submission by the Wildlife Division

WD will respond to the completed project proposal within 60 days of its reception. During this period, the WD will make an inspection of the site.

if satisfied that all parameters have been reasonably prepared, WD will notify the applicant of its acceptance, and provide a registration number.

Rescinding of registration

The WD can inspect the conservation or commercial game farm site at any time and rescind the authorization if deemed that the farmer has committed a serious offence under the Wildlife Act and the regulations governing conservation or commercial game farming.

Creation of and renewal of the game farmer’s license

1. Pending agreement with the Game Farmers Association otherwise, as to the duration of validity of a license, a game farm license must be renewed annually.

The subsistence game farmer’s license can be delivered by the District Game Officer.

Conservation and commercial game farm licenses must be delivered by the WD.

2. The periodicity of licensing renewal can be periodically reviewed with game farmers associations, and set according to mutual agreement based upon harmonious development and functioning within the sector.

42

2.9.2 Establishment of Norms for Game Farming

2. Provisional norms should be drafted by the WD, with the participation of existing game farmers and collaborating agencies, to serve until such time as the game farmers association(s) counts 20 members covering the subsistence and commercial levels of game farming, unless refinements become obviously necessary before that time.

3. At that point, they should then be reviewed and revised to incorporate the growing experience and variety of game farming activities. Periodic review in conjunction with the game farmers association would be indicated. The time period for any upgrading of facilities that results from modification to codes and regulations will normally be 12 months, unless otherwise specified by the modifications.

4. Existing regulations can form the basis of a first draft, including basic principles enunciated in:

existing legal provisions for wildlife and veterinary norms in Tanzania

CITES Regulations

IATA Regulations

legal provisions and veterinary regulations in importing countries

5. The establishment of norms for game farming, will concern:

the capture of wild stocks;

the farm husbandry of wild species;

the sale of farmed wild species;

the transport of farmed wild species.

2.9.3 Monitoring of the Game Farm, Records and Reports


A register must be kept by the farmer to record purchase and sale of stock.

An annual summary report will be filed by the farmer as to the above records.

43

Conservation and Commercial Game Farms

A register must be kept by the farmer to record births, deaths, purchase and sale of stock.

An annual summary report will be filed by the farmer as to the above records.

2.9.4 Sale of Live Animals and Other Products from a Game Farm

Register of Sales

All products sold at a game farm or taken from the premises for sale elsewhere must be listed in a register of sales maintained at the farm site.

The register of sales must be submitted for inspection at the request of the WD.

Certificate of Origin

A Certificate of Origin that can also serve as a receipt must be delivered by the game farmer for all live animals or animal products leaving his farm, and must:

cite the name, registration number and address of the farm

bear the farmers stamp and signature, and date

clearly identify the species of the animal or product

cite the number of each product sold

accompany the animal or product.

Destination of Products

Meat and other products can only be sold to private individuals for reasonable personal consumption or in unlimited quantities to registered wholesale or retail dealers holding a valid license, including commercial wholesale dealers, retailers, including market vendors, butchers, restaurants and hotels;

Such dealers will list the purchases with Certificate of Origin number, date and volumes in their stock registers.

44

2.9.5 Inspection and Transport of Meat


Meat products from a subsistence game farm are considered in the same way as small farm livestock and as such are exempt of meat inspection, although commercial purchasers may be obliged to have the meat inspected, according to the standards and legislation applicable.

The transport of carcasses and meat products by commercial dealers/vendors must conform to standards and legislation applicable to the transport of commercially transported meat from domestic sources.


Not being a stated goal of conservation farms, there are no provisions for the sale of meat, and thus the sale of meat from a game ranch with a conservation license is forbidden, unless secondary species are also managed at the farm to help support the costs, as expressed in the management plan; in which case, the sale of the specified animals or products would be subject to the same regulations as for a commercial game farm.

Commercial Game Farm

The sale of meat products from a commercial game farm are considered in the same way as commercial farm livestock and must conform to the standards and legislation applicable relative to inspection, such as:

slaughtering in a recognized slaughterhouse (could be established at the game farm),

inspection by a Government meat inspector,

marking of certified carcasses with an official meat stamp.

The transport of carcasses and meat products by commercial dealers/vendors must conform to veterinary standards and legislation applicable to the transport of commercially transported meat from domestic sources.

2.9.6 Release of Animals from Captivity Back into the Wild

No release of animals raised in captivity is allowed without the express written consent of the WD. When authorized, participation of relevant research and animal health institutions to help design the release and/or monitor the course of events should be standard.

45

3. Game Ranching

3.1 Development Of Game Ranching In Southern And East Africa

3.1.1 Past Management of Wildlife

Originally in Africa, wildlife was managed and used under customary or traditional laws and rules. Certain animals such as elephants could only be hunted with the permission of the local tribal chief or king. Others could only be hunted during certain times of the year. Some areas were sacred and were off-limits for hunting. During the colonial period the State took control of wildlife and it was managed by a Government Department in charge of wildlife conservation and management. This meant that people were no longer in charge of their wildlife resource be they commercial farmers or communal landowners. Landowners felt little need to conserve their resources as they received few benefits and had no control over them. In spite of game laws and the policing action of wildlife personnel, the Game Departments could not stem the decline in wildlife numbers, which reached a peak in the fifties and sixties. It also became evident to the wildlife authorities that many Protected Areas were becoming isolated areas surrounded by agricultural activities and that wildlife corridors and migratory routes were being destroyed by haphazard land developments.

3.1.2 Changes in Wildlife Policies and Laws to Accommodate Wildlife Use

The feeling was that dramatic changes had to be made to the Wildlife Policies and Laws in order to reverse the decline in wildlife on land outside the Protected Areas. The way this was done was the granting of user rights or appropriate authority to landowners be they commercial ranchers or local communities on game fenced or unfenced areas. Wildlife use rights were first of all introduced to Namibia in 1967 and then to Zimbabwe in 1975, first of all to commercial ranchers and then some 10 to 25 years later to communal landowners. All in all, the new policies and laws contained the following key elements:

Devolution of User Rights to the Landowner

Benefits from Wildlife Accruing to the Producer

Wildlife Management Options to Include Consumptive and Non Consumptive Use

As a first condition that permitted the involvement of a much greater number of actors, most Southern and East African countries now allow the landowner to manage and use wildlife on his property (be it fenced or unfenced) but with the State retaining ultimate ownership and authority over wildlife. User rights can be limited to certain wildlife options (for example no game cropping in migratory areas) or they can allow the full use of all wildlife options. If a rancher

46

erects a suitable game fence, which hinders any movement of wildlife in or out of the ranch, he receives additional management benefits such as longer hunting seasons and higher off take quotas. However, user rights can be withdrawn by the Director of the Wildlife Department if the game rancher uses wildlife unsustainably or in a fashion, which is incompatible with current wildlife laws. South Africa has gone a stage further in the question of user rights in that the game rancher owns the wildlife on his ranch if he complies with certain game fencing specifications. He can then manage it anyway he wants.

The second condition is that all benefits from wildlife management accrue to the landowner or producer just as it does when he is running a cattle ranch, tree plantation or agricultural farm. The ranch owner is free to set his own trophy fees and daily rates irrespective of current market prices. This is essential as it provides him with the economic incentive to conserve wildlife and manage it sustainably. The advantages to the Wildlife Department is that landowners invest in wildlife and take over responsibility in managing wildlife on their property. Further benefits are an increase of revenue to the Wildlife Department from licensing fees and permits and the Treasury benefits by the additional income from taxes, import duties and levies. A national benefit, which is often overlooked, is the creation of jobs and income and the improvement of livelihoods in rural areas where unemployment is particularly high.

The third condition for the successful development of a game ranching industry is that all wildlife options are available to the ranch owner be it safari hunting, resident hunting, bird shooting, game cropping and game capture (consumptive use) as well as all forms of wildlife tourism (non-consumptive use). In some cases, some wildlife options need to be restricted completely or adjusted in time or space as might be the case of game cropping on unfenced game ranches which are either in migratory areas or in buffer zones and where game cropping might have a negative effect on wildlife behavior and populations.

The role of the Wildlife Department is to provide an enabling environment whereby wildlife utilization and tourism can flourish on private and communal land and to provide specific guidelines and regulations for wildlife management practices, sustainability and to monitor the trade and sale of live animals and wildlife products. Adaptive management has become the key word for many Wildlife Departments, which means that it is flexible enough to accommodate ranches on a case-to-case basis without jeopardizing the main tenants of sustainability and benefit sharing.

These basic conditions provided the right conditions for the dramatic development of game ranches and communal wildlife areas throughout Southern Africa and the establishment of a multi million-dollar wildlife industry based on consumptive and non-consumptive uses.

47

3.2 Ecological And Technical Characteristics Of Game Ranching

Game ranches in Southern and Eastern Africa are usually found in arid and semi-arid areas with an annual rainfall usually between 200-500 mm This means that they are generally found on range lands where livestock keeping is the traditional form of land use and where game ranches have devolved from cattle ranches. They are seldom found in agricultural areas with high rainfall and good soils because of competition for land by farmers and other forms of intensive land-use (horticulture, tree plantations etc.). The size of a game ranch depends on many variables, which might include wildlife laws which prescribe a minimum size or the intrinsic carrying capacity of the land for wildlife. Generally game ranches are large properties in the region of 5,000-10,000 ha with some going up to 50,000 ha. The larger the game ranch, the more options there are for wildlife utilization and tourism as well as the inclusion of big game which is the key to most wildlife enterprises. Most game ranches in Southern Africa originated from cattle ranches and had little to no wildlife but with restocking measures and the gradual building up of populations many ranches now have a great variety of plains game (species like antelope, warthog and zebra) and big game (species like buffalo, rhino and elephant). Since many game ranches rely on safari hunting for their income, restocking concentrated heavily on trophy animals, rare species and big game such as buffalo.

Game ranches in Southern Africa are either fenced or not depending on the laws of the country and on the management objectives of the landowner. In South Africa, the wildlife authorities have laid down fencing requirements dependent on the wildlife species to be contained in the game ranch and on their ability to jump over or get through the fence. Game fences can be up to 2.30 m. high with between 5 and 18 strands of electrified and prehensile wire depending if they are for big game or plains game. The fencing of game ranches is obligatory in South Africa since only then does the State give full ownership of wildlife to the landowner as well as allowing him the full panoply of all wildlife options. In Zimbabwe game fencing is not obligatory but is carried out by the landowner anyway since he will only restock his ranch with valuable species if he can contain it with a game fence. Otherwise animals which have been bought at great expense from outside would be free to wander and leave the ranch for another ranch where they might be shot. In Kenya, where most areas are restocked naturally, unfenced game ranches are preferred (an ordinary cattle fence which does not impede wildlife movements is considered adequate7) as most wildlife is highly mobile and KWS does not want wildlife corridors, buffer zones or areas where there is a regular wildlife migration to be blocked off. In the case of unfenced game ranches, user rights are usually limited to only certain wildlife options and wildlife is managed on an ecosystem basis with quotas set for the entire ecosystem rather than an individual ranch.

Game ranches can be divided into properties which only have wildlife and properties which run wildlife and livestock together. If there are agricultural areas on a game ranch they are usually 7a game ranch with only a cattle fence is an unfenced game ranch; a game-fenced game ranch is a fenced game ranch

48

fenced off to stop wildlife destroying crops. Initially, the opinion was that wildlife and livestock are incompatible because of disease transmission and predation but there are numerous cases of mixed operations which are economically successful and where wildlife is run in conjunction with cattle. The running of livestock and wildlife in one operation has the advantage of spreading one’s risks and is usually opted for by ranchers when starting a wildlife ranch. Once ranchers see an economic return from wildlife, they usually expand this part of the operation and there are now many ranches which rely solely on wildlife for their income. This trend will continue, since many African countries are now reducing the Government subsidies which supported the livestock industry and as a consequence the inputs into keeping livestock healthy and free of diseases has increased over-proportionally to the income derived from beef and mutton. Since wildlife is not so susceptible to disease as livestock, the game rancher saves these veterinary costs. A further advantage of wildlife over livestock is that such wildlife options as safari hunting and wildlife tourism generate a secondary level of production within the service sector, which the cattle industry cannot do; and services are paid for in hard currency. The game rancher is not at the mercy of local markets which are determined by fluctuating exchange and inflation rates.

One of the key elements of recent wildlife policies and updated legislation is that landowners can use all wildlife options to generate income. This includes safari hunting, resident hunting, game capture, game cropping, bird shooting (consumptive uses) as well as tourism based on photographic safaris, horse riding, foot safaris and other non-consumptive uses. It is up to the landowner to decide which wildlife options he will utilize and how he will combine them with other options. Usually this will depend on such factors as the size of the property, the available wildlife species, habitat diversity and the economics of consumptive use versus non-consumptive use. By and large, hunters and non-hunters do not mix and any operation which includes both needs to be strictly segregated in either time or space. When wildlife legislation was updated to accommodate all wildlife options, most ranchers decided to go in for safari hunting as this provided the greatest source of income per animal, and for the ranch as a whole, and as it was relatively easy to start up. Game cropping is usually a side line for most game ranches (except in a few exceptional cases where game meat fetches higher prices than beef and where there is a well developed tourist market) and is done at the end of the hunting season when some wildlife populations need to be cropped (for example some of the prolific plains game species such as impala, wildebeest and hartebeest) for management purposes. The capture and sale of wildlife for restocking purposes or export is usually a one off exercise for most game ranches as it usually includes the more common and prolific species which are not in high demand especially when other game ranches have built up their own stocks of wildlife. The sale of rare species such as sable, roan, nyala as well as big game such as buffalo, elephant and rhino on the other hand is an interesting market which demands a high price and where there is a big market demand.

49

Annual off-take rates vary but they are usually around 10-15 percent depending on the species and the rate of increase. For example an off-take rate of 15 percent can be split up in the following way:

3 percent for Safari Hunting (2 percent for buffalo) which is maximum for trophy hunting if the quality of trophies is to be maintained at the level required to attract better-paying customers;

2 percent for Game Capture, which is probably an annual maximum due to the logistics and markets involved;

10 percent Game Cropping, which makes use of remaining “allowableanimals as required to maintain stable populations, which if not cropped would lead to depression of reproduction or to over-stocking.

Another essential factor in the management of game ranches is that they are managed all the year around as opposed to wildlife concessions and State owned hunting areas and that there is a considerable amount of development as regards ranch infrastructure (buildings, fences, roads, airstrip etc.) as well as tourist accommodation (lodge, hunting camp, camping sites etc.) and wildlife related enterprises (slaughterhouse, capture bomas, holding pens etc.). There is usually some kind of rangeland management in the way of burning regimes, creation of watering points and humid-zone pastures, bush clearing and the rehabilitation of eroded areas in order to diversify habitats and increase carrying capacity. Unfenced game ranches structured along the lines of an ecosystem approach that includes the surrounding communities, would also incorporate coordinated use of certain resources by the communities, such as the collection of wood, medicinal and utility plants, fruit, honey and fishing. Wildlife patrols maintain security and personnel help to survey wildlife populations with the advantage that in time they know the area and its wildlife intimately.

Game ranch owners have usually banded together to form a game ranchers association which represents their interests and which provides them with technical expertise and marketing advice. In most countries, membership is voluntary but some Wildlife Departments are tending to the idea that unless a rancher is a member of an association he will not receive user rights and an off take quota. The perception is that wildlife producers associations should be self-regulatory and that initially any malpractices should be dealt with by the association rather than the Wildlife Department. This can only be done if every wildlife producer is a member of the association. The game ranchers association is in some cases part of the agriculture or livestock association or part of a general wildlife producers association which is an umbrella association bringing together safari operators, game capture operators, game cropping operators and resident hunters.

50

Game ranching has become extraordinarily successful in Southern Africa and there are many examples of game ranches, which have come together to form conservancies. Conservancies consist of two or more game ranches, which are managed according to agreed objectives and management practices. The advantages of conservancies to the landowner is that the area under wildlife is increased substantially to include a greater range of wildlife species and habitats and that even small landowners and communities can participate and benefit. By pooling their resources the conservancy is better patrolled and more efficiently managed. Conservancies include commercial game ranches as well as community owned areas with the game ranches providing the technical expertise as well as the marketing and financial know-how. Conservancies usually are legally constituted and have clearly defined boundaries. There is a managing committee which is responsible for general policy decisions and a wildlife manager who is responsible for the everyday management of the conservancy together with his wildlife staff. The establishment of conservancies is particularly appropriate in game corridors or buffer zones which require an ecosystem approach to management in order to keep the areas open and where different forms of land ownership are involved. In Namibia there are at the moment, 9 communal conservancies (with 2,200,000 ha) and 13 commercial conservancies (with 2,100,000 ha) which in total is more than one third the size of the area under National Parks (11,200,000 ha).

3.3 Game Ranching Development’s Contribution To The Economy

The positive socio-economic impacts at various levels of successful game ranching enterprises have fuelled expansion of the activity .

3.3.1 Vested Interests of the Local Community

Optimisation of Benefits

It is logical that the interests of the local communities are best served when the most activities possible that can be carried out in a harmonious way are engaged in their area. This gives them the best chances for training and employment, markets for their produce, contacts with the outside world, etc. Whether on adjacent private, village or general land, or in a WMA, the same principle applies, in that, compared to running just one wildlife activity such as a game viewing tourism, or safari hunting or cropping, the integration of all three activities under the appropriately-experienced management provides the most opportunity for benefit for the community. Professional management is required however to integrate these activities in a given area as they are basically antagonistic. Also, catering to international clients (which is desirable as it vastly increases the income), especially safari clients, requires particular skills; as the manager must not just manage an activity and coordinate potentially conflicting activities, but also manage the cherished dreams and the (often unrealistic) aspirations of clients.

51

Then, just as different seasons are more appropriate for certain activities of wildlife production, some activities are more-lucrative than others (but more-limited in scope), and some activities reduce the potential for others; so an adjustment can be made as to the relative importance and schedule of each activity within the overall goals and context. As some combinations benefit the State more than the local community or the investor, the mix of activities and schedules can be designed to generate the most benefit for the managers or the investors, or the community, or the State. The design can also be aimed at generating the most overall benefit for all sectors. This is what is meant by the optimisation of benefits.

Optimising Benefits for the Community

Professionally-managed game ranching that integrates game viewing tourism, sport hunting, cropping and the capture and sale of animals, optimises benefits from wildlife. The possibilities for optimising benefits for the community can be assessed by evaluating the numbers of days of employment created under different activities or management scenarios. An example of the differing results obtainable under different scenarios is given in Table 2 (from Lungren 1997).

In Burkina Faso, most big-game hunting concessions are only managed during the 4 months of hunting season and are more or less left to the tender mercy of poachers during the 8-month closed season, even though the Game Department and the concessionaires are theoretically maintaining the sites. The average size of big-game hunting concessions in the wildlife area of east of the country was about 550 km2 at the time of a study in 1997. At those sites, animal stocks are between 20-50 percent of the ecological carrying capacity, so annual quotas are low, with the quota for buffalo fixed at 3-5 animals/year/site, at the rate of 2 percent of the population per year in order to maintain the trophy quality at the level required to attract better-paying clients. Due to the economics of such poorly managed sites, it is difficult to finance protection during the last 8 months of the year and still be able to show some profit, and virtually no investment is made to open the type of year-round access roads that 12-month protection would require. The impact of this situation upon benefits for the local community is easy to understand: theoretically, their job opportunities are very slim with about 1,539 days of work available for them per year. However, due to the shortness of the operating period, most operators bring in their staff from the city, rather that train new local staff each year; so in reality, most hunting concessions do not even provide the employment that theoretically should be reserved for the local community.

In the case of better-managed big-game hunting concessions, with local trackers working year-round to protect the site, the number of days of work theoretically that can come to the local people rises to about 2,232 man-days per year; and more of the potential jobs are held by the local staff, as the operation is permanent and trains and retains staff. However, for the first 3-5 years the hunting concession is run at a deficit as, at the beginning, the buffalo quota is 50 percent of the minimum required to financially justify running the concession. But, the animal

52

stocks are better protected and increase to approach carrying capacity, with yearly buffalo quotas rising to 10 buffalo/year.

The concessionaires are being encouraged to increase the activities managed at their sites, which can be done by opening a second camp on the periphery of their concessions and running 6-day bird hunts in the surrounding village hunting zones (VHZ) during the 12 weeks of cool dry season, and then game-viewing tourism during the rest of the dry season (16 weeks). These additional activities would increase the local employment to about 2,979 man-days under the poor management scenario (4-month operation) or to 3,672 man-days under year-round management. Local salaries, however, would improve in a greater way, due to the increase in higher-paying jobs and resultant increase in overall salaries (see Table 2).

Then, the area that is converted from a hunting concession to a functional game ranch, including a cropping operation to make use of the additional annual production resulting from better management, would see its activities increase considerably from year-round work occasioned by nearly year-round production. Thus, extending the production period to year-round create the income to finance year-round employment and serves the interests of the local people (not to mention the manager, investor, and the State). At the average site of 550 km2, this would represent about 13,809 man-days of work/year instead of 1,539 man-days as for the poorly managed 4-month big-game hunting concession, based on experience to date.

A larger site such as the Singou Game Ranch of 1950 km2 (last column, Table 2) would produce even greater benefits due to the increased production scale, which generates greater profit margins (fixed costs do not increase with increased volume of product), thus greatly increasing payments that can come to the community. Of course, other production options such as the capture and sale of live animals would again increase local employment.

It is evident that increasing the activities at a wildlife site, whether on private land, public land or community land, and maintaining at least one form of production at any one time in order to manage the site year-round is in the best interests of the community. Happily, this also happens to be in the best interests of everybody else, including the managers, investors, landowners and the State. As well, it serves sustainable conservation and durable socio-economic development.

53

Table 2. Comparison of Job Opportunities Created for the Local Community*

Production Activity

Big-Game Hunting Concession

with 1 safari hunting camp550 km2

Big-Game Hunting Concession

plus a second camp for tourism and bird hunting in village hunting zones (VHZ)

550 km2

Game Ranchfishing, game-viewing

tourism, big-game hunting, cropping, with an out camp for big-game safari hunting6-day bird hunting safaris in

VHZ

Poor Management

Good Management

Poor Management

Good Management

Good Management

550 km2

Good Management

1950 km2

4-month season

and protectionbuffalo density

at 0.5/km2buffalo quota =

5/year

4-month season and 12-

month protection

buffalo density at 1/km2

buffalo quota = 10/year

4-month season

and protectionbuffalo density

at 0.5/km2buffalo quota =

5/year

4-month season and 12-

month protection



12-month season and protection



12-month season and protection



Maintenance, PR and Protection 867 1560 867 1560 6924 12424

Fishing 0 0 0 0 150 300

Game Viewing Tourism 0 0 864 864 1992 2784

Bird Hunting in VHZ 0 0 576 576 576 576

Big-Game Hunting Safaris 672 672 672 672 2847 4905

Cropping 0 0 0 0 1320 5843

Total 1539 2232 2979 3672 13809 26832

Net Salaries (-deductions) US $4,373 US $6,506 US $13,120 US $19,520 US $36,600 US $65,936

* Not including specialized labor, drivers, medical assistants, guides, managers, etc.

3.3.2 Scale of Economic Benefits from Game Ranching for Different Sectors

While the economics of game ranching will vary from region to region, and in fact, from site to site, the scale of economic impact can be demonstrated from studies in Burkina Faso. Based on

54

data from 20 years at the Pilot Nazinga Game Ranch summarized (Lungren 1999) for an average site of 1000 km2of appropriately configured land8:

Annual Benefits For The Local CommunityJobs created (man-days) US$

general functioning/maintenance 6,990 man-days 18,370fishing at ranch impoundments 300 man-days 880tourism 2,370 man-days 6,970sport hunting 3,220 man-days 12,190cropping 4,440 man-days 9,200capture - -Sub-total 17,320 man-days 47,610Receipts From Sport HuntingVillage Hunting Zone (VHZ) daily fees x 242 days 4,030trophy fees (25 animals shot in VHZ) 5,000community dues/lease (= to 50 percent profit margin on hunting) 98,220

Sub-total 107,250Sale of Local Produce to the Ranch and ClientsHandcrafts (3575 clients/visitors x $5) 17,870collection/preparation local building materials 730sale local products for tourist and safari restaurants 6,600sale local food products to ranch staff and clients 700

Sub-total 25,900Goods and Servicesmedical assistance and ambulance service 1,890value of fish caught at ranch water points ($0,83/kg) 4,570value of meat from safari hunting on ranch (front quarters) 6,360value of meat from VHZ (90 percent of hunted carcases) 3,700

Sub-total 16,520Total calculated economic benefits for the local community 197,280Annual Sales For Urban Businesses US$Annual sales of wholesalerssales of meat products from game ranch 312,420sales of fish from game ranch water impoundments 20,840

8round, oval or somewhat squared form with no enclaves, traversed by a river and tributaries situated at least 4 km inside the boundary, with about 1000 mm rain/year and an ecological carrying capacity for about 1 buffalo/km2; at the full production phase when ungulates (9 antelope species, plus warthog and buffalo) are maintained at 70 percent of carrying capacity (Optimum Sustained Yield) under experienced management, with 12 clients buffalo safaris of 12 days, 62 clients antelope safaris of 6 days, 32 clients bird hunts of 6 days in surrounding village hunting zones, and 3500 game viewing visitors/year of which 10 percent come directly due to the ranch enterprise; trophy fees at ranch set and kept by the ranch, trophy fees in VHZ double the national fee, with 50 percent retained by the village–50 percent paid to the State; community lease or dues valued at 50 percent of the profit/loss margin on the safari hunting component. Higher buffalo densities would increase all flow figures.

55

tannery sales of hides/skins 5,570Sub-total (of which a profit margin of 15 percent = $50,825) 338,830Suppliers of Goods and Services to the Game Ranchbanks: 1 percent on exchange, 10 percent tourists + safari clients 5,410hotels: 10 percent of tourists and 1/2 nights safari clients 53,440car rental agencies + salaries drivers: 40 percent of tourists 6,580gas stations: ranch supplies plus tourist vehicles 103,680car maintenance garages: ranch + tourist mileage 138,860grocery stores: ranch staff and restaurants/bar 35,950office supplies: materials, photocopying 1,830hardware stores 1,650ammunition 7,200tailors (uniforms, restaurant/hut accoutrements) 560vehicle and equipment dealers 29,170Sub-total (of which a profit margin of 15 percent = 50,080 ) 384,330Total Annual Sales for Urban Businesses 723,160Of which a 15 percent profit margin would be about 108,470

Annual Benefits For The Government US$Direct Benefitstaxes on ranch personnel salaries 11,760contributions to unemployment and social security 30,380sale of hunting permits to ranch clients 20,470professional guiding licence 1,460trophy fees (from VHZ; ranch-shot TF remain with ranch) 5,000road taxes 2,430contribution to adjacent NP (=5 percent of community dues) 5,460contribution to local government (= 5 percent community dues) 5,460

Income Tax on tourism receipts (21 percent) 13,100Income Tax on year-end game ranch profits (45 percent) 84,400

Sub-total 181,380Indirect Benefits

taxes on suppliers/ranch product wholesalers (45 percent margin) 48,810Total Calculated Annual Benefits for the Government 230,180

In addition to the above benefits, safari agencies (15 percent on safari package) and tourism agencies (10 percent on tourism packages, of which 10 percent of all game viewing guests at the ranch are deemed to travel expressly because of the ranch) and international airlines, stand to make some US $ 331,000 each year in gross sales from ranch-generated clients.

56

Of course, some time would be required to bring such a game ranch up to full operation of the level described above. In fact, from experience elsewhere, four phases would be involved, requiring considerable commitment on behalf of the promoters:

Phase 1: Organization: agreements, planning, obtaining land and funding: 1-3 years, possibly 5;

Phase 2: Investment/Restoration: construction, stocking, building up herds; subsidized operation; game viewing tourism could begin to prosper once visitors see animals at least every 5 minutes of circuit; safari hunting could start as early as when stocks reach 30 percent of carrying capacity; cropping should wait until 50 percent of carrying capacity and minimum volumes obtained to be financially viable; 3-8 years required to reach the break-even point, depending on site and stocks available at start-up;

Phase 3: Development of Production: ranch financed from its sales, but peak production not yet attained; this phase could take anywhere from 5 to 15 years, depending upon the stocks available at start-up and the level of off-take.

Phase 4: Full Production: full capacities of the site more or less attained 15 to 20 years after start-up, although some slight increase of some slower-breeding species such as buffalo will be possible for several years, and some increase might still be possible by increasing the natural carrying capacity of the site by further developing humid pasture areas, etc; level of production for which the above economic benefits are described.

In the above case at a degraded site, which would start with ungulate populations at only about 20 percent of the carrying capacity and require some 5 years of restoration before much production could start (some tourism and safari hunting started before Year 5), the break-even point would be reached somewhere in the seventh to eighth year. The full-production phase would be attained somewhere about the 15th year, at which point the investors stand to make, after taxes, about US $ 221,000 each year. For this case, the financial rate of return over 20 years would be about 10 percent. If at least 40 percent of the potential stocks of wild ungulates were still in place at start-up, the subsidy period would be shortened, as the break-even point could be reached by the third to fourth year. This would enhance the rate of return on the venture and accelerate the point at which the community begins to experience the full advantage of the game ranching operation.

While not extravagant, the rate of return represents enough benefit to interest the investor motivated by passion for wildlife management, and the local economic impacts are significant enough to encourage real engagement by rural communities.

57

It must be underlined that the above information applies to a given context and that a detailed analysis would be required to more-specifically establish the economic impacts that would be forthcoming at sites in Tanzania, but the above case gives an idea of the type and order of benefits that could be expected.

Of course, these lists do not calculate the inestimable value of the contribution to local social development, economic diversification, foreign income flows, biodiversity conservation, habitat and watershed management, soil conservation, etc.

3.3.3 Increasing Importance of Game Ranching for National Economies

The development and expansion of the game ranching sector can be gauged by the increase in properties utilizing wildlife in South Africa. In 1985 there were some 6,000 properties using wildlife in one form or another whereas in 1999, the figure had risen to 9,000. This represents an increase of 50 percent within 15 years. The present amount of land under wildlife is approximately 17 mil. ha which is nearly 2.5 times the size of South Africa’s Protected Areas. The same trend applies to Namibia, Zimbabwe and to a lesser extent Botswana and Zambia which have a different land ownership system which favors communal land ownership rather than privately owned land. In spite of that there are 17 registered game ranches in Botswana and some 40 game ranches in Zambia. In Kenya, which only allows game cropping, the number of ranches utilizing wildlife has increased from 2 in 1990 to over 50 in 1999.

According to the South African Game Organization, in South Africa, game ranches provide approximately 63,000 jobs, which is 7 jobs per game ranch or one job per 270 ha. of game ranch. The total income from the sale of hunting days, taxidermy services, live animals, venison and biltong is US $140,062,252, which can be split up in the following way (Anon. 2000):

Safari Hunting US $38,395,585 (27 percent of the total)

Resident Hunting US $75,000,000 (53 percent of the total)

Game Capture US $25,000,000 (18 percent of the total)

Game Cropping US $1,666,667 (2 percent of the total)

The development of tourism on game ranches has been applauded by the South African Parks authorities and the tourism industry as a whole because it creates additional tourist products and venues which help to attract more tourists to the country and which encourages them to stay longer. A game ranch provides other amenities to those of National Park (N.P.) which are complementary to and do not detract from the attractions of a N.P. (a N.P. for example provides a wilderness experience with high concentrations of wildlife whereas a game ranch allows the

58

visitor to appreciate a more managed environment with a home setting and a wider range of activities).

3.4 Local Communities Involvement And Benefit Sharing

The legal framework for community involvement was only created 10 or 25 years after the creation of game ranches when in 1982 Zimbabwe devolved user rights to local communities on the District level and in 1995 Namibia approved the establishment of communal area conservancies with rights to use and benefit from wildlife. Local communities have therefore benefited from the pioneering work which game ranchers have done as well as the experience gained by the Wildlife Department in monitoring and developing a game ranching/wildlife industry. Regulations have been established on the operation of safari hunters, game croppers and game captures which are also applicable to communal areas. The set up period for community wildlife areas was much more complicated because of land tenure systems and often required the input of NGOs, Aid Agencies, Wildlife Department and numerous other Government Departments.

Communal wildlife areas are usually situated next to Protected Areas such as the Luangwa N.P. in Zambia or along the borders of Hwange N.P. in Zimbabwe. They are often reliant for their wildlife from these Protected Areas and the Parks authority works closely with them to manage the wildlife populations in such a way that it is not detrimental to the N.P. Communal wildlife areas are not considered inimical to the conservation of Protected Areas, rather they absorb excess wildlife and provide the community with a living. The spin off for the Parks are that poaching is reduced and less has to be spent on anti-poaching measures and operations. In Zimbabwe of the 30 or so communal areas with user rights, 90 percent rely on safari hunting for their source of income. In other countries such as Malawi where wildlife is scarce in the communal areas and where there is no big game hunting, resource use is much more varied and includes such things as bee keeping, grass cutting, timber extraction and fish farming. The trend, however is to incorporate as many sources of income as possible with the participation of all members of the community and not to rely on any one option.

The management of a communal wildlife area is often in the hands of a village wildlife committee and some of these committees have even employed a wildlife manager who is in charge of the day to day running of the village Wildlife Management Area. These positions are usually filled by a member of the community who has gone to a wildlife-training institute or who has been trained on site by an NGO or Aid Agency. The management options in a communal wildlife area are not restricted to any one option, with economics usually determining the choice. Usually safari hunting is the first choice but there are examples of communities opting for game cropping (Nyamiyami, Zimbabwe) and for wildlife tourism (Ilingwesi, Kenya) both of which are highly successful. What has not worked is when communities have decided to run their own

59

safari operations, because they have lacked the marketing expertise and professionalism, which is necessary for this, specialized form of wildlife use.

3.4.1 Revenue Sharing and Benefit Distribution

Historically, worldwide, responsibility for management of the wildlife resource was assumed by the government and taxes for use of the resource were collected to finance that management. However, very few national services by themselves were able to stem the processes of degradation that threaten the resource. With devolution of management in order to include many more private and community actors, the appropriate devolution of revenues must also occur to allow those new participants to obtain the financing commensurate with the task. State revenues must be reduced to the level of services really provided by State agencies, thus releasing the funding required for effective implication of the new actors.

In fact, the sharing of benefits by the community has been something of a problem, because in many countries, such as Zimbabwe and Zambia, the Wildlife Department/National Parks, the District Council and other Government Agencies receive a substantial amount of the income from wildlife generated on communal wildlife areas (in Zambia, the community receives only 45 percent of the income and the remainder is split up between National Parks and the Wildlife Authority helping to manage the village wildlife area). This is considered detrimental to the development of communal wildlife areas since it takes away the economic incentive of the villagers to establish and manage such areas. It is also considered unfair, for if game ranchers can retain all their income why shouldn’t a community do so as well. In the case of Zimbabwe, it is the District Council which signs a contract with the safari or tourism operator if he wishes to lease an area from the community but in Namibia, the operator can negotiate directly with the village community or communal conservation area representatives.

There is a strong case to be made that all revenue from wildlife is channeled directly to the community which provides the area and wildlife rather than an intermediary which siphons of a great deal of money without supplying an appropriate service. Once the community receives the revenue from wildlife, it is up to the community to decide on how to distribute it amongst its members. Usually the money is paid out to each head of household or it is retained for community projects which benefit everyone or if that is not the case a combination of the two. The way the money is used or distributed is usually determined by the total amount available and

60

the number of households in the community (if the total amount is small then it does not make sense to distribute it amongst many households9).

3.4.2 Training and Management

The ultimate aim of community wildlife projects, including potential unfenced game ranching sites in WMAs is that the community takes over the management of the village wildlife area. This requires substantial training and capacity building. The involvement of NGO’s, Aid Agencies and the Wildlife Authorities, as well as the private sector, is required before this happens. For the moment, emphasis is being placed on monitoring wildlife and other resources, establishing quotas and management regimes, and assisting the communities negotiating and drawing up contracts with private operators. An important input has been the training of village game scouts, village wildlife committees and women’s groups in resource planning and management, budget accounting and project development. When the first village wildlife area becomes truly self managing is difficult to say but one is looking at a minimal period of somewhere between 10-20 years depending on management systems opted, outside inputs and initial training levels.

Sub-leasing or contracting professional management of a core commercial game ranching area surrounded by village hunting zones directly managed by the community, all under the auspices of the AA, is a way of acquiring expertise while accelerating development of the WMA and generating benefits of the significant level required to truly gain the support and involvement of the community as a whole.

Since the creation of communal wildlife areas in the eighties and nineties, associations have been formed which represent village communities and conservancies. They are similar to the Wildlife Ranchers Associations, which are found in Kenya, Zimbabwe and Zambia. Their objective is to represent the interest of their members and to provide information to interested parties, including community actors, who have every reason to participate in the wildlife producers associations.

3.5 Contribution Of Game Ranches To Biological Diversity

Many game ranches have been resurrected from over-grazed and degraded cattle ranches and with time, good management and the reintroduction of wildlife, have become again productive 9It is very important that benefit reaches the household level. The community about the (unfenced) Pilot Nazinga Game Ranch in West Africa, made it very clear that the distribution of inexpensive meat or goods in the surrounding villages was pointless (they can now hunt about their fields for the cooking pot; which they couldn’t do before the project). While they feel that every effort should be made to generate funds for village community accounts for management by the duly appointed committees, they specify that the easiest way to guarantee hassle-free benefit to the local community is through the provision of jobs and the development of fishing at ranch impoundments. Thus, housing, roads and dams, are constructed using local materials and hand labour, and the local people are given priority on all employment. This practice generated immediate income from the wildlife resource while helping them to acquire skills and experience. This was definitely a major part of the success seen at that site, whereby the wildlife populations increased by a factor of 20 (less than 1,000 to over 20,000 large ungulates).

61

units with a great variety of wildlife species. There are examples of game ranches such as Solio in Kenya and Iwaba in Zimbabwe, which have become important sanctuaries for such endangered species as white and black rhino. It has been Government policy in many African countries to confide endangered species to game ranches for safekeeping since they are often better protected than in a N.P or G.R. (especially those that are fenced) and the veterinary supervision is better. There are also numerous examples of game ranches or private reserves which have bred rare species such as cheetah which have then been released back into the wilds of a N.P. or G.R. South Africa in particular is indebted to those ranchers who protected the bontebok and the black wildebeest at the turn of the century when all other populations had been eradicated in the wild.

3.5.1 Game Ranches and Environmental Rehabilitation

In order to increase the carrying capacity of the land, game ranchers often undertake expensive rehabilitation projects (Londolozi, South Africa) which includes ameliorating soil erosion areas, creating dams and water reservoirs, planting trees and seeding grasses. They are not only restoring the land to its original capacity and thereby conserving ecological processes but by establishing dams and water reservoirs they are creating new habitats for water birds and waders and, when appropriately designed, increasing the overall carrying capacity for wildlife. Perhaps the greatest benefit to wildlife is that the game rancher as well as the village community is investing in conservation projects whereas before wildlife was seen as a pest which didn’t warrant any type of investment. This has given wildlife a value and therefore, for the first time in history, it has been able to compete with other forms of land-use on purely economic terms; which after all, is the guiding principle of our times. This has meant that wildlife areas in buffer zones, migratory routes and other important areas have been kept open to wildlife instead of being ploughed under and transformed to a land-use system which is inimical to wildlife.

3.5.2 Problems Encountered

There have, however been individual cases where game ranchers have abused their privileges and where the Wildlife Department has had to step in and rescind their license and registration. These cases have involved the unauthorized opening up of game fences to funnel in wildlife from the outside; the keeping of predators in enclosures to be released prior to hunting (canned hunts) and the overstocking of wildlife populations which have subsequently crashed. There are also long term questions to be asked concerning the effects of game-ranched populations on genetic viability and inbreeding. At the moment, the game ranching industry is still young and no negative side effects have been noticed concerning breeding success, mortality and health but a careful check has to be kept by the wildlife manager in order to preempt any signs of deterioration. In spite of these detractions, game ranches have played an important role in the maintenance and enhancement of biodiversity as well as the rehabilitation of degraded rangelands (which, theoretically, are key terms when debating game ranching issues, and which,

62

in practical ways, may yet help to provide financial support for the activity on a large scale, especially in conjunction with the struggle for sustainable economic development).

3.6 Key Issues When Developing A Game Ranching Industry

3.6.1 What Determines Success or Failure?

Many countries have tried to develop a game ranching industry; some countries like Namibia have been successful while others like Kenya have only been partially successful. It is as well to scrutinize the reasons for failure as it is to look at the reasons for success.

Lack of Significant Game Ranching Development in Kenya

In Kenya, the Wildlife Policy of 1990 gave the landowner user rights but limited him to game cropping with no other form of utilization permitted. The most lucrative forms of wildlife use were banned (safari hunting and game capture) even though they would have provided the economic incentive to conserve wildlife. While some game ranches which provided high-priced game meat to restaurants in Nairobi were financially successful, many others were not because they were either too far away from the markets or they did not have the volume to make the operation efficient. One of the anomalies of the Kenyan situation was that while game meat could be sold on the local market, game skins could not and had to be exported raw thus forfeiting the additional value that could have been added.

While the 1990 Kenyan Wildlife Policy said something about game ranching and game cropping, subsequent guidelines were never finalized to regulate the industry and provide some criteria for professional operators, application procedures, game cropping techniques, responsibility of game counts and establishment of off-take quotas. This meant that misunderstandings and conflicts became inevitable because there were no clear guidelines concerning the duties and obligations of either the landowner or the Wildlife Department (for example it was never clearly stated who does the game count and who allocates the quota). The Wildlife Act has not been revised for 20 years and therefore there is no mention as to game ranching, game farming and the involvement of communities in wildlife conservation. It also does not mention the management techniques, which are applicable to such operations (such as shooting at night in a game cropping operations or the keeping and breeding of animals in captivity).

The devolution of user rights to the landowner is a concept which has occurred only recently and therefore there is an urgent need to amend and revise the Kenyan Wildlife Act accordingly. Another problem was that the Wildlife Department did not have the ability to monitor and supervise the game cropping operations. While the ranch owners provided data on wildlife populations, number of animals cropped and game meat production figures, it was never properly analyzed by the Wildlife Department and no checks were made on game meat entering

63

the market. The net result of the various discrepancies involved is that the game ranching industry in Kenya has been left in a quandary, not knowing what to do and unsure of the present legal situation. To their disadvantage, the game ranchers have not formed a national association and so the dialogue between the game ranchers and the Wildlife Authorities has suffered as a result. There is little information about game ranching and no PR work to counter the bad publicity in the press or in conservation circles which game cropping generates. To make matters more difficult, there is a strong anti-utilization lobby in Kenya which seeks to stop any form of consumptive utilization, even at the expense of community wildlife projects.

3.6.2 Wildlife Policy and Laws

In any country wishing to valorize their wildlife resources with the participation of private sector and community actors, clear and unambiguous policies and laws on wildlife utilization need to be enacted which encourage the development of game ranches and community wildlife areas. The overriding principle of any wildlife legislation and policy should be sustainability, which is relevant now as it will be in a 100 years time.

Other important points which need to be included are: that user rights must be given to the landowner so that he can manage his wildlife, that benefits accrue to the producer and that the landowner has open to him all options of consumptive and non-consumptive use. The authority to use wildlife should be devolved to the lowest level possible and benefits should accrue to the producer and landowner (in the case of community run wildlife projects: to the household). Also wildlife acts and wildlife policies have to be revised and amended to bring them up to date with current thinking on all forms of wildlife management and utilization. This is especially important when it comes to modern techniques involved in game capture and game cropping operations which are currently not mentioned or allowed in outdated wildlife legislation (such as night cropping with spotlights or the capture of wildlife with a helicopter). The policies and laws have to be couched in such a way that they are relevant now and for many years to come. Regulations and By-Laws need to be enacted once in a while which relate to specific areas of wildlife management.

3.6.3 Land Ownership and Tenure

Policies and laws dealing with the buying, selling and leasing of land by nationals and foreigners alike need to be clear and unambiguous. Safeguards are essential to prevent the illegal seizure of land, expropriation and wanton destruction of private property. If foreign investors have limitations in buying or leasing land, this must be clearly spelt out.

3.6.4 Investment Incentives and Management Benefits

The establishment of game ranches is an expensive procedure if one takes into account the buying/leasing of land, the erection of a game fence, the restocking of the property with wildlife

64

and the building of ranch infrastructure and the buying of equipment. The further the site is situated from the capitol or regional large city, the more expensive these costs become. Clearly foreign and local investors will only do this if they have some investment incentives such as those provided for other sectors when new industries are being promoted (VAT deferment, reduction or cancellation of import duties, capital allowance reduction and the repatriation of profits, etc). They also require some management benefits from the Wildlife Department (such as the establishment of quotas based on scientific management, affordable buying of game, extension of hunting season from 6 to 12 months), which help to make the return on investment worthwhile. A problem for the foreign and local investor would be to find the capital for starting a game ranch, and the solution to this would be to form a partnership with an investor who has the capital or to be able to access venture capital from such financial institutions as the International Finance Corporation or the German Bank for Development or a local agricultural/cooperative bank where the interest rates are reasonable and the borrowed capital can be repaid over a long period of time. Where wildlife areas managed directly by villagers are concerned, much of the development cost will have to be paid for with grants/loans from Aid Agencies. A further source of soft loans might be the Tanzania Wildlife Protection Fund, which currently finances anti-poaching and law enforcement measures, development projects in Protected Areas, training programs and research activities.

3.6.5 Guidelines for the Establishment and Management of Game Ranches

Guidelines need to be prepared by the Wildlife Division which regulate the establishment of game ranches, in all their forms, and which provide information as to potential game ranching areas. Guidelines require information on game fencing specifications and the management of wildlife and habitats in enclosed ranches as well as the associated regulations on sport hunting, game capture, game cropping and tourism development. In general terms, the roles of the game rancher, the village community and the WD must be clearly defined and spelled out, although latitude must be left to accommodate the specific attributes, conditions and appropriate management options for each site.

3.6.6 Guidelines for Professional Operators in Wildlife Utilization

Game ranching involves a whole array of wildlife options ranging from consumptive use to non-consumptive use. In order to assure wholesome development of the industry, guidelines need to be formulated for companies undertaking safari hunting, game cropping and game capture operations as regards their personnel, equipment, vehicles, facilities and required capital. Professional standards have to be established for professional hunters, game capturers and game croppers to include training and examination requirements.

65

3.6.7 Wildlife Producers Association

In order to develop efficiently, the game ranching industry needs to be represented by a national body which advises the Wildlife Division on current problems and issues and which negotiates with other Government institutions and wildlife and tourism associations matters relevant to the game ranching industry. The game ranchers association needs to be self-regulating and should have the power to discipline its members. It needs to work with the Wildlife Department in setting up guidelines on wildlife management in game ranches as well as having an input about such things as game capture and game cropping which affect a game ranching operation. It would also provide training for its members, collect data relevant to game ranching operations and provide information to its members. It would be financed by membership fees and levies on game ranching products. The game ranchers association would be one of many associations in the wildlife sector (such as the game capture, game croppers and safari hunters associations) all of which could fall under one umbrella (possibly named the “Wildlife Producers Association,” or whatever the actors choose to call it).

3.6.8 Availability of Professional Wildlife Managers and Information on Game Ranching

This is particularly important in the WMA’s where the communities do not have the necessary experience in wildlife management and are developing their wildlife options and management plans. In many cases, NGOs will be providing the training which is necessary to run a WMA. Where game farms are concerned, professional expertise is also lacking and courses and field trips need to be organized for game farmers and information booklets/manuals provided by the WD and Ing’s for game farm managers. The private sector has enough experience in wildlife management and will provide its own managers. There is a substantial amount of information available concerning game ranching which has been collected during the last 25 years in the form of research papers, books and popular articles (see especially: Mentis 1972; Bothma 1996; Zeiger and Cauldwell 1998). The economics of game ranching have been well established, as well as the intensive management of wildlife in game fenced areas. Great strides have been made in the capture and care of wildlife, game census techniques, cropping of wild animals and the assessment of rangeland conditions and pastures (see Young 1973; McKenzie 1989).

3.6.9 Creation of Conservancies and Community–Game Rancher Cooperation

There is a strong feeling throughout Africa that the private game rancher is profiting at the expense of the communal sector and that the benefits of wildlife are not evenly distributed amongst the village community or small-scale farmers. This has come about because of the history of game ranching, as when the private sector was given the first opportunity to venture into game ranching, social inequities were more prevalent and the better-educated, better-financed large scale farmer/ranchers seized the opportunities faster than members of the local

66

communities were able to do. The modern concepts of community-based wildlife management only came about after it began to become apparent that there were strong economic reasons for the communities to become involved and when modern governments began to adopt participative approaches to natural resource management. Also, unless there is an overall concerted plan that integrates areas and systems of different resource management, there is an intrinsic antagonism between the small-scale farmer (who is mainly African) and the large-scale rancher (who, certainly in the past, happened to be mainly of European origin) due to differences in resource utilization strategies. Today, it is therefore essential, and in the interest of the game rancher, to incorporate the village community and small-scale farmer into the scheme of wildlife activities. This can be done, for example, by providing management advice, jobs, training opportunities, directing clients to village-managed zones, providing game meat at reasonable prices (in some cases), provision of drinking water, incorporating coordinated village-managed resource uses on the ranch, etc.

The entry point for the game rancher could be the WMA or communal conservancy which he could manage on behalf of the community or which he could advise as regards wildlife management and tourism matters, as an employee, paid consultant or as a business partner retaining a commission or a portion of the profit. The game rancher could put at the disposal of the community certain facilities which the community could use (for example a slaughterhouse, capture boma, etc.) and also some of the equipment, which is necessary for wildlife operations (such as game capture and game counting equipment).

The essential aspect is that the cooperation agreements are structured so that:

the community may have a say on the choice of partner;

the professional game rancher significantly increases benefits for the community;

the game rancher’s presence is considered an asset by the community.

If successful, this should lead to neighboring villages requesting extension or multiplication of the program so that they also can be included in the profitable activity that game ranching can be if appropriately structured.

3.6.10 Ability of the WD to Monitor and Control Game Ranching Activities

An essential aspect when establishing a new industry such as game ranching is that the WD has sufficient trained personnel, equipment and facilities to collect and store data electronically, analyze and evaluate it, and prepare relevant reports and updates. It needs to monitor population numbers, off-take rates and the trade in wildlife, and help determine research priorities. Sale outlets need to be registered and approved. From time to time game ranches require inspection. If

67

the WD cannot do these things efficiently and on a long-term basis then there is no point in establishing intricate and time-consuming regulations, registrations and licensing systems. The WD therefore has to decide which items are essential to maintaining production sustainability and which are not. The irrelevant ones need to be jettisoned. Furthermore, the WD needs to set priorities and decide what it can do and what it cannot do. What it cannot do should be given to the game ranchers association to do, or to private sector/NGO actors whose competence is recognized by the WD. In the end, the WD needs to weigh up the costs of enforcing regulations, inspections and provision of permits with the benefits involved. In other words, is it worth it or should efforts be placed on other things which are more important and which will provide better cost/benefit ratios.

3.7 Policy Guidelines On Game Ranching In Tanzania

3.7.1 Summary of Guiding Principles

The WD has set as its goal: 1) to maintain biodiversity outside the Protected Areas network, 2) to protect buffer zones for migratory wildlife and 3) to improve the livelihood of people living around the Protected Areas. In order to achieve these goals, the WD wishes to encourage the establishment of fenced and unfenced game ranches in Tanzania. It will therefore provide guidelines as to where these game ranches are to be established, the management of game ranches and the registration and licensing of game ranching activities. The guiding principle of game ranch management is sustainability of utilization and the maintenance of biodiversity and ecological processes. In order to encourage the landowner, including communities, to invest and manage his wildlife sustainably, the WD will delegate wildlife use rights to the landowner, which will allow him to utilize wildlife on his land and also to retain the benefits from such conservation activities. While economic viability of a game ranching enterprise is of the utmost importance it should not compromise sustainability and accepted management procedures. The State will therefore retain the ultimate ownership of wildlife and the Director of Wildlife can if necessary rescind the use of wildlife or limit the wildlife options on a game ranch.

On one hand, the Ministry of the Natural Resources and Tourism does not wish to see essential game corridors, buffer zones or migratory routes jeopardized by game fences or any forms of utilization which might be detrimental to the wildlife moving through such areas. On the other hand, it is determining priority areas for the development of game ranching that would help to complete and promote the overall management of wildlife ecosystems. In collaboration with the Tanzanian Investment Facility, the WD and TANAPA should work together to attract investors to establish game ranching in such locations, providing incentives for priority areas.

The landowner and/or investors are obliged to conform to certain regulations determining the establishment and management of game ranches be they fenced or unfenced. These regulations and guidelines will be clearly spelled out and enforced by the WD. The WD will process the

68

applications in an efficient manner so as to facilitate investments and promote the creation of game ranches in Tanzania. The WD is particularly concerned that village communities benefit from game ranching activities and while this is not legislated by the WD, it can encourage private investors to come up with innovative agreements with the communities concerned (and vise-versa) which will improve the livelihood of the communities and which help them to maximize the returns from wildlife on their land.

The policy on game ranching must be characterized by an adaptive management approach which requires flexibility and the ability to incorporate from time to time new knowledge on wildlife management. This will be used to revise and update existing policies and laws on game ranching and wildlife utilization as it pertains to game ranching. The WD will advise and facilitate the establishment of game ranches and wildlife conservancies by providing information, advice and training in matters related to the establishment and development of such areas. Where applicable, qualified NGO’s and Aid Agencies will be asked to provide support for the above-mentioned activities especially as it relates to the communal sector.

3.7.2 Management of Game-Fenced Ranches

The chief characteristic of a game-fenced ranch is that it has a game fence along its boundary which stops any wildlife movement in or out of the game ranch. The game ranch is owned or leased by a private investor(s) and managed professionally throughout the year. Because of the high capital inputs involved, a game-fenced ranch will probably be the object of foreign rather than local investment. On a game-fenced ranch, wildlife and habitats are intensively managed and all or any number of wildlife options are in use. Since wildlife populations are enclosed by a game fence, management can be more intensive and the game rancher has more scope in manipulating species diversity and population dynamics together with the use of all or any one wildlife option. Where fenced game ranches are adjacent to one another, the WD should encourage the establishment of conservancies, which bring together two or more properties with the same management objectives and activities. It would be expedient for the ranch owner to involve adjacent communities in the management and utilization of the property by providing jobs and the opportunity to use certain resources within the ranch.

Location, Size and Fencing Requirements

Ideally, fenced game ranches should be located in arid to semi-arid regions and in areas where there are tsetse which limit or preclude the successful keeping of domestic livestock. The WD wishes to avoid impeding ecological and community processes in WMAs, such as could be the case under fenced conditions, so intends to develop fenced game ranching operations primarily on General Land and on Village Land. Of particular interest are the State owned ranches which are currently being privatized as well as areas in the south of the country where there is little

69

development and low human population growth and pressures. Ultimately the investor will make the decision where to place his game ranch and he will be influenced by such factors as:

availability of sufficient land

diversity of habitats with a high potential carrying capacity

sufficient rainfall and sources of water

adequate accessibility, communications and acceptable distance to markets

an adequate stock of wildlife numbers and species diversity

security and poaching problems

health requirements

cooperation of local village committees and district councils

There will be no fenced game ranches established in Game Reserves or National Parks, and where there are buffer zones and migratory corridors, the establishment of fenced game ranches will be discouraged if they hinder the free movement of wildlife. Fenced game ranches are also automatically uneconomical in areas with high rainfall and fertile soils because they cannot compete with intensive agriculture or horticulture. On the other hand, established game ranches might require fencing if they are adjacent to agricultural land in order to reduce crop damage and the transmission of disease.

There should be an absolute minimum size to a fenced game ranch in order to assure minimum standards for game ranching. The suggested minimum size is 3,000 ha. and then anything above that area would be at the discretion of the WD. An essential prerequisite for a fenced game ranch is a game-proof fence, which stops any movement of game animals either in or out of the ranch. The specification for a game fence needs to be established (height, materials and posts) and in the case of plains game the height will be determined at which plains game can jump the fence. In Namibia a game fence is usually 2.30 m. high and is determined by the jumping ability of such species as kudu and eland. There should be a minimum for the game fence specifications, which should be set at 1.3 m; with a maximum of 2.3 m depending on the wildlife species enclosed. If the rancher also has big game on his ranch such as elephant, buffalo and rhino then the game fence needs to be electrified or reinforced in such as way as to stop any animals breaking out of the ranch.

70

Before endorsing game ranching proposals, the WD would make a ranch by ranch assessment as to size and game fencing requirements depending on the wildlife species to be stocked (ranches with big game require larger areas), the jumping capacity and size of the wildlife species (minimum height and strength of game fence depending on big game and plains game), the carrying capacity of the area (ranches with a high carrying capacity can be viable on smaller areas) and the wildlife options which the owner wants to include (for example game cropping might require smaller areas than safari hunting). If investors wish to establish game ranches less than 3,000 ha in size (for example safari parks near cities) then guidelines need to be written up specifically for such areas as and when the times come.

Investment Incentives and Management Benefits

Currently, the establishment of a fenced game ranch of 5,000 ha. requires a capital outlay in the region of US $750,000 (including infrastructure, buildings and equipment) of which the game fence would be approximately US $150,000 (or 20 percent). The maintenance of such a fence would be in the region of US $7,500 p.a. (or 5 percent of the costs of erecting the fence). In other words, in light of the fact that the internal rate of return at the type of site that would probably be targeted for fenced game ranching (marginal areas of low rainfall or low wildlife populations) is probably close to the threshold of profitability, it would be much more feasible for the new investor to lease a hunting block at US $7,500 p.a. from the WD than go through the trouble and capital outlay of establishing a fenced game ranch, especially in the case of the investor only beginning to acquire experience in the wildlife sector. There is also considerable competition from other countries such as South Africa where game-fenced ranches with wildlife and infrastructure are being currently sold in the region of US $100/ha. (which is US $500,000 for 5,000 ha).

Therefore if the WD wants to develop fenced game ranching on the whole, and in particular, in marginal areas or in areas where there is little wildlife left, it will have to provide substantial incentives in order to tip the financial balance and attract investors to those areas; bearing in mind that, even with incentives, the economics of fenced game ranching within the context of current markets, socio-economic conditions and investment alternatives may still not favor fenced game ranching in much of Tanzania. If the WD wishes to concentrate the establishment of fenced game ranching in marginal areas or restrict it to those areas, it would be advisable to undertake a detailed economic assessment before attempting to set such a policy.

In any case, since the fenced game ranch is a closed system, the rancher should be able to manage and utilize the wildlife within the ranch in a more intensive way, and in a way which would otherwise not be allowed in an open system. These incentives should include all of the following:

1. Availability of all wildlife production options

71

2. Year round hunting season

3. Setting of quotas by ranch manager

4. Setting of trophy fees and other rates by manager

5. Hunting of specially protected animals carried on the ranch

6. Permission to capture game, if needed, for reintroduction into ranch

7. Species for reintroduction from WD at less-than-commercial prices

An essential prerequisite in establishing a viable population of animals on a game ranch in the shortest possible time is the chance of introducing wildlife from other areas (such as from National Parks and Game Reserves). It should be the policy of the WD to make wildlife available from Protected Areas at reasonable prices and in sufficient numbers and species. The reintroduction of wildlife species should only be allowed if they are indigenous to that area and if the ranch is big enough and has the prerequisite habitats for that species. No species should be introduced which are exotic to Tanzania. If predators and big game are introduced, then the game ranch requires a game fence which can contain such species.

Most wildlife species in East Africa and in Tanzania breed throughout the year and one can see young in any month. An exception are the wildebeest which have a set breeding season and which drop their calves within a short time. The hunting of animals throughout the year is therefore not a problem as long as the quota is sustainable. In other words it does not matter in the least when the animal is hunted as long as the quota is sustainable and has been obtained from acknowledged data.

Application Procedures for the Establishment of Game Ranches

The application procedure is important for the WD to evaluate the technical and financial viability of the proposal but it is also of value to the investor who might realize in the end that his proposal is unrealistic and not financially viable. The application consists of two major items: 1) Pre-feasibility Report and 2) Feasibility Report.

3.7.3 Pre-feasibility Report

The first step for the prospective game rancher is to identify a suitable piece of land and obtain a “Letter of Intent” from the present owner to buy or lease it. In the case of a lease, the investor needs to show that he has a lease agreement with the owner of at least 10 years. The land should have a title deed, be surveyed with established boundary demarcations and a map. In the case of General Land it will be from the Commissioner of Lands and in the case of Village Land it will

72

be from the Village Council/Government. The “Letter of Intent” together with a short pre-feasibility report (to include objectives, location, wildlife and management of the ranch) is presented to the WD who then inspects the land, interviews the appropriate authorities and scrutinizes the agreement with the owner or lessee of the land. The screening of the prefeasibility report should take no longer than a set period of time (ex: 4 weeks) and the decision should fall into any one of the following categories:

1. Full Environmental Impact Assessment required

2. Partial Environmental Impact Assessment required

3. Further information required

4. Project/feasibility study rejected

If the prefeasibility report has been rejected, then the investor should be able to rectify the proposal accordingly and resubmit the proposal. If it is rejected again then the project is closed completely. Once the initial prefeasibility study has been approved, the investor will be asked to submit a detailed project proposal (feasibility report).

3.7.4 Feasibility Report

The feasibility report consists of: a) a legal description of the land b) a map of the area or ranch and c) a management and business plan for the proposed ranch.

A. Legal Description of the Land

Here the landowner needs to give information about the title deed (land registration number), duration of lease, location of the property, owner of the land.

B. Ranch Map

The ranch map should show the boundary of the ranch as well as some of the infrastructure, the major vegetation types, water sources, topography and prominent features.

C. Wildlife Management and Investment/Business Plan

The wildlife management and business plan consists of the following sections:

1. Management Objectives

Clearly states what the ranch owner wants to do and how he will manage the ranch.

73

2. Ecological Description of the Ranch

A brief description of the ranch, its current wildlife population, movements, vegetation types, soils, climate and infrastructure with a special note on any rare species or habitats.

3. Monitoring of Wildlife and Vegetation

Description of the type of wildlife censuses and vegetation survey to be used, establishment of trends, timing, replication and data collected.

4. Wildlife and Habitat Management

Management of wildlife: determination of carrying capacity, stocking rates, population projections and off-take projections, restocking of the ranch, choice of wildlife options (consumptive and non-consumptive), involvement of other operators (for example in safari hunting and game capture).

Habitat management: suggestions for fire and water management, bush clearing, erosion control and planting/re-seeding of trees and grasses.

5. Reintroduction of Wildlife

Where necessary, wildlife needs to be introduced to stock the ranch and the management plan should provide details on species, numbers and sex ratio of reintroduced animals and where they will come from, disease control measures, etc

6. Investment Plan and Anticipated Returns

Type of investment company, shareholders and registration, capital outlay for infrastructure, buildings and equipment, running costs of ranch operations, projected income and internal rate of return, cash flows from consumptive and non consumptive use.

7. Processing and Sale of Wildlife Products

Production projections, type of products, markets for products, processing procedures and sale/export of products.

8. Record Keeping and Reporting

Identification and marking of products, keeping of a register and receipts and reporting annual production figures.

74

9. Management Personnel, Qualifications and Experience

Required management staff, qualifications and experience, numbers, duties of staff and organization.

10. Anti-Poaching Operations and Law Enforcement

Description of anti-poaching patrols, organization and duties, cooperation with WD and training requirements.

11. Cooperation with Adjacent Communities

Activities involving adjacent communities, employment, training, revenue sharing, community

12. Development of Ranch Infrastructure

Design of ranch houses, lodge and other facilities, development of roads, airstrip, viewing hides, dams and reservoirs, fire breaks, game fences etc.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

If it an EIA is deemed necessary, it should be undertaken by a recognized institution or consultant and at the cost of the investor. The reasons for an EIA are that the creation of a game ranch might have a detrimental effect on the following:

1. Environment (wildlife, vegetation, water and soils)

2. Land use (livestock, fisheries, plantations and agriculture)

3. People (livelihood, resource use, traditions and land displacement/ownership)

4. Cross-border issues if the ranch site is near international boundaries

In the case of a fenced game ranch, the landowner has to show that the game fence does not have a major impact on wildlife movement in the area, impinge on rare/endangered species, reduce biodiversity and alter important ecological processes. Where pastoralists are concerned, the EIA will have to show that the intended game ranch does not interfere with the traditional use of the area by pastoralists and their livestock and that they have not been excluded from important parts of their range.

If the EIA highlights some elements of risk and suggests mitigating measures, the project could still go ahead if the recommendations of the EIA are followed and incorporated into the

75

management plan. The WD has to make sure that the recommendations are incorporated into the development of the ranch and then assure that they are implemented.

Approval of Game Ranch Proposal and Registration as a Game Ranch

The Director of Wildlife should decide within a prescribed time (perhaps 8 weeks) if the project proposal is accepted or not. If not then the investor should have a chance to alter the proposal accordingly and build in the suggestions from the WD. Once the project has been approved, the game rancher can go with this approval to the landowner or lessee of land and finalize his agreement. The WD registers the game ranch and the property is given a specific registration number which should appear on all wildlife products which the ranch might produce, trade or sell (the WD should provide tags with registration number and name of ranch).

Game Ranch License

The game rancher will have to pay an annual license fee to the WD. On registering the game ranch, the owner has permission to hunt, capture and crop animals within the ranch and according to the annual quota. He can sell live animals, game meat, skins/hides and any other wildlife products associated with his operations to registered outlets and game dealers.

Rescinding the Game Ranch Status

The WD can at any time inspect the game ranch and conduct a wildlife count and make an assessment of the wildlife populations and rangeland conditions. Particular emphasis should be placed on the regular inspection of the game fence to see that it is properly maintained and that it is not opened to allow animals to either enter or leave the ranch. The Director of Wildlife can rescind the status of the game ranch if the ranch owner has committed a serious offence under the Wildlife Act and the regulations concerning game ranching and the trade in wildlife and wildlife products. Before that happens, the landowner can be asked to act on the recommendations of the Director within a certain period in order to rectify the problem. If he does not do so then the Director can close down the ranch for a certain period of time or indefinitely. If a game ranch is closed down indefinitely then it is up to the owner of the ranch to make sure that the wildlife on the ranch is either transferred to the new owner of the property (and is part of the sales agreement) or that it is released on another suitable property and under the auspices of the WD. Disease control issues and ecological impacts must be evaluated at such times.

Duration of Management Plan

The management plan is valid for a 10 year period and then has to be updated by the landowner and represented to the WD for approval, although, following experience gained and events affecting the functioning of the ranch, it may be updated and represented to the WD before the

76

original expiration date. If the owner or lessee of the ranch changes then the new owner or lessee has to hand in a new management plan, although the status of the game ranch would not be affected and it would maintain its registration number. This enhances the value of the ranch, especially if the ranch has good wildlife populations and has well maintained infrastructure, buildings and facilities.

Membership of the Game Ranchers Association

The membership of the game ranchers association should be left open for the rancher to decide. While the WD cannot force ranchers to become members of an association, it should make it clear that it does favor the establishment of a game ranchers association and that ranchers should become members. The success of a game ranchers association like any other association depends on the ability of the committee and staff to provide a service and an array of benefits which the members appreciate and value, without which the members will not adhere for long. The game ranchers association should establish a code of conduct and make sure that its members adhere to this code of conduct (it would be able to enforce it and take action whenever necessary). It would be responsible for the registration of its members and represent them vis a vis the WD. The WD on the other hand, should give preference to members of the association (for example in game purchases and capture of wildlife for reintroduction purposes) so as to encourage game ranchers to become members of the association.

Creation of Wildlife Conservancies

Due to increased ecological and socio-economic benefits to be gained, whenever two or more game ranches adjoin, the WD should encourage the formation of wildlife conservancies. Conservancies are voluntary organizations and there is no compulsion to enter into a conservancy or become a member. They are legal entities and can be managed as a co-operative company allowing parts of the profits to be paid back to members according to the extent to which they participated in the company’s business. Shareholders are the landowners or game ranchers but some shares can also be sold or given to outside organizations or village communities. Essentially the idea is that each game rancher should cede to the company all his wildlife rights to the company which then manages this asset. At the same time provision is made for private projects (such as the building of a lodge) which the particular game rancher wants to build and control. The company decides on off-take rates, trophy fees and other charges and employs a wildlife manager and staff to manage the combined property. Apart from improving management and optimizing returns from wildlife, one major advantage is that internal game fences can be removed.

77

Rights and Responsibilities of Game Ranchers to Administer/Enforce Wildlife Laws

The landowner must have the authority to stop, search and arrest suspected poachers on his property. This authority needs to be defined and written into the new Wildlife Act and a working relationship has to be established between the landowner, the WD and the police as concerns poaching and the use of ranch personnel in anti-poaching measures. Ranch personnel need to be specifically trained for this purpose (perhaps at WD training institutions) and issued with uniforms and insignia to denote their rank and authority. If and when a poacher is fined for an offence on the property, then the fine should go to the landowner or the WMA concerned. Poaching should be regarded in the same light as cattle rustling with the same fines and sentences.

Regulations Concerning Wildlife Utilization

The regulations concerning the use, registration, marking, transport and sale of wildlife products are complicated and confusing and therefore a step-by-step description of the procedures involved is called for. The following are the main points to be considered:

Monitoring Wildlife Populations and Determining Off-take Quotas

The game count provides the basis for determining quotas for individual species be it for game capture, game cropping or safari/resident hunting. Wildlife populations should be censussed once a year, using the same technique, time of year and as far as possible the same personnel who know the area. The census technique should be discussed with the WD and approved by them but otherwise the census is carried out by the ranch manager and his staff10. Results should provide data on population numbers, age structure and sex ratios which are the basic parameters to determine annual increase and off-take figures. Off-take rates and quotas should be determined by the ranch manager and sent for approval to the WD. Once a quota has been given, then it is up to the ranch manager to decide on how he will use it and in what proportions. The quota can be split up between safari hunting, resident hunting, game capture and game cropping. The quota cannot be transferred from one year to the next

Registration of Off-take

Ranches should keep off-take records according to the various forms of utilization (hunting, capture, cropping) by species, numbers, sex and in the case of cropping by weight. As far as hunting is concerned, measurements of all trophies should be kept according to standard practice. All off-take records need to be registered in a register book kept specifically for this purpose and open for inspection at any time. This also applies to any incoming wildlife or wildlife products 10in the case of unfenced game ranches, the census is carried out by the staff of the WD together with the management of the ranch

78

received by the game ranch from other game ranches and dealers. At the end of the year an annual report by the ranch manager to the WD provides information on ranch management, wildlife numbers, off-take and production. This information is useful to the WD for management purposes but also to know the problems which are affecting game ranchers. It is also helpful to compare data between fenced and unfenced ranches and ranches in different habitats and utilizing different wildlife options.

Marking of Trophies, Skins and Hides from the Ranch

All wildlife products which leave the ranch have to be clearly marked be it trophies, skins/hides, skulls or any other item. Marking devices are either metal or plastic tags bearing the name of the ranch, the registration number and a serial number. If tags are impossible to use, indelible ink should be used to identify the product. The tags are issued by the WD. In the case of live animals, it is best to mark them when they are in the crates or containers prior to being transported on the lorry. If it is impossible to tag them, then the use of a spray gun can be used as an alternative marking method.

Trophy Hunting and Resident Hunting

Safari hunting and resident hunting on a game ranch falls under the Wildlife Act and the ranch manager can decide which type of hunting he wants to choose from. The ranch manager can either conduct the hunting himself if he is a qualified professional hunter or he can engage a registered professional hunter to guide for him. The rancher keeps the daily fees if he is the safari operator or by the safari guide or operator he engages as per arrangements made between them. The ranch manager sets the trophy fees, which are retained by the ranch.

The WD needs to produce a policy on safari hunting and the required professional standards when establishing a safari hunting operation.

Game Cropping and the Inspection and Transport of Game Meat

Game cropping is the organised shooting of animals for the production of game meat (and other by-products) on an extensive basis and involving a variety of wildlife species. It is quite different to game farming which produces game meat on an intensive basis and under farming conditions (breeding, supplementary food, rearing in captivity etc.).

The commercial production of game meat is new to Tanzania and therefore the Wildlife Act has to be enlarged to accommodate game cropping procedures and techniques (such as hunting at night and from a vehicle). Generally the slaughter and inspection of game meat comes under the umbrella of the Veterinary/Health Department and the same rules apply to game animals as they do for range stock and farm animals. Usually, in most countries, the law states that cropped

79

carcasses have to be processed in a recognized slaughterhouse and inspected by a Government meat inspector. When the carcass has been passed fit for human consumption, the meat inspector to mark the carcass uses a roller stamp. In the case of game meat from a game ranch, a roller stamp should be issued by the Health/Veterinary Department that bears the name of the ranch, the registration number and the words “Game Meat.” The carcass can then be transported to an outlet but only in a clearly marked meat container which conforms to the rules and regulations concerning the transportation of livestock carcasses and other domestic meat products. The game rancher can crop his wildlife himself if he has the appropriate permit/license to do so or he can employ a registered professional company to do the cropping for him. Alternatively, the rancher could sell his animals to the cropping company.

The WD needs to formulate a policy on game cropping and the requirements for establishing a professional game cropping operation. Also the WD should provide guidelines on the registration of slaughterhouses, meat inspection and marking of game meat which are in line with current veterinary and health requirements.

Game Capture and Transport of Live Animals

The capture and transport of live animals has been laid down by the Wildlife Act which provides minimum standards for container size and number of animals per container as well as the permissible capturing methods. However, the Act is outdated and should be revised to bring it up to date with current knowledge and techniques (great strides have been made during the last 20 years in the capture and care of wild animals especially in South Africa). The game rancher can capture wildlife and transport it if he has the necessary permit/license to do so or he can engage a registered professional company to do the capturing and transport for him. Or, the rancher could sell his animals to the capture company. It is the responsibility of the game capturer to ensure that when animals are transported they are not subject to injuries, cannot escape and that the animals get sufficient rest during the journey. Permission to transport live animals off the ranch has to be obtained from the WD. The issues of disease and genetic transmission need to be addressed at such times. The WD needs to formulate a policy on game capture and the required professional standards for game capture operations, including the transport and release of wild animals.

Live Animals and Wildlife Products Leaving the Ranch

All products such as live animals, game meat, trophies, skins/hides and any manufactured articles from wildlife should have a “Certificate of Origin” denoting the name of the product, the species, the sex, the quantity and the destination/outlet when leaving the ranch. The Certificate should be signed by the ranch manager together with the date, name, address and official stamp of the ranch. The “Certificate of Origin” should accompany the product.

80

Sale of Wildlife and Wildlife Products

The sale of wildlife and wildlife products should only be to registered dealers and outlets be they wholesalers, retailers or another game ranch, WMA or conservancy. The rancher can establish and register a retail outlet at his ranch for sales to non-dealers for personal consumption. These outlets need to be registered by the WD and all records need to be kept of what they have bought and sold (receipts from the game ranch and from the customer). These records should be kept in a sale register which can be inspected whenever necessary by the WD.

Export of Wildlife and Wildlife Products

The export of wildlife and wildlife products is governed by CITES regulations and the regulations formulated by the WD. This covers in particular the export of trophies, skins/hides, live animals and any other product which is rare or endangered. When exporting live animals and other products the exporter must get a permit from the Veterinary Department showing that there are no health/veterinary restrictions to the export of such items. The WD should arrange with CITES to recognize exports from game ranches as a supplement to wild-caught quotas.

Contract with Professional Operators

The ranch management can either do the safari hunting, game capture and game cropping by itself if it has the required expertise, equipment and facilities to do so or it can contract these operations out to a professional company registered with the WD.

Fees Payable to the WD

With the liberalisation of the Tanzanian economy, it is essential that any services rendered by the WD be paid for by the private sector. The WD should for example charge a fee for any ecological surveys, training measures and anti-poaching exercises done on behalf or private operators. Initially fees should be set below the going rate for private expertise while the WD trains its staff and establishes its reputation, and in order to promote the game ranching industry; but at some future date, prices should be charged which reflect market rates.

3.7.5 Management of Unfenced Game Ranches

Unfenced game ranches (no game fence) must have a perimeter road and/or, in some limited cases, an ordinary cattle fence to demarcate the boundary of the land and allow for the free movement of wildlife. Wildlife movement cannot be controlled, as is the case of a game fenced ranch, but through good management and habitat improvement, the manager can influence the movement and abundance of wildlife on the property. An unfenced game ranch can be owned or leased by a private investor(s), village community or any other body or organisation for that

81

matter. The essential criteria of an unfenced game ranch is that it is managed professionally throughout the year with an on-site ranch manager and his staff and that a certain amount of investment and infrastructure development has taken place. An unfenced game ranch is of interest to a village authority, local investor as well as a foreign investor as it does not require as substantial a capital outlay as a fenced site. On an unfenced game ranch, the owner has invested in the development of the ranch, be it in the road infrastructure, buildings, appropriate water and humid-pasture sites, salt licks, tourist blinds, and other facilities to do with consumptive and non-consumptive use. As well, over time, he must organise effective protection, appropriate fire and habitat management, and establish systems with the surrounding community authorities for the coordinated management of villager use of certain of the ranch site’s resources.

Management on an unfenced property is less intensive since wildlife populations are not enclosed and cannot be manipulated to such an extent as in a game fenced situation. Since wildlife movement is unhindered, management should be done on an ecosystem approach and with regards to the wishes of neighbouring ranches, communal areas and PA’s. This is facilitated by the development of conservancies which bring together wildlife properties of different ownership and management levels under a common management strategy and with a set number of objectives. Conservancies are also a way of integrating village WMA’s with unfenced game ranches whereby the WMA can make use of the professional management and investment which is at the disposal of the private investor.

Unfenced game ranches for ecological and management reasons can be further divided into ranches in open ecosystems and ranches in closed ecosystems. An open ecosystem is where there is a marked annual migration/movement of wildlife and a closed ecosystem is one where there is little to no movement and where wildlife is more or less sedentary.

Difference Between Unfenced Game Ranches and Village WMA’s

The WD has a policy of establishing village WMA’s in what were formally Game Controlled Areas where village authorities are allowed to manage and conserve wildlife in an area specifically set aside by the villagers for those purposes. Unfenced game ranching as an activity or management level does not detract from this policy, but rather complements it, for it provides the village WMA’s the opportunity of attaining the category of an unfenced game ranch with improved management. The difference between a village WMA and an unfenced game ranch is based on the intensity of management and investment and not on ownership. In other words, a village WMA might request and acquire the status of an unfenced game ranch with all the advantages conferred to that category of wildlife management if the village committee manages the WMA professionally and develops its infrastructure and tourism potential; whether via its own capacities, by hiring professional staff, or by leasing the site to a professional manager (accompanied by appropriate compensation).

82

Location and Size

The location of unfenced game ranches is exactly the same as those of fenced game ranches with the exception that they can also be positioned in village WMA’s. Unfenced game ranches should be the priority designation for wildlife corridors, buffer zones and migratory areas. There are no size limitations to unfenced game ranches; for administrative or social reasons, the WD may wish to set a minimum size, although economic considerations automatically will limit the site to a considerable size. There will be cases where it is in the community’s interest to have 2 functioning medium-sized ranches rather than 1 large one (job creation; unless it is considered more important that payments to the community are increased due to the greater efficiency leading to better profit margin at the larger site).

Investment Incentives and Management Benefits

Since the owners of unfenced game ranches have invested a substantial amount of capital into improving the properties and investing in wildlife and habitat management measures, they should get some investment incentives and management benefits which are similar to, if not quite the same, as the ones for a fenced game ranch. These incentives should include at least all of the following:

1. All Wildlife Options (depending on locality and if it is an open ecosystem or closed ecosystem)

2. Year round hunting season

3. Setting trophy fees and rates by ranch managers

If the rancher can show that wildlife numbers are increasing due to his management and anti-poaching measures, then the WD should give him a higher quota as an incentive for good management.

Project Application and Registration

The application and registration of unfenced game ranches is much the same as that for a fenced game ranches. There could, however be one difference:

Limited Wildlife Options

Where an unfenced game ranch is part of an open ecosystem, the WD might restrict the use or scope of certain wildlife options, especially where off-take quotas have to be shared with other operators sharing the same wildlife populations albeit at different times of the year. This might be the case in wildlife corridors where game cropping is not allowed or in buffer zones alongside

83

National Parks where safari hunting is not allowed. An unfenced game ranch also requires the revision of its management plan every 5 years (rather than every 10 years as is the case of a fenced property), as events will be less easy to predict, and production parameters will probably evolve following improvements in management that can be realistically shown (for example: the manager may want to revise the plan due to the possibility of a higher quota because of increasing populations).

Regulations Concerning Wildlife Utilization

The regulations on wildlife utilization are the same for fenced and unfenced game ranches. There is, however one difference:

Game Counts and Setting Off-take Quotas

Open ecosystem game ranches are very similar to village WMA’s or hunting blocks in Game Reserves in that they are unfenced and there is unimpeded movement of wildlife. This means that game counts should be done for an entire area (ecosystem approach to management) rather than an individual ranch and that off-take quotas should be established for an entire area or ecosystem and then divided up amongst the properties according to size and any other weighting system that one might find necessary to use (a ranch with permanent sources of water and better-managed pastures might have a higher off-take because regularly maintains more game). The game count should be done by the TWCM and the WD in conjunction with the managers concerned. These game counts need to be done on an annual basis and during a certain time of the year. The WD will determine off-take rates and quotas on the basis of the annual counts as well as information provided by ranch managers and the village wildlife committee to whom is attributed the WMA.

Creation of Conservancies

As unfenced game ranches and village WMA’s are very similar and only differentiate in the amount of structural investment, professional management and type of land-ownership, it would be easy for these two types of management/conservation area to come together for their own mutual benefit. Landowners managing unfenced game ranches and village committees managing WMA’s should be encouraged to form conservancies which they manage jointly and according to a common management plan. Conservancies are voluntary organizations and bring together different types of landowners in order to manage and conserve their natural resources more efficiently and optimize their income from wildlife. A conservancy has a constitution and an executive board which manages the affairs of the conservancy. A landowner can resign from the conservancy whenever he wants to. The proposed form of management is through a cooperative form of company but other forms of management might be just as applicable. Income from the

84

management of a conservancy is split up according to the size of each individual landowner’s property. The advantage of a conservancy is that:

It brings different types of landowners together and provides an entry point for village WMA’s to participate and profit from professional management, while increasing the potential benefits to all members.

It increases the area for wildlife which is especially important in corridors and for big game species which require large land units.

It makes wildlife more economically attractive because it provides scope for additional forms of utilization and tourism.

It reduces administration, personnel and management costs (increases benefits distributed to participants).

It improves management and the security of the conservation area.

If the conservancy adjoins a Game Reserve or a National Park, it should involve the wildlife authorities especially when such management actions as the establishment of water points, fire management, anti-poaching patrols etc. are being considered. In future, arrangements might also be made between the conservancy and the P.A. management for the implementation of mutually beneficial projects (such as the construction of access roads or the building of a bridge which can be used by all). The conservancy could also have first option in leasing adjacent hunting blocks if it adjoins a Game Reserve. In the case of an adjacent National Park, arrangements could be made to facilitate the entrance of tourists from the conservancy entering the N.P. through a special gate/entrance point.

Whenever a conservancy is created, then the current management plans of the individual owners and participants should be shelved and a common management plan needs to be presented to the WD for approval. The new management plan should specifically provide information on how and by whom the management plan will be implemented, the anticipated capital outlay, operating costs and income as well as how the profits will be distributed amongst the shareholders. This is particularly important when communities are involved and every effort has to be made that all members of the conservancy know and understand their rights and obligations.

Ecosystem Management Committees

The professional all year round management of game ranches with attention to infrastructure development and wildlife/habitat management will have a positive impact on adjacent wildlife

85

areas depending on how these areas are managed. One positive impact will be that game ranches will provide a stimulus for adjacent landowners to further invest in their wildlife operations and to manage them more-professionally if they are to retain their wildlife. And secondly, they will benefit from surplus populations spilling over from well-run game ranch properties onto their land. Especially where unfenced game ranches are part of an open ecosystem, the wildlife managers of the different management blocks involved (managers of game ranches, WMA’s, National Park, Game Reserve, hunting concessionaires etc.) should form a management committee for that system. They must meet regularly to integrate the different management approaches and practices so that a harmony is established even if different uses are made at the different sites.

Upgrading/Downgrading of Game Ranches and Village WMA’s

The WD should have a flexible approach to the upgrading or downgrading of game ranches. For example a village WMA might be upgraded to the status of an unfenced game ranch if it can show that wildlife numbers and distribution have increased and that there is year round professional management and development being carried out (patrols, infrastructure, tourism etc.). The WMA would then receive the same incentives as an unfenced game ranch. On the other hand, a fenced game ranch might want to join a larger management unit (conservancy) and decide to pull down its fences completely thereby facilitating wildlife movement and management over a much larger area. This would mean a downgrading from a fenced game ranch to an unfenced game ranch and a loss of the management options and privileges which come with a fenced game ranch.

86

4. Modifications Recommended To Policy And Legislation

4.1 Analysis Of Current Wildlife Policies And Laws

4.1.1 Objectives of the Wildlife Policy

The Government of Tanzania recognizes that wildlife is a natural resource of great biological and socio-economic values that must be conserved for the benefit of present and future generations. Thus, the Wildlife Policy of 1998 (WPT 1998) was prepared with the main aim of involving a broader section of the society in wildlife conservation and sustainable utilization, particularly the rural communities and the private sector, than was foreseen under the Wildlife Conservation Act of 1974 (see Box 1). Key objectives of the Wildlife Policy include the following:

To promote the conservation of wildlife and its habitats outside core areas (NPs, GRs, & NCA) by establishing WMAs.

To transfer the management of WMAs to local communities, and ensure that the local communities obtain substantial tangible benefits from wildlife conservation and sustainable utilization.

To ensure that wildlife is appropriately valued in order to reduce its illegal off-take and encourage its sustainable use by rural communities.

To create an enabling environment which will ensure that legal and sustainable wildlife schemes directly benefit local communities.

To create an enabling environment for the private sector to invest in different forms of wildlife utilization and conservation.

To enable Tanzania to participate in relevant international treaties and conventions, and promote policies within the framework of such treaties and conventions as are consistent with Tanzania’s position on conservation of wildlife.

4.1.2 Review of the Wildlife Policy of Tanzania as to Game Farming and Ranching

Game farming and ranching are not yet well-developed forms of wildlife utilization in Tanzania. In order to promote wildlife utilization outside the country’s PAs, the Wildlife Policy encourages investment by the private sector in game farming and ranching (WPT section 2.4.4). The following elements of the WPT provide an enabling environment for game farming and ranching:

87

Conferring user rights of wildlife to the landholders in order to allow rural communities and private landholders/investors to manage wildlife on their land for their own benefit.

Assisting wildlife farmers and ranchers to become eligible for the same benefits and incentives that the agricultural farming and livestock industry receives from the Government (see also MAC 1997).

Learning from other experience in the region and other countries with well established wildlife farming and ranching industry.

Encouraging wildlife farmers and ranchers operating on privately owned or leased land to develop cropping programs to supply designated markets with meat and trophies.

Encouraging the involvement of the private sector in supporting protection of wildlife and development of wildlife areas.

Promoting internal trade in wildlife products, by allowing game hunting/capture by residents of Tanzania, in order to enhance the value of indigenous wildlife species to the Tanzanian people.

88

Box 1: Excerpts from the Wildlife Policy of TanzaniaThe national vision for the wildlife sector includes the following: to involve all stakeholders in wildlife conservation and sustainable utilisation, as well as in fair

and equitable sharing of benefits, to promote sustainable utilisation of wildlife resources, and to contribute to poverty alleviation and improve the quality of life of the people of Tanzania.Such a vision can be realized if all the economic potentials of wildlife are utilized including farming and ranching, for which the private sector is encouraged to invest.However, the wildlife resource has not been utilized before to its full potential due to the following constraints, among others: Failure of wildlife conservation as a form of land use to compete adequately with other forms of

land use, especially to the rural communities. The existing land tenure system and the wildlife resource ownership by the State, hinder

investment in, and development of wildlife industry by private sector. Inadequate wildlife use rights especially to the rural communities.The wildlife sector, therefore, is still facing a number of challenges, such as to promote involvement of local communities in wildlife conservation in and outside the PA

network, to integrate wildlife conservation with rural development, to ensure that wildlife conservation competes with other forms of land use, and to enhance the recognition of the intrinsic value of wildlife to rural people.In recognition of the challenges facing the wildlife sector, the Government, as the overall owner of wildlife, is committed to access user rights to various stakeholders and stimulate public and private sector investment in the wildlife industry, and provide support to investors, by focussing among other things on: Developing an enabling legal, regulatory, institutional environment for rural communities and

private sector to participate in wildlife conservation including sustainable utilisation. Reinforcing wildlife extension services and assistance to rural communities in managing wildlife

resources.The specific objectives of the new Wildlife Policy on Wildlife Protection and Utilization include the following: to promote the conservation of wildlife and its habitats outside core areas (NPs, GRs & NCA)

by establishing WMAs, to transfer the management of WMAs to local communities., and ensure that the local

communities obtain substantial tangible benefits from wildlife conservation. to promote the use of PAs so as to provide government revenue, employment, income, food

and other benefits to Tanzanians; especially the rural communities, to create the opportunity for the Tanzanian people to become involved in the wildlife industry, to create an enabling environment which will ensure that legal and sustainable wildlife schemes

directly benefit local communities, and to create an enabling environment for the private sector to invest in different forms of

wildlife utilisation and conservation.

89

Box 1: Excerpts from the Wildlife Policy of Tanzania, continuedSome of the strategies for achieving these policy objectives include: conferring user rights of wildlife to the landholders, allowing rural communities and private landholders to manage wildlife, assisting wildlife farmers and ranchers to become eligible for the same benefits and

inmcentives that the agriculrural farming and livestock industry receives from the Government learning from other regional countries with well established wildlife farming and rabching

industries, encouraging ranchers operating on proivately owned or leased land to develop cropping

programmes to supply designated markets with meat and trophies, and encouraging, motivating and facilitating foreign investors in the wildlife sector to train

Tanzanians in different skills

Thus, the WPT emphasizes the role of the private sector

to support the Government’s efforts in conservation and management of the wildlife resources,

to utilize the wildlife resources sustainably, and

to secure and enhance the benefits from wildlife to the local communities.

However, the WPT does not specify how game farming and ranching are to be promoted and managed. For example, the Policy is silent regarding the following matters:

Which areas are suitable for game farming and ranching?

What should be the relationship between WMAs and game ranching conservancies?

How should game farmers and ranchers represent their interests/expectations to the Government, through an association?

How and why conservancies should be created?

Also, the definitions of game farming and game ranching in the Wildlife Policy do not reflect current usage of those terms (see Section 1.3).

90

4.1.3 Wildlife Conservation Act of 1974

Objectives of the Wildlife Conservation Act (WCA)

The principal aim of the WCA is the protection, conservation, development, regulation, and control of wildlife and wildlife products (see URT 1974). Specifically, the objectives of the Act is:

to protect all wildlife occurring outside NPs and NCA, since all wildlife is Government property,

to designate areas with wildlife values as GRs or GCAs, and

to regulate and control the consumptive and non-consumptive use (e.g. hunting, capturing, photographing, dealing with trophies) of wildlife in GRs, GCAs, and in open areas.

4.1.4 Review of the Wildlife Conservation Act as to Game Farming and Ranching

The WCA was written before modern concepts and methods of wildlife management had much evolved, when management was more or less the preserve of the State, and measures were limited to protection and limiting the length of the hunting season and hunting quotas per hunter. Today, scientific management is possible and, in that context, eliminates the need for limiting the season once committed, professional year-round management and annual off-take quotas are established. Yet, the WCA puts restrictions on hunting including establishment of hunting seasons and hunting quotas. The Act also prohibits hunting and capture of any animal on privately owned/leased land without permission of the DW. In essence, the Act is silent on game farming and ranching.

Also, the WCA limits capture of game species to four specimens per person seeking to capture animals from a given area during a hunting season, and permitted capture methods do not include some that are professionally acceptable today, such as driving game with helicopters to a boma, drugging, etc.

4.1.5 Tanzania Investment Policy of 1996 and Investment Act of 1997

Objectives of the Investment Policy and Act

The Investment Policy (URT 1996) has the following objectives, among others, that are relevant here:

91

Maximum promotion of domestic production of goods and services for the export market; this entails optimum utilization of the nation’s natural and other resources.

The encouragement of foreign investment and capital inflows.

The objectives of the Investment Act include the following:

To coordinate, encourage, promote and facilitate investment in Tanzania.

To assist all investors, including those who are not bound by the provisions of this Act, to obtain all necessary permits, licenses, approvals, consents, authorizations, registrations and other matters required by laws for a person to set up and operate an investment; and to enable certificates issued by the Tanzania Investment Centre to have full effect (URT 1997).

To provide and disseminate up-to-date information on benefits or incentives available to investors.

Review of the Investment Policy and Act as to Game Farming and Ranching

Within the framework of the Investment Policy, there exists an Investment Promotion Authority (IPA) which has the following obligations to facilitate investment in Tanzania:

Identify and acquire land for investment use.

Assist in speedy acquisition of all necessary permits and clearances required by investors, including work permits, land leases, licenses, bank clearances, etc.

Investment in game farming and ranching will undoubtedly benefit from such facilitation by the IPA. Specific guarantees under the Investment Act 1997 (URT 1997) that provide an enabling environment for private investments such as game farming and ranching include the following:

A business enterprise to which this Act applies shall be guaranteed unconditional transferability through any authorized dealer bank in freely convertible currency of net profit or dividends attributable to the investment; payments in respect of loan servicing where a foreign loan has been obtained; payment of emoluments and other benefits to foreign personnel employed in Tanzania in connection with the business enterprise (section 21a, b&e of the Investment Act).

No business enterprise shall be nationalized or expropriated by the Government (section 22a of the Investment Act).

92

Every business enterprise granted a certificate of incentives under this Act shall be entitled to an initial automatic immigrant quota of up to five persons during the start up period (section 24i of the Investment Act).

The guarantees above are particularly important in case of game farming and ranching in Tanzania, given that these new forms of wildlife business are not yet well developed.

However, the Investment Policy and Act were written before the options for game farming and game ranching were considered, so do not provide for special considerations of their promotion; which should be rectified, given that

they are very new business ventures, and

they have great potential to provide with sustained sources of revenue to villages and create jobs for rural communities, hence boosting rural development, closing the gap between urban and rural populations and reducing urban immigration of rural people.

4.1.6 Land Policy of 1996 And Land Act of 1999

Objectives of the Land Policy and Land Act

The Land Policy of Tanzania (MLHSD 1996) includes two objectives that are relevant here (see also Box 2):

To promote an equitable distribution of and access to land by all citizens, and

To ensure that land is put to its most productive use to promote rapid social and economic development of the country.

The Land Act (URT 1999a) consolidates the above tenets of the Land Policy in the following objectives (section 3-1a, e&h):

To recognize that all land in Tanzania is public land vested in the President as trustee on behalf of all citizens.

To ensure that land is used productively and that any such use complies with the principles of sustainable development.

To enable all citizens to participate in decision-making on matters connected with their occupation or use of land.

93

Box 2: Excerpts from the National Land PolicyThe overall aim of the National Land Policy (NLP) is: to promote and ensure a secure land tenure system, to encourage the optimal use of land resources, and to facilitate broad-based social and economic development without upsetting or endangering

the ecological balance of the environment.One of the specific objectives of NLP is: to ensure that land is put to its most productive use to promote rapid social and economic

development of the country. With reference to land tenure, the NLP include the following important elements: All land in Tanzania is public land vested in the President as trustee on behalf of all citizens. Village Councils will administer village lands and their powers will be subject to limitations

embedded in the laws and procedures. The term of tenure for Statutory Right of Occupancy, which shall be confirmed by a Certificate

of Title, shall not exceed 99 years. Customary Rights of Occupancy, which will be confirmed by Hati ya Ardhi ya Mila, shall have no term limit.

On village land use planning, the NLP points out that: land use planning will be done in a participatory manner to involve beneficiaries; planning will

be preceded by studies to determine existing land tenure, land use patterns and land capability, and

village land use plans will be used as a tool for implementing policies for better land use and management, and that village land use plans will provide a basis for guiding extension service packages including wildlife conservation.

Review of the Land Policy and Land Act as to Game Farming and Ranching

The Land Policy and Act make no provision for private ownership of land. However, both provide for guaranteed land tenure of up to 99 years under a granted right of occupancy (section 19-1a of the Act). The Land Act also provides that non-citizen investors may obtain a right of occupancy of land in accordance with national laws. All these provisions under the law offer opportunities for long-term investment in game farming and ranching.

Therefore game farming and ranching can only operate on privately acquired and leased land, or sub-lease of privately or communally leased land. No mention is made of compensation for specific investments made in land development in the event of lease being revoked by the state, in accordance with the Land Act, from the current landholder(s).

4.1.7 Village Land Act of 1999

Objective of the Village Land Act (VLA)

The principal objective of the Village Land Act (URT 1999b) is to transfer powers for village land use planning and management to village authorities (Village Councils) on behalf of all

94

village members. Under the VLA, village councils are responsible for organizing and carrying out land use planning in a participatory manner by involving beneficiaries. Planning is to take into account existing land tenure, land use patterns and land capability.

Review of the Village Land Act as to Game Farming and Ranching

According to the VLA, Village Councils are empowered to use village land use plans as tools to implement policies for better land use and management including wildlife conservation. However, the VLA does not specifically mention the possibility of creating WMAs on village land. In this respect, the VLA and the WPT may need to be harmonized.

Another shortcoming is the provision empowering the President to transfer any area of village land to general or reserved land (Section 4.1 of the VLA). This creates uncertainty regarding contracts between investors and villages, and is disincentive to investment.

4.1.8 CITES Regulations

Objectives of CITES Regulations

The principal objectives of CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora) regulations are (see Wijnstekers 1995):

to protect wildlife species against over-exploitation of wild populations through international live animal trade, and

to prevent international trade from threatening the extinction of species.

Review of CITES Regulations as to Game Farming and Ranching

One of the fundamental principles of CITES is that the Parties shall not allow trade in specimens of species included in Appendices I, II, and III except in accordance with the provisions of the present Convention, where

Appendix I includes endangered species that are under strict international regulations i.e. commercial trade is strictly prohibited in order not to endanger further their survival;

Appendix II includes species that are not necessarily threatened with extinction but may become so unless trade in specimens of such species is controlled;

Appendix III includes all species that are subject to regulation within the jurisdiction of a Party to the Convention for the purpose of preventing or restricting over-exploitation.

95

Therefore many products from game farms and ranches will be subject to CITES regulations including export permits justified by the country’s management authority (WD).

However, CITES does not provide standard definitions of game farming and ranching such as those given in Section 1.3.1 of this present document, and CITES definitions of “captive breeding” and “ranching” essentially concern farming operations. According to CITES, trade in captive-bred specimens of Appendix I species is only allowed for specimens from the second and subsequent generations bred in captivity from wild-caught parent stock. This restriction should provide an incentive for game farming and fenced game ranching as their live animal products are captive-bred (in case of game farms) or similar to captive-bred (in case of fenced game ranches). It needs to be clarified how CITES considers specimens from managed unfenced ranches where animals may become locally abundant, even if rare on the international scale, and where the possibility for an annual off-take is desirable to help promote the increase of those species on game farming concessions.

4.2 Recommendations To Promote Game Farming And Ranching

4.2.1 Wildlife Policy of 1998

Definitions of Game Farming and Ranching

Standard definitions of game farming and game ranching, such as provided in Section 1.3.1 should be adopted.

Areas Recommended for the Promotion of Game Farming and Ranching

Game farms may be especially interesting for areas surrounding urban and semi-urban centres to supply local markets with game meat, but people in rural areas will also have an interest in farming some species. Farms may also be established in other areas with conditions favorable for the species involved, and which are near market outlets, including international airports that can serve as a point of departure for exports, if such is indicated.

Fenced game ranches should be encouraged on marginal land and in tsetse infested areas where livestock production is limited or impossible, or possibly in semi-urban areas in proximity to areas of high-end tourist facilities.

Unfenced game ranches are especially suitable for areas adjacent to PAs (NPs, GRs & NCA) or in WMAs when the most-productive form of wildlife management is desired, as well as in wildlife corridors where one wants to maintain an open ecosystem.

96

Relation of Game Ranches to WMAs

With increased investment in, and professional management of wildlife and the environment in general, a WMA may resemble an unfenced game ranch such that there should be a provision in law and guidelines, where deemed appropriate, to grant such WMA the operational status of an unfenced game ranch, so as to allow greater leeway in their management and optimal benefits for conservation and the communities.

Establishment of Conservancies

Game ranches, neighboring landowners and village WMAs should be encouraged to form a conservancy in order to jointly manage, conserve and utilize the wildlife and other natural resources within a defined area for greater ecological and economical benefit. This system is commonly practiced in Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe (Jones 1995). A Wildlife Trust Fund could be established to specifically support the establishment of a conservancy.

Establishment of a Game Farmers’ and Ranchers’ Association/Producers Federation

In order to manage wildlife, farmers and ranchers will need an appropriate body, an association or federation, which can act on behalf of its members. This body will need to take decisions on wildlife management and related issues such as setting up harvest quotas, product marketing, etc. The association should be formed on a voluntary basis and the members should decide who will represent them.

4.2.2 Wildlife Conservation Act of 1974

Definitions of Game Farms and Game Ranches as Used by the State

Standard definitions of game farms and game ranches should be developed and included in the WCA, similar to definitions for Game Reserves, Game Controlled Area, National Parks, Ngorongoro Conservation Area, etc. Definitions in Section 1.3.1 provide a basis for the formulation of legal definitions.

Technical Requirements for Game Farms and Ranches

With development of game farming and ranching, it will increasingly become necessary for game farmers and ranchers to follow standard technical norms applicable to specific wildlife species or group of species in order to assure the wholesome development of the industries. Such norms include acceptable specifications for fences, holding pens, husbandry procedures, slaughterhouses, etc; the WCA should carry an article on at least the minimum technical standards of game farming and ranching. This will ensure that any game farmer or rancher abides by standards stated under the law in order to avoid inhumane handling of animals or untoward

97

behavior that is offensive to public good taste and common sense. However, the WD and other stakeholders such as game farming and ranching experts, wildlife scientists, etc. should beforehand discuss and agree on what will be the minimum’ technical requirements according to species or group of species, and periodically update them.

Operating Requirements of Game Capture and Game Cropping

Use of drugs, helicopters, etc. and bomas to capture wildlife as well as cropping at night, from a vehicle, use of search light, etc. should be included in the WCA in order to give them legal applications. These are widely accepted operating requirements but not covered in the WCA of 1974.

Wildlife Management Incentives for Fencing Game Ranches

As indicted in Section 3.6.4, heavy financial investment is required in fencing a commercial game ranch. Elsewhere, fencing operations are associated with wildlife management incentives which are highlighted in Section 3.6.4. Therefore, the WCA should have a provision on incentives to promote fenced game ranches such as year-round hunting/capture seasons and the setting of harvest quotas by ranch management, the management and use of rare species, etc, as described in Section 3.7.2.2.

Registration of Game Farms and Ranches and Licensing Procedures

It should be obligatory under the WCA to register all game farms and ranches with the WD:

Applications for registration and license for game farms and ranches on general land should be made directly to the DW.

Applications for registration and licenses for game farms and ranches on village land should be made through the District Council.

Environmental Impact Assessment

While game farms will have very limited local impact if any, the conduct of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) might or might not be required for unfenced game ranches depending upon their location relative to cattle concentrations, other wildlife sites and whether or not they are situated in a migration route. EIA should be legally binding before establishment of fenced game ranches in order to predict negative impacts (such as human-wildlife conflicts, etc.) and suggest mitigation measures. EIAs will help to ensure that the business to be established is socially and environmentally acceptable. Also, EIAs will be particularly important given infrastructure associated with game ranching including visitor facilities. The location of game

98

ranches in relation to their surroundings is also an appropriate matter for consideration in EIAs (see also Section 3.7.2.3(3)).

Penalties Regarding Game Farms and Ranches

The WCA should include an article on penalties regarding game farms and ranches contravening procedures of legal requirements, such as

Unauthorized opening up of game fences to attract/drive wildlife into the ranch,

unauthorized release of alien or local farm-bred specimens into the wild,

sale of products not originating from the game farm/ranch, and

negligence with regard to animal husbandry.

Authorities of Game Managers

The legalities of game managers and their personnel in policing and conducting anti-poaching measures on the game ranch should be clearly stated in the WCA. This would facilitate the legal responsibility of the WD with regard to anti-poaching operations.

Registration and Sale of Wildlife and Wildlife Products

In order to prevent game farmers and ranchers from illegal dealings on products originating from the wild, the management plan filed for each registered game farm or ranch must specify the species and products that will be produced. Also, the Act should require all sale outlets for wildlife and wildlife products from game farms and ranches to be registered with the WD. Certificates of Origin that also serve as receipts should be obligatory to be delivered by the vendor at the time of sale to accompany the animals or products, bearing the name of the outlet, registration number, date of sale, site of origin, nature and number of each animal or product, and the signature and stamp of the vendor. Keeping records of all purchases and sales of wildlife and wildlife products in a register by outlets should also be obligatory,

Wildlife Trust Fund to Support Conservancies

The Act should also make a provision for the formation of a Wildlife Trust Fund (WTF) meant to help support the establishment of Conservancies. Functions of the WTF would be similar to those of the Tanzania Wildlife Protection Fund (TWPF), which supports management of wildlife in PAs.

99

4.2.3 Tanzania Investment Act of 1997

Recommendations as to Game Farming and Ranching

Similar to agricultural farming and livestock ranching, game farming and ranching are labor intensive. If structured well, such ventures can make a positive contribution to people’s welfare in rural communities. Therefore, game farming and game ranching need to be given the same incentives as those applicable to agricultural enterprises, as stipulated in the WPT (Section 3.3.4 vi) and the Agricultural and Livestock Policy of 1997 (Section 6.3.2.7iii).

Special Incentives for Game Farmers and Ranchers

Game farms and ranches are going to be rural industries’ creating jobs for local people and revenue to villages. Some farms and ranches can be a good source of animal protein (game meat) to many people that cannot access beef. Given this importance, and in order to promote a rapid start-up of these new activities, game farms and ranches should be given additional incentives such as those practiced elsewhere and for other sectors, such as the reduction of import taxes on materials for new investments, an income tax holiday (for example: up to 5 years if located ear urban centres, or 10 years when installed further away in rural areas, especially in southern and western Tanzania in order to encourage such investments in areas with so far little industrial or conservation activities) in order to make them economically profitable and socially acceptable.

4.2.4 Village Land Act of 1999

Although WMAs are not explicitly mentioned in the Village Land Act, they are covered under village land use management which includes wildlife. Therefore, when interpreting the Act, it should be understood that game farming and ranching are included among the various forms of useful village land use.

Transfer of Land

In order to safeguard the interest of private investors and village communities, there is a need to provide a guarantee that no village land shall be transferred to general or reserved land before expiry of contract between an investor and a village, unless expressively agreed by the investor or if such transfer is accompanied by compensation equivalent to the projected earnings of the village and the investor. This should be understood as a matter of fact, for the law provides for compensation in the event of transfer of land ownership.

100

4.2.5 Land Act of 1999

Recommendations as to Securing Land Tenure for Game Farming and Ranching

Secure land tenure is critical for investment. But tenure is limited in Tanzania by state ownership of land, empowering the President to revoke at any time occupancy and use of any land. Within this legal framework of land ownership, specific guarantees are needed in order to safeguard investment, such as “buying” and “selling” land and long tenure/lease periods.

Buying and Selling Land

There should be a provision to “buy” and “sell” land, hence creating private ownership within the tenure and lease period. This would resolve the problem of tenure uncertainty for game farms and ranches within the lease period. Private ownership will be an incentive for landholders to manage resources in a sustainable manner.

Land Tenure and Lease Period

The issue of land tenure and lease period should be considered separately depending on the nature of game farming and ranching:

For subsistence game farming, which does not require heavy investment, land tenure and the lease period will not be a major problem.

Game farming intended for conservation purposes, hence not profit-driven, will also not be affected by land tenure since such farming can be on land donated by the Government/local authorities, or on privately leased land.

For commercial game farming and ranching, long-term land tenure and lease is necessary both to provide assurance to the investor and to sustain benefits to local communities. A minimum of 33 years land tenure and lease period is recommended for commercial game farming and ranching.

Revoking of Land Tenure

Revoking of land tenure during the lease period is detrimental to commercial game farmers and ranchers as well as other stakeholders, particularly local communities benefiting in terms of jobs and income from such investments. Therefore, a guarantee is needed to severely limit possibilities of revoking of land tenure during the lease period.

101

4.2.6 CITES Regulations

Recommendations as to Game Farming and Ranching

Three recommendations regarding CITES seem to be obvious:

CITES needs to adopt standard definitions of game farming and ranching.

Wildlife and wildlife products from intensively managed farms or fenced game ranches, and even those from unfenced game ranches, need to be treated separately in terms of export permits, compared with those from non managed populations in completely wild areas. This is because of the fact that the animals and products are originating from populations held under carefully controlled conditions, as even in the case of unfenced game ranches, they originate from known and managed populations, all of which have been the object of deliberate human and financial investments for the purpose of conservation husbandry.

Once certified, wildlife resources from game farms and game ranches (especially fenced game ranches) should be treated under minimum CITES export restrictions such as those concerning veterinary and transport issues.

4.3 Impact Of The Game Farming/Ranching Policy On The WMA Guidelines

4.3.1 Guidelines for Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs)

The establishment of WMAs to be managed by local communities is provided for in the Wildlife Policy of Tanzania. Draft guidelines have already been prepared (MNRT 2000), the objectives of which are as follows:

To spell out procedures to be followed by local communities intending to establish WMA.

To indicate key stakeholders in WMAs in addition to village communities.

To indicate the role of the stakeholders.

To indicate resource management options and operational procedures.

To spell out modalities for benefit sharing among stakeholders.

To spell out framework for the administrative/technical support to WMAs.

102

According to the current draft Guidelines, game farming and ranching will not be permitted in WMAs. The reason for this prohibition may be related to definitions given in the WPT and in the Guidelines themselves (see Section 2.7VIa). The definitions of game farming and ranching that are given in the WPT and the WMA Guidelines essentially refer to ecologically less-desirable and technically less-developed forms of game farming; game ranching is not correctly defined and categorized as fenced or unfenced, open ecosystem or closed ecosystem.

However, fenced game ranches would in most cases not be appropriate; but might eventually be an option in cases of WMAs established by highly motivated communities at wildlife sites isolated by agricultural or highly populated areas. For ecological and economic reasons of national and local scale, there should be every incentive possible provided to establish unfenced game ranching in WMAs. As far as game farming (as per the definition given in Section 1.3.1) is concerned, due to their nature, properly managed game farms would be automatically more-appropriately situated in village or private land surrounding WMAs, near to the owner/manager’s home and to access roads and/or markets; so there is no obvious reason for situating game farms in WMAs.

But, unless the definitions of game farms and ranches, in their various forms, such as provided in Section 1.3.1 are adopted and the basic logic of the above statements understood, game ranching in WMAs may not be accepted at all, according to the current WMA Guidelines. From the perspective of community development, as well as those of ecological stability, and wholesome conservation and economic development, this would be regrettable; as that would severely limit opportunity for the rapid deployment, development and optimization of production in the WMAs and significantly restrict socio-economic flows to the beneficiaries of the surrounding communities.

4.3.2 Recommendations to Integrate Game Farming and Ranching to WMA Guidelines

Lease of the WMA for Commercial Game Ranching

In order to assure issues of ecological sustainability, the WD has to be involved in the process leading to lease of WMA land by a community AA to an investor for the purpose of professionally-managed game ranching; this will be made through a contractual agreement between an AA and the investor. The lease will have to be in accordance with the Village Land Act of 1999, with the District Council acting as facilitator.

According to the draft WMA Guidelines, the concession for land use in a WMA is limited to a period of up to 10 years, with possibilities for renewal. To safeguard the economic returns from the considerable investment that have to be made in commercial game ranching, consideration should be given to increase the lease period for at least 33 years. This would be beneficial also to

103

the local communities, as this would help them to secure the best possible deals and optimize long-term financial and social benefit.

Agreements for Game Ranching With an AA

Criteria and procedures for investment in a WMA already exist in the draft Guidelines (Section 3.1); these are relevant to adopt during contractual agreement between an investor and the AA regarding game ranching in a village WMA. The agreement will be made between the AA and the investor/lessee with assistance from the District Advisory Committee.

Vetting of the Agreement for Game Ranching in a WMA

Any contractual agreement should be subjected to vetting by all key stakeholders i.e. the AA, investor(s), District Council and the WD. Indicators to follow in the vetting process will include the following (for details see Section 3.7.2.3(2)):

1. items 2-C: a to l, of the wildlife management and business plan

2. site-specific details agreed between the AA and investors in prior consultations.

Types of Game Ranching in a WMA: Fenced/Unfenced

Fencing of a game ranch in a WMA is the least desirable option, both because it tends to unduly complicate or even preclude involvement of the local people and it impedes ecological processes. Access of local people to other resources such as fuel wood, thatch grass, etc from the area would become more complicated. Fencing is also costly, such that the investor may not be prepared or able to offer much benefit to the community, especially in the beginning. In any case, economic considerations may well preclude the use of fences except under unusual circumstances.

Regulations Concerning Management of Game Ranches in a WMA

It has to be spelled out how game ranching in a WMA will be managed. In any case, the same regulations governing management of game ranches elsewhere will be applicable for those in WMAs (see Section 3.7.2.3(2)).

Creation of Conservancies

A conservancy is a group of ranches on which neighboring landowners (could be investors) have pooled their resources for the purpose of conserving and utilizing wildlife on their combined properties (Jones 1995). In this case, unfenced game ranches suitably qualify for the formation of a conservancy. Investors managing game ranches in leased WMAs should be encouraged to form

104

conservancies which they manage jointly; the advantages of such a system are indicated in Section 3.7.3.5.

105

5. Recommended Actions By WD For Game Farming And Ranching

As game farming and game ranching are relatively new activities in Tanzania and are little known or understood by the majority of people, one of the immediate major tasks of the WD will be to provide the type and quality of information that will promote these activities in the Tanzanian public and amongst the potential actors.

5.1 Wildlife Personnel

Game farming and ranching should be administered under the Wildlife Utilization Section of the WD. The Wildlife Utilization Section consists of: a) Sport Hunting, b) Local Hunting, c) Live Animal Trade, d) CITES and e) Game Farming and Ranching. Each sub-section is administered by an officer in charge and several assistants. Initially the game farming and ranching sub-section can be managed by the present members of the Section but with time and as the number of game farms and ranches increase additional persons need to be involved. The basic qualifications of such a person or persons should have a certificate or diploma with some additional training in game farming and ranching (in the form of field trips to game farms and ranches in Southern Africa and a course in game farming and ranching at some recognised institutions or at a game farm and at a game ranch).

It is important that the wildlife officers have a thorough understanding of the issues involved in game farming and ranching as well as a working knowledge of operations because without it they will not be able to help potential investors and understand the management problems involved. They will also have a thorough understanding of wildlife management as it pertains to population dynamics and the setting of quotas as well as the principles of safari hunting, game capture and game cropping operations. The officers need to be trained in the use of computer programmes in order to store, analyse and present data on game farming and on game ranching.

5.2 Facilities

The game farming and ranching sub-section needs to have appropriate computer equipment and facilities which can store, analyse and present data in an appropriate fashion. The officers in the sub-section would also require adequate transport in order to inspect game farming and ranching operations and also to vet potential sites.

106

5.3 Scope Of Work

5.3.1 Collection, Evaluation and Analysis of Annual Reports and Returns

Data needs to be collected, stored and evaluated concerning wildlife populations, off-take numbers, production figures and any other items which might be of interest to wildlife management. The WD together with the Game Farmers and Game Ranchers Association should produce an annual summary of its findings and the conclusions drawn from the findings. This would keep the WD up to date with wildlife trends, productivity and markets.

5.3.2 Processing Applications, Registration and Licensing of Game Farms and Ranches

The WD needs to guide the prospective game farm or game ranch investor through the application procedures and provide him with any assistance that he might require. This is particularly the case with village committees or small-scale farmers. The application should be dealt with in an efficient and speedy way and any shortcomings should be discussed with the applicant so that he can improve on the application. The WD needs to register the game farm or ranch and to provide it with a specific number. Annual licensing fees need to be collected and tags distributed to the game farms and game ranches for labelling of wildlife products.

5.3.3 Inspection of Game Farm/Game Ranch Facilities, Wildlife Populations and Habitats

This is important especially for game-fenced ranches which have game-proof fences many kilometres long and which manage wildlife in an enclosed system. Spot checks should be made of the condition, height and functioning of the fence as well as other facilities having to do with game capture and game cropping operations. Once in a while game counts need to be conducted or commissioned by the WD to verify the counts made by the owner and to assess the condition of the animals and their habitats. The ranch owner needs to show that what he has written in his management plan is being implemented and developed as planed. The same applies to game farms where animals are kept in captivity and where holding pens, cages and other enclosures need to be inspected to see that they conform to regulations and norms adopted with the industry.

5.3.4 Registration and Supervision of Outlets

Periodic inspection of dealers and outlets needs to be done by personnel of the WD to see if they are properly registered and licensed to sell game meat, trophies, live animals and other wildlife products. They also need to go through the game register of the dealer which contains the details of the purchase plus the receipt number. Inspections should be made of all wildlife products to see that they are properly marked and tagged with the authorized numbers and names.

107

5.3.5 Monitoring Wildlife Populations and Establishing Off-take Quotas

Where village WMA’s and unfenced game ranches are concerned, the WD needs to organize game counts and determine which kind of game count is suitable for the property. The game counts should be done by the Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI) in conjunction with the TWCM and with the landowners concerned. In all cases the rancher or the community should be involved as they know the area and the local wildlife movements. Game counts need to be done at least once a year. Where a landowner has the expertise to do his own count, he should be encouraged to do so as long as he uses the prescribed method and gives the data to the WD for analysis. The WD should encourage landowners to collect data on numbers, age structure and sex ratio throughout the year with ranch personnel as this will help in establishing population trends and off-take rates. Off-take rates and quotas need to be determined well in advance of the next season so that the landowner can market his quota and work out which utilization options are appropriate.

5.3.6 Provision of Information/Advice to Investors, Landowners, Communities and Managers

The WD needs to provide information and maps on potential game ranching areas together with the current policies, laws and guidelines on game farming and ranching and different forms of utilization. It should help the investor establish contacts with the local District authorities and village committees and provide a checklist of all the things that the investor has to do (application procedure etc.) in order to establish a game farm or game ranch. The WD can also provide a service to the potential game farmer/game rancher by facilitating contacts with recognised experts and consultants in the field of game farming and ranching. A register of such consultants should be maintained at the Game Farming and Ranching Desk and made available for consultation by game farmers and ranchers.

5.3.7 Contact and Dialogue With Game Ranchers Association and Conservancies

The WD should establish close contacts with the game farmers and game ranchers association(s) and help the game farmers and ranchers in setting up such an association. The WD can provide the contacts with other associations in other parts of Southern Africa and facilitate an exchange of ideas and persons. The establishment of conservancies either for game ranches or village WMA’s should be a priority as this will improve management and conservation of free ranging wildlife populations, especially in crucial corridors or buffer zones. Partnerships are based on dialogue, and this the WD can help foster to develop the continual interchange that is essential if game farming and game ranching industries are to be successful.

108

5.3.8 Facilitating Field Trips and Training Courses in Game Farming and Ranching

Many of the local investors and village committees will have had no experience in game farming or game ranching and therefore the WD, together with donor assistance, can provide a valuable service in organizing field trips to such countries as Zambia, Zimbabwe, Burkina Faso and Namibia which have a great deal of experience in game ranching and farming as well as to specific areas in Tanzania where community WMA’s have been established. Such field trips should be well structured and for a limited number of participants and include such topics as the management of game ranches, community wildlife projects, conservancies and game farmers/ranchers associations. The WD can also organize courses for potential game farmers, game ranchers and village committees given at the CAWM (Mweka)/UDSM or by visiting wildlife managers and/or lecturers.

5.3.9 Coordinating Management Oriented Research in Game Farming and Ranching

Although a substantial amount of research has been done into game farming and ranching and there a several books and manuals on the subject, the WD needs to encourage the research of specific Tanzanian wildlife related problems and management issues. Coordination is called for with the various University Departments involved in wildlife as well as TAWIRI. The future game farmers and ranchers association should also provide an input in what it wants done and researched. A great help for the potential game farmer or rancher would be if the WD comes up with manuals on game farming and game ranching which would be made available at cost price. The manual might be financed by an Aid Agency or NGO.

5.3.10 Periodic Review of Policies, Laws and Regulations

Care must be taken that any policies, laws and regulations facilitate new initiatives rather than stifle them. It is therefore important to maintain a dialogue with the actors in the game ranching and farming field to incorporate their views on any changes in the present policies laws and regulations. This is the case for example in the game capture industry where tremendous advances have been made in game capture techniques and the use of drugs which are not reflected in the present Wildlife Act. The same applies to game cropping which is usually done at night, from a vehicle and with the help of a powerful searchlight. The present Wildlife Act does not allow hunting at night and from a vehicle and therefore the Act needs to be changed accordingly.

In addition, the WD needs to provide guidelines for a) the registration of safari hunting, game capture and game cropping companies which should require a minimum amount of equipment, facilities, and capital; and: b) the qualifications of staff such as a professional hunter, resident hunter, game capturer and game cropper all of who require quite different expertise.

109

While appropriate fees and taxes are required to cover the costs of services required from the government, the WD should avoid the imposition of expensive licensing fees and taxes that are not imposed by the livestock or agricultural sector because otherwise game farming and ranching might become uncompetitive. It would also have the effect of dissuading prospective investors who might then opt for investing elsewhere.

5.3.11 Encouraging NGOs and Aid Agencies to Participate in Developing Wildlife Industries

The WD should actively seek to implicate NGOs and aid agencies, In addition to the development of game farming and ranching in general, there is a very definite role that they can play in the planning, development and establishment of wildlife conservancies where village WMA’s and game ranches come together to form one management unit. The activities of NGO’s need to be clearly defined so that there is no duplication of effort, and, in concert with the other actors, the WD has to determine who is going to do what, where, and when.

The following suggestions are made concerning the activities of NGO’s and Aid Agencies in the planning and development of conservancies:

1. Identification and initial survey of potential conservancies.

2. Planning and establishment of conservancies, legal advice and organization.

3. Information on the benefits, organization and development of conservancies.

4. Training of conservancy wildlife managers, staff and village committees.

5. Help in the preparation of management/business plans.

6. Organizing field trips and training courses.

7. Producing manuals on wildlife management and husbandry techniques.

8. Creating contacts between private investors and village wildlife committees.

9. Contribute to vetting contracts between private investors and village wildlife committees.

10. Assist with game counts and ecological surveys.

In collaboration with the WD and other actors, NGOs and Aid Agencies should also become involved in the establishment of a pilot game farm where various wildlife species are bred and kept in captivity and where on-going research is done in such fields as captive keeping and

110

breeding, economics of game farming, market development, processing of wildlife products and feeding experiments. The pilot farm should be integrated into agro-forestry, fish farming and other intensive farming activities and act as a demonstration and information centre for future game farmers and investors. The pilot farm would employ some extension personnel to facilitate the dissemination of information and to provide on the spot advice. The farm would produce information on various aspects of game farming in the form of manuals, videos, posters and brochures which are easily understood by small-scale farmers. The pilot farm would cater primarily for small-scale farmers and investors.

111

Bibliography

Anonymous. 2000. Quick Facts–Hunting and Conservation in Southern Africa, Millennium 2000. Poster Sheet. From figures provided by Debbie Peake, Exec. Dir. Botswana Wildlife Management Association; Constant. Hookgamer, South Africa Professional Hunters Committee; Dept. Of Wildlife and National Parks, Botswana; Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Namibia; Prof. Theuns Eloff, Potchefstroom University; Dieter Ochsenbein, Pres. Commercial Taxidermists and Game Tanners of South Africa; Piet du Plessis, South African Game Organisation; Don Heath, Ed. Zimbabwe Hunter Magazine; Mike Faddy, Professional Hunters Association of Zambia.

Ayeni, J. S., Aire, T. A. and Olomu, J. M. 1983. (Eds) The Helmet Guinea Fowl (Numida meleagris galeata Pallas) in Nigeria. Kainji Lake Research Institute, New Bussa, Nigeria. 219 p.

Bie, S. de. 1991. Wildlife Resources of the West African Savanna. Doctoral Thesis, Agricultural University, Wageningen. The Netherlands. 267 p.

Bothma, J. du P. (ed). 1996. Game Ranch Management. Van Schaik, J. L. Pretoria, South Africa. 639 p.

Codjia, J. T. C. and Heymans, J. C. 1990. Elevage Expérimental des Cricetomes (Cricetomys gambianus et C. emini). Note d’ Information. Description de Quelques Comportements. In: Nature et Faune. Vol.6 No.1 January-March 1990. International Journal On Nature Conservation in Africa. FAO / UNEP. Regional Office for Africa. Accra, Ghana. pp 35-44.

Dorst, J. and Dandelot,P. 1970. A Field Guide to the Larger Mammals of Africa. Collins, London, G.B. 287 p.

Jones, B. T. B. 1995. Wildlife management, utilisation and tourism in communal areas: benefits to communities and improved resource management. Research Discussion Paper No. 5. Directorate of Environmental Affairs, Ministry of Environment and Tourism. Windhoek, Namibia.

Kingdon, J. 1997. The Kingdon Field Guide to African Mammals. Academic Press, London, G.B. 464 p.

Lungren, C. G. 1997. Etude des possibilités pour l’intégration des populations dans les aires de conservation de l’est du Burkina. Report to IUCN-Burkina Faso. Programme for Protected Areas and Biodiversity Conservation in the East of Burkina Faso. 122 p.

112

Lungren, C. G. 1999. Possibilités et contraintes pour le développement durable à travers la gestion rationnelle de la faune: expériences du Projet Pilote du Ranch de Gibier de Nazinga. Contribution No. 4. Atelier Regional sur les Expériences en Matière de Gestion des Ressources Naturelles: Evolution et Perspectives, held at Koudougou, Burkina Faso, 6–10 December 1999. CILSS/USAID. 17 p.

M. A. C. 1997. The Agricultural and Livestock Policy. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. Government Printer. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

M. L. H. S. D. 1996. The National Land Policy. Ministry of Land and Human Sustainable Development. Government Printer, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

M. N. R. T. 1998. The Wildlife Policy of Tanzania. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. Government Printer. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

M. N. R. T. 2000. Draft Wildlife Management Area (WMA) Guidelines. Wildlife Division, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

McKenzie, A. A. (Ed.). 1993. The Capture and Care Manual. Wildlife Decision Support Services ad South Africa Veterinary Foundation. Pretoria.

Mentis, M. 1972. Ungulate Management on Private Land in Natal. Natal Parks Board. 56 p.

Metcalfe, S. 1990. The Campfire Programme in Zimbabwe. An overview of the programme. Its concept and implementation. In: Nature et Faune. Vol.6. No.1 January 1990. International Journal on Nature Conservation in Africa. FAO / UNEP. Regional Office for Africa. Accra, Ghana. pp 22-27.

N. R. C. 1991. Microlivestock: Little-Known Small Animals With a Promising Economic Future. Board on Science and Technology for International Development. National Research Council (NRC). National Academy Press Washington, D.C. USA. 449 p.

Owusu-Nsiah, W. 1999. Exploitation, husbandry and trade in Royal Python (Python regius) in Ghana. In Wildlife and Nature. International Journal on Nature Conservation in Africa. Vol.15 No.2 July- December 1999. FAO /UNEP /PNUE. F.A.O. Regional Office for Africa, Accra, Ghana. pp13-27.

P. A. W. M. 1995. Options for community-based conservation in Tanzania. With special reference to possible benefits and village title. In Leader-Williams, N, Kayera, J. A. & Overton. G. L. Community-Based Conservation in Tanzania. Proceedings of a Workshop

113

Held in February 1994. Planning and Assessment for Wildlife Management Department of Wildlife. March 1995. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. pp163-185.

Ruwet, J. C. L. 1990. Etude et gestion de la faune sauvage: Idées anciennes, tendances nouvelles et perspectives. In: Nature et Faune. Vol.6. No.1 January-March 1990. International Journal on Nature Conservation in Africa. FAO/ UNEP. Regional Office for Africa. Accra, Ghana. p12-21.

Schrage, R. and Yewadan, L. 1995. Abrégé d’ Aulacodiculture. Deutsche Gesellschaft Fur Technische Zusammenabeit (GTZ) Gmbh, Postfach 5180, 65726 Eschborn Republique Federal d’ Allemaggne. 103 p.

Schrage, R and Yewadan, L.T. (eds). 1993. L’ Aulacodiculture: Acquis et Perspectives / Grass-Cutter Production: Achievements and Prospects. Proceedings of the 1’st International Conference held at Cotonou, 1992. Projet Bénino-Allemand d’ Aulacoculture. (GTZ). 226 p.

The Economist. 1986. Science and Technology: Of Butterfly Ranchers and Crocodile Catchers. The Economist March 1986. pp 73-74.

U. R. T. 1974. The Wildlife Conservation Act. Government Printer, Dar es Salaam. United Republic of Tanzania.

U. R. T. 1996. The National Investment Promotion Policy. President’s Office Planning Commission. Dar es Salaam. United Republic of Tanzania.

U. R. T. 1997. The Tanzania Investment Act. Government Printer, Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania.

U. R. T. 1999a. The Land Act. Government Printer, Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania.

U. R. T. 1999b. The Village Land Act. Government Printer, Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania.

Wijnstekers, W. 1995. The Evolution of CITES. A Reference to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. 4th ed. CITES. Geneva, Switzerland.

114

Wilson, V. J. 1987. Action Plan for Duiker Conservation. Pan African Decade of Duiker Research (1985-1994) And Chipangali Duiker Research and Breeding Centre. IUCN/SSC Antelope Specialist Group and Cipangali Wildlife Trust. Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. 27 p.

Zieger, U. and Cauldwell, A. 1998. Wildlife Ecology and Management. Practical Aspects for Zambian Game Ranches. Business Print Centre. Pretoria, South Africa. 167 p.

Young, E. (Ed) 1973. The Capture and Care of Wild Animals in Captivity. The Work of Eighteen Veterinary, Medical and Wildlife Experts. South African Veterinary Association/Southern Africa Wildlife Management Association/South Africa Nature Foundation. Human and Rousseau Publishers (Pty) Ltd. Cape Town, South Africa. 224 p.

115

Appendix 1: Scope Of Work

116

Appendix 1: Scope Of Work

Guidelines For Game Farming And Game Ranching

EPIQ/Tanzania TASK ORDER

EPIQ/Tanzania is a buy-in from USAID/Tanzania into EPIQ (Environmental Policy and Institutional Strengthening Indefinite Quantity Contract), a USAID/Washington Global Bureau sponsored mechanism. International Resources Group (IRG) is the lead contractor in the EPIQ consortium. EPIQ/T supports achievement of USAID/Tanzania’s Strategic Objective in E/NRM (Strategic Objective # 2, or “SO2). EPIQ/T strives to achieve its objective through assisting the government of Tanzania (GOT) to develop an enabling environment for community-based natural resource management (CBNRM). Its main partner in this process is the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, and its Wildlife Division (WD). EPIQ/Tanzania maintains an office in Dar es Salaam with full time staff, complemented by Tanzanian and expatriate consultants.

CBC Advisory Services (GTZ)

As part of the Tanzanian-German Government Agreement on Technical Cooperation, GTZ provides advisory and other services to the CBC section in the Wildlife Division.

The Game Farming and Ranching Consultancy is conducted and financed as a joint tri-partite activity.

Activity Background

Implementation of the Wildlife Policy of Tanzania (WPT) will open the door for a number of enterprise opportunities for the local communities that now benefit little from the presence of wildlife in their areas. One of these benefits is for the communities to establish and manage Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) outside protected areas. There are indeed other benefits to be accrued from the implementation of the new policy, however, little is actually known about which kinds of opportunities exist, or the costs and benefits of these opportunities. Some of these opportunities, their costs and benefits will be known from a study that looks at the Economic Opportunities in the Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs), which is implemented by the Wildlife Division, through EPIQ support. Clearly however, one of the potential economic opportunities is Game Ranching and Game Farming.

While the terms of wildlife farming, game farming, wildlife ranching and game ranching have often been used in the past in different ways, in Africa, these terms are becoming specific to the following meanings:

117

Game farming: the intensive husbandry of 1 or few wildlife species on relatively small surface areas wherever suitable infrastructures and services are available in urban or rural areas (usually less than 1 ha to about 25 ha), totally enclosed, and under more-or-less heavily managed conditions that tend to domesticate the animals, with live sales, meat or other specific products being the main revenue; with or without tourism; of especial interest to small investors or small land holders; synonymous with “wildlife farming,” at least generally within the African context

Game ranching: the extensive multi-form utilization of multi-species on relatively large surface areas (usually 10.000 ha to 15.000 ha when fenced, or up to over 100.000 ha under non-fenced conditions that are especially applicable to joint community/commercial investors) where a wide range of complementary uses are managed so as to render them compatible, including fishing, tourism, safari hunting, cropping and live capture/sales; usually in agriculturally marginal, arid or semi-arid land; synonymous with the term “wildlife ranching” within the African context

The Wildlife Policy recommends the development and promotion of game farming and game ranching in Tanzania, and encourages private sector to take the initiative. The Wildlife Division (WD) recognizes that there is considerable experience with game farming and ranching in the region, but this experience is lacking in Tanzania. Given that game farming/ranching are not yet well-developed in Tanzania, the Wildlife Division is conducting this study in order to provide information and propose guidelines, which can be used in establishing game ranching/farming. In the opinion of the WD, game ranches and game farms should be established on public lands and wishes to avoid the fencing of large tracts of land, especially within migratory areas. The challenge is to promote these activities in a manner that is consistent with the broader objectives and strategies of the Wildlife Policy.

There is a clear need for guidelines for local communities and private sector organizations interested in pursuing game ranching and farming to help ensure that these activities are compatible with the sustainable use of wildlife resources and with other efforts to protect and conserve biodiversity in Tanzania. Also, there is a need to provide more information to government authorities about game farming/ranching issues, so that they can facilitate the establishment and operation of such enterprises while taking into account the international obligations of Tanzania under CITES and other regulations governing the production and trade of wildlife products.

The proposed study is not intended to be an exhaustive review of the experience and techniques of game farming and game ranching. Rather, the purpose of this study is to review the most critical issues related to the development of game farming/ranching in Tanzania and to explore the options for the expansion of these activities in the context of implementing the new Wildlife Policy, with particular attention to increasing support for Community Based Conservation (CBC) in Tanzania. The study team should help the WD and its partners to capitalize upon pertinent

118

experience acquired outside of Tanzania, as well as lessons learned from similar activities undertaken in Tanzania, so as to summarize the “state of the art” in game farming and game ranching. The results of this analysis are intended to serve as the basis for formulating guidelines for those activities in Tanzania.

The work of the wildlife farming and ranching team is also expected to complement the analysis of the economic opportunities team, and will in turn be complemented by the work of study teams addressing the issues of taxation, revenues, benefit sharing, and joint ventures.

The Assignment

A number of tasks will need to be addressed by the study team, as described below.

Review of critical issues

The prospect of increased investment in game farming and game ranching raises a number of concerns and challenging issues. The team should examine these in the context of Tanzania and discuss the most critical concerns and issues, including, for example:

Given the current policy environment and situation of land and wildlife tenure, is there likely to be support and interest among local communities and the private sector for game ranching and/or farming? The consultants will need to briefly describe the tenure situation and comment on the degree to which it affects the prospects for successful game ranching/farming activities in Tanzania. The consultant will need to look into the present wildlife policy and laws regarding game farming and ranching, wildlife ownership and the authority to use wildlife.

To what extent is wildlife farming/ranching compatible with the conservation of wildlife? How can “production” conservation (such as game ranching) co-exist with “protection” conservation (as carried out in the national parks)?

Review the impact of collecting specimens in the wild and how that may effect populations and their ability to survive.

How are game farms or ranches likely to affect the movement of wildlife populations in parks and other protected areas, migratory areas and buffer zones?

What might be the impact of watering points developed for game ranches, especially with respect to native wildlife populations residing in adjacent parks and game reserves?

What land use conflicts or other serious problems have arisen in connection with wildlife farming and ranching experiences, particularly in Tanzania (or the region), that will need to be

119

addressed if such activities are to be promoted and expanded in Tanzania? For example, are there chances that poaching will increase as a result of having wildlife farms or ranches?

Are there sufficient and accessible markets for the anticipated output of game farms and ranches?

What level of technical and other support for game farming/ranching is desirable from the technical agencies of the Government of Tanzania (such as WD), and do these agencies have the trained personnel, expertise and capacity to provide such support?

Review of experience and summary of the “State of the Art” of game farming and game ranching

The team should briefly discuss the range of experiences both inside and outside of Tanzania, and summarize the evolving “state of the art” with respect to wildlife farming and game ranching, using the following questions:

What are some key lessons learned from these experiences?

What are the principal elements of successful ventures in game ranching or farming?

What are the most cost-effective methods or means to control wildlife movement and to reduce poaching?

What other land uses have been shown to be compatible (or incompatible) with wildlife farms and ranches?

What are some particular cases or experiences that are especially relevant to the situation in Tanzania?

What are the site conditions and basic requirements for successful game farming and ranching, such as minimum size, breeding, additional food supplies, etc?

How have operators managed to gain access to markets for wildlife products?

What kinds of investments and improvements are typically needed for successful game farms and ranches, and what are the basic standards for infrastructure?

To what extent have the game farms and ranches reduced pressure on wild populations? How have they served as centers for the conservation of biological diversity? Have they contributed to sound ecosystem management?

120

What kind of training and capacity-building is likely to be required to successfully promote and support community-based game farming and ranching ventures in Tanzania?

Options for promotion and expansion of game farming and game ranching in Tanzania

Following the review of critical issues and an analysis of the “state of the art, the study team will discuss the feasibility of different options which might be pursued to promote and expand wildlife farming and game ranching in Tanzania. This discussion should include a review of the following issues:

What types of areas or specific zones in Tanzania should be targeted for game farming and ranching? How can these areas be identified and what should be done to promote game ranching according to its potential in these areas? Establish criteria for selecting suitable game farm and ranch sites.

What should be the criteria or basic conditions (GUIDELINES) to be met prior to the establishment and operation of these activities?

What steps should be taken to minimize interference from game ranching with the operation of national parks, game reserves, hunting concessions and WMAs? On no account should game ranching operations compromise the establishment of WMAs.

In the context of Tanzania, how might the operators of game farms or ranches control or limit poaching and wildlife movements?

What crucial aspects of these operations should be regulated, and what aspects should be left to the discretion of the private sector, local communities and the marketplace? Define the role of the WD relative to the management of game farms and ranches.

Which mechanisms can be used to ensure that there is equitable benefit sharing and revenue distribution among stakeholders, especially benefits to communities?

What are the principal actions which need to be undertaken by the Government, aid agencies, the private sector and local communities to develop game farming/ranching activities in a manner consistent with the implementation of the new Wildlife Policy and CBC orientation?

What should be the respective roles of national government authorities, local government, local communities, the private sector, NGOs and other stakeholders and partners in the development of wildlife hunting and game ranching in Tanzania?

121

The consultants should provide a list of species that are suitable for game farming which are found or which were once found in Tanzania. Emphasis should be placed on economic feasibility and local and international demand.

Of particular important is the registration of game farms and ranches, and the outlets and dealers in wildlife products. A system has to be proposed which identifies farmed or ranched game products from those harvested in the wild.

What investments are required for a game farm or a game ranch, both on the part of a private investor or local community, and public sector agencies charged with providing supportive services and infrastructure? Are suitable sources of financing available?

When game farms or ranches are being established are EIAs required? If yes, what are important aspects and criteria to consider?

What actions might be taken to ensure access to potential markets for wildlife products?

Implications for the WMA Guidelines and other regulations

Should game farming/ranching be excluded or authorized in WMA’s? The current thinking within Wildlife Division is that game farming and game ranching will take place outside WMAs. It is not clear what this would imply in terns of community participation in natural resources management. Consultants should provide guidelines which would indicate how communities can benefit from the establishment of game farming and game ranches ?

What are the feasibility and profitability of game farming or game ranching in the vicinity of WMAs?

Under what conditions, and how should game farming/ranching be supported by the policy and legislative framework?

What regulatory changes or revisions to the policy and legal framework for wildlife management in Tanzania might be required in order to facilitate and encourage the development of game farming and game ranching?

Proposed study team

To carry out the proposed field study and analysis, a team of three persons is proposed:

an internationally recruited specialist in game ranching/farming, with at least 10 years practical field experience in Africa

122

an international ecologist/wildlife manager with a solid understanding of wildlife farming and ranching in Tanzania or East Africa. The consultant must also have the understanding of international treaties regarding wildlife management.

Tanzanian with experience and knowledge of wildlife management, natural resource management closely familiar with current policies and laws, livestock issues, forestry, agriculture and the institutional context for Community Based Conservation and wildlife conservation in Tanzania.

The study team will be supported by the EPIQ/Tanzania Project Technical Manager and Policy Support specialist with respect to documentation, orientation, and oversight. The EPIQ/Tanzania office will also provide logistical and administrative support to the team, including assistance with scheduling of meetings and field visits. GTZ will meet costs of one international consultant (Dr. Malte Sommerlatte). GTZ will also be responsible in ensuring that, as joint undertaking, the study is progressing as planned.

Level Of Effort (LOE) And Deliverables

Detailed LOE

CONSULTANT TASK DAYS

Clark Lungren,Game farming and ranching specialist

Team Leader responsible for the study team organization and for the timely completion and quality of deliverables

Focus on analysis of critical issues, feasibility of options and practical steps to promote and support game farming and game ranching

Work with the team to jointly address tasks and issues mentioned in section 3

25 days, including 2 days travel, 20 days for preparation, consultations, field work and report drafting, and 3 days to respond to comments and to finalize the report

Malte SommerlatteWildlife management specialist

To review the literature and to identify issues pertaining to game farming and game ranching.

To assist in understanding of the issues pertaining to game farming and game ranching, including its variants such as trophy hunting, cropping, game capture, game viewing and breeding of game animals outside PA.

To assist with the analysis of critical issues and summary of the “state of the art” based on prior experiences and research in the region.

To prepare report covering issues raised section 3 above and suggest guidelines for establishing wildlife farming and game ranching in Tanzania.

20 days, including 18 days of consultations, fieldwork and report write-up

Charles Mlingwa To facilitate consultations and field visits in-country, and with the analysis of game ranching experiences in Tanzania

20 days, including 18 days of consultations, fieldwork and report write-

123

To analyze and the extent to which present wildlife policy, land policy, forestry policy, livestock and legal framework, CITES, tenure issues, taxation, provide conducive environment for game farming and ranching as well as the authority to use wildlife in the manner that would ensure benefits to all stakeholders.

Develop with the team, guidelines for game farming and ranching in Tanzania.

Lead for analysis of the implications of the study results for the WMA guidelines and other regulations

up

Deliverables

Initial draft report containing issues raised under 3 as well as proposed guidelines, submitted to EPIQ/T and Wildlife Division 3 copies to each institution plus a diskette with the report and any annexes in Word format.

A presentation of report findings to key stakeholders and policy makers in a meeting to be scheduled by WD in consultation with EPIQ/Tanzania and GTZ/T

Final report covering all the above issues under this SOW submitted to EPIQ/T and Wildlife Division (5 copies each, plus a diskette with report and any annexes in Word format) within 10 working days following receipt of comments on the draft report.

Timing

This assignment is to be carried out within a period of three weeks in Tanzania, ideally starting from the last week of April 2000. The actual start date will depend on the approval process and the confirmed availability of the consultants. A draft report will be submitted at the completion of the consultations and fieldwork in-country, preferably several days in advance of the presentation of the report findings. The final report shall be submitted after comments are received, and no later than 6 weeks from the beginning of fieldwork.

Relationship To EPIQ/T Mission

This assignment is crucial from the perspective of contributing to the process of operationalizing the Wildlife Policy of Tanzania. The WD has developed draft guidelines for establishment of WMAs. WMAs will enable local communities be more responsible for the management of natural resources and also accrue benefits from the different economic and social development options that will be identified in this study. The completion of this work will enable WD achieve its objective of identifying and assessing the best practices with respect to game farming and game ranching that could be promoted in the interests of managing wildlife resources in a manner which will benefit local communities and contribute to the sustainable development of

124

Tanzania. It will also help USAID /T achieve its E/NRM Strategic Objective #2 in supporting the GOT in the management of natural resources.

EPIQ Oversight

The consultants will report to and work very closely with the EPIQ Project Technical Manager, Dr. Hussein Sosovele. Additional assistance will be provided by Eva Kiwango, EPIQ Policy Support Specialist.

125

Appendix 2: List Of People Contacted

126

Appendix 2: List of People ContactedNo. Name Title Institution or Organization Address1 Dr. Hussein Sosovele Project Technical Manager EPIQ/Tanzania P.O. Box 23261, Dar es Salaam. Tel. 051 666088;

Fax: 051 668611; [email protected]; www.epiq.tz;

2 Dr. Rolf Baldus Community Wildlife Management Advisor

GTZ/WD-CBC P.O. Box 1519, Dar es Salaam. Tel. 051 866065, Fax: 051 116504: [email protected]

3 Eva Kiwango Policy Support Specialist EPIQ/Tanzania P.O. Box 23261, Dar es Salaam. Tel. 051 666088; Fax: 051 668611; [email protected]; www.epiq.tz;

4 Juma A. Kayera Assistant Director Wildlife Division P.O. Box 1994, Dar es Salaam. Tel. 051 866408; Fax: 051 863496; [email protected]

5 Charles J. Mdoe Assistant Director Wildlife Division P.O. Box 1994, Dar es Salaam. Tel. 051 866408; Fax: 051 863496; [email protected]

6 Julius D.N. Kibebe Officer in Charge Trophy hunting

Wildlife Division P.O. Box 1994, Dar es Salaam. Tel. 051 866408; Fax: 051 863496; [email protected]

7 Dr. A.N. Songorwa Senior Game Officer Community Based Conservation

Wildlife Division P.O. Box 1994, Dar es Salaam. Tel. 051 866065/866418; [email protected]

8 S.A. Kaihula Principal Game OfficerCommunity Based Conservation

Wildlife Division P.O. Box 1994, Dar es Salaam. Tel. 051 866065/866418 [email protected]

9 Stanslaus M. Mpaze Senior Economist Tanzania Investment Centre P.O. Box 938, Dar es Salaam. Tel 051 116328-32; Fax 051 118253; [email protected]; www.cats-net.com/tic/

10 Fidelis K. Mutakyamilwa

I/C Lands Development Services

Ministry of Lands & Human Settlements Development P.O. Box 9230, Dar es Salaam, Tel. 051 121241-9 Fax: 051 124576: [email protected]

11 Hashim Mbonde Director Hambo Crocodile Farm Ltd P.O. Box 67408, Dar es Salaam. Tel. 0811 320823

12 Tatu Mbonde Hambo Crocodile Farm Ltd P.O. Box 67408, Dar es Salaam. Tel. 0811 320823

13 Musa Bakari Ranch Attendant Kaole Mamba Ranch–Bagamoyo P.O. Box 203864, Dar es Salaam. Tel. 051 181615

14 Jaoe Beraducci Managing Director Moutain Bird, Tortoise’s Snake Farm & Reptile Centre P.O. Box 2282, Arusha. Tel/Fax 057 5862

127

No. Name Title Institution or Organization Address15 Dr. Herman J. Mwagen Conservation Director WWF Tanzania Programme Office P.O. Box 63117, Dar es Salaam. Tel. 051 75346

Fax 051 75535: [email protected]

16 Dr. Paul R. Siegel Country Representative WWF Tanzania Programme Office P.O. Bos 63117, Dar es Salaam. Tel. 051 75346 Fax 051 75535: [email protected]

17 Beny Bale Director Meserani Snake Park (Nyamazela Trading Co(T) Ltd P.O. 13669, Arusha. Tel.0811 510707; [email protected]

18 Calisit Munishi Ranch Director Manyara Cattle Ranchi P.O. Box 308, Arusha19 Eric S. Ngimaryo Director Tanganyika Wildlife Films & Safaris Ltd

(“Endarakawai Wilidlife Ranch”)P.O. Box 49, Arusha, Tel.057 508547, 055 53898, 051 866654: [email protected]; [email protected]

20 Raphael Koisanga Ranch Director Tanganyika Wildlife Films & Safaris Ltd (“Endarakawai Wilidlife Ranch”)

P.O. Box 49, Arusha, Tel.057 2713

21 Ezekiel A. Dembe Planning manager Tanzania National Parks P.O. BOX 3134, Arusha. Tel. 057 3471/4082; Fax: 057 8216; [email protected]. t z; [email protected]

22 George J.M. Lemi Tourism Officer Tanzania National Parks P.O. BOX 3134, Arusha. Tel. 057 3471/4082; Fax: 057 8216; [email protected]; [email protected]

23 Dr. James Kahurananga

Senior Project Officer, PORI Project, community Conservation Service Centre

African Wildlife Foundation P.O. BOX 2658, Arusha. Tel/Fax 057 4453; [email protected]

24 J. Sekumbo Senior Consultant Presidential Parastatal Sector Reform Commission P.O. Box 9252, Dar es Salaam. Tel 051 115482/116268/135371; Fax 051 113065/6

25 Scott Coles Director/Guide Miombo Safaris Ltd P.O. Box 354, Dar es Salaam. Tel. 051 666174; Fax 051 667692; [email protected]

26 Michael D. Mantheakis Director/Professional Hunter Miombo Safaris Ltd P.O. Box 354, Dar es Salaam. Tel. 051 666174; Fax 051 667692; [email protected]

27 Dr. Kjell Christophersen

Senior manager, pacific Northwest

International Resources Group, USA 1211 Connecticut Ave. NW Suite 700, Washington DC 200036, USA, Tel. 202-289-01000 Fax 202-289-7601

28 Eliab G. Orio Hunting Manager Tanzania Wildlife Corporation/Glitter Germs Limited P.O. Box 1144, Arusha. Tel. 057 508830/1 Fax: 057 508239/508948: [email protected]

29 J. Kami Coordinator, participatory Village Land Use management

National Land Use Planning Commission, MLHSD P.O. Box 76650, Dar es Salaam. Tel. 051 116352; Tel/Fax 051 116351

128

No. Name Title Institution or Organization AddressProject

30 E. Tibasana Ass. Coord. Participatory Village Land Use Management Project

National Land Use Planning commission, MLHSD P.O. Box 76650, Dar es Salaam. Tel. 051 116352; Tel/Fax 051 116351

129

Appendix 3: Itinerary Of Meetings And Field Visits

130

Appendix 3: Itinerary of Meetings and Field Visits

Executants: Clark Lungren, Malte Sommerlatte & Charles Mlingwa.

Date Activity In Consultation/Contact People

3/5/00A meeting at the Wildlife Division (WD) to discussthe Scope of Work for the consultants,background information on game farming and ranching in Tanzania,establishment of Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs), and expectations of the WD on guidelines for farming and ranching.

H. Sosovele, R.D. Baldus, E. Kiwango, C. Mdoe, J.A. Kayera, J. Kibebe.

3/5/00 Field visits toHambo Crocodile Farm at Bunju in Dar es Salaam, andKaole Mamba Ranch’ at Kaole in Bagamoyo.

Tatu Mbonde (Hambo Crocodile Farm)Musa Bakari (Kaole Mamba Ranch).

4/5/00A meeting at the WDto finalise the Scope of Work for the consultants,to make arrangements for field visit to Arusha, and to discuss experiences on Community Based Conservation (CBC) in relation to WMAs.

H. Sosovele, E. Kiwango, J.A. Kayera, J. Kibebe, R.D. Baldus, A.N. Songorwa, S.A. Kaihula.

5/5/00A meeting at the Tanzania Investment Centre (TIC) to get information on investment opportunities and regulations in Tanzania.

S.M. Mpaze

6/5/00Field visit to the Mountain Bird, Tortoise’s, Snake Farm & Reptile Centre in Arusha, toobserve the various wildlife species kept at the Farm, anddiscuss the opportunities and problems of game farming in Tanzania.

Joe Beraducci, Eva Kiwango, J. Kibebe.

7/5/00 Field visits to (1) Meserani Snake Park, and (2) Manyara Cattle Ranch in Arusha, toobserve the various wildlife species and development of the Park,discuss issues of game farming and ranching in Tanzania, anddiscuss wildlife/cattle issues and vision of the future for Manyara Ranch

Berry Bale, Calist Munishi, J. Kibebe.

8/5/00 Field visit to Endarakwai Wildlife Ranch in West Kilimanjaro, toget information on wildlife production activities and problems in the area,to discuss the opportunities and future plans including relationships (e.g. benefit-sharing) with surrounding local communities.

E.S. Ng’maryo, R. Koisanga, T. Ole Kuya, E.Kiwango, J. Kibebe.

9/5/00 Meeting at TANAPA headquarters, AWF (Tanzania office) and TAWICO in Arusha, toseek TANAPA’s opinion on WMAs in view of their Community Conservation Service programmes, interaction with other actors and potential game ranches

E. Dembe, G. Lemi, T. Ole Mako, D. Njau, D. Kessy, J. Kahurananga, E. G. Orio, E. Kiwango, J. Kibebe.

131

Date Activity In Consultation/Contact Peopleseek TANAPA’s opinion on game farming/ranching next to parks, marketsseek AWF’s opinion on WMAs and game farming/ranching in view of their community conservation projects such as PORI; game ranches as componentsseek TAWICO’s opinion on the role of WMAs and game ranching in local hunting (for game meat) and sport hunting (for tourists) operations, markets

10/5/00 Meeting at EPIQ: review findings, identify information gaps from field visitsA meeting at PSRC centre to seek PSRC’s opinion on possibilities for cattle ranches earmarked for privatization becoming WMAs or game ranches

J. Kibebe, E. Kiwango.J. Sekumbo

12/5/00Meeting at Miombo Safaris office to seek opinion on the role/interaction of WMAs and game ranching in sport hunting operations.

S. Coles, M.D. Mantheakis.

16/5/00A meeting at NLUPC in Dar es Salaam to seek opinion of the National Land Use Planning Commission (NLUPC) on the establishment of WMAs and community-based game ranching

J. Kami, E. Tibasana

132

Appendix 4: Documents Collected or Reviewed During the Consultancy

133

Appendix 4: Documents Collected or Reviewed During the Consultancy

Akosim C., Yahaya S. M and Maisamari, B. (1999) Feasibility of game ranching for meat production in Africa: In Wildlife and Nature. International Journal on Nature Conservation in Africa. Vol.15 No.2 July-December 1999. FAO /UNEP / PNUE. F.A.O. Regional Office for Africa, Accra, Ghana. pp2-12.

Christophersen K., Hagen R and Jambyia G. (2000). Economic opportunities in wildlife management areas. Environmental Policy and Institutional Strengthening Indefinite Quantity Contract. IRG, Winrock International, and Harvard Institute for International Development. The Wildlife Division of Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. USAID / Tanzania. 58 P.

D. W. 1993a. Policy and management plan for Tanzania’s avifauna with special reference to the live bird trade. Department of Wildlife (DW). Ministry of Tourism, Natural Resources and Environment. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 16 p.

D. W. 1993b. Policy and management plan for the Nile crocodile. Department of Wildlife (DW). Ministry of Tourism, Natural Resources and Environment. Dar es Salaam. Republic of Tanzania. 14 p.

D. W. 1993c. Policy and management plan for the ostrich in Tanzania. Department of Wildlife.(DW). Ministry of Tourism Natural Resources and Environment. Dar es Salaam, Republic of Tanzania. 14 p.

Eltringham S. K. 1984. Wildlife Ranching, Wildlife Resources and Economic Development. John Wiley Sons; Chichester. pp211-230.

Emerton L. 2000. Community-based incentives for nature conservation. IUCN The World Conservation Union Eastern Africa. Regional Office and Economics Unit. 45 p.

Emerton L. (1999?). Community conservation research in Africa. Principles and comparative practice. Paper No. 5. Why wildlife conservation has not economically benefited communities in Africa. Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester, Crawford House, Precinct Centre. African Wildlife Foundation (AWF). p ?.

Emerton L. (1999?). Community conservation research in Africa. Principles and comparative practice. Paper No. 9. The nature of benefits and the benefits of nature: why wildlife conservation has not economically benefited communities in Africa. African Wildlife

134

Foundation (AWF). Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester, Crawford House, Precinct Centre. 18 p.

Forrester, K. K. (ed) 1999. Mafuluto Village: Report of participatory land use planning activities carried out in Mafuluto village, Idodi Division, 19-22 May 1999. Report No MVR 1. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. Wildlife division and Tanzania National Parks. Iringa District Council. Mbomipa Project, Iringa District National Resources Office. 13 p.

Gardner B, JR. 1989. The viewing value of elephants. Revised draft, August 1989. A project supported by the Ivory Trade Review Group. Department of Economics. University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195. 38 p.

Hartley, D. and Hunter N. 1997. Community wildlife management: turning theory into practice. A paper prepared for the Department for International Development Natural Resources Advisers’ Conference, Sparsholt College, Winchester. (6-10 July 1997). International Development Natural Resources. 21 p.

Hyera, J. M. K. 1990. Veterinary and virological aspects associated with driving cattle on foot via a stock route through the Selous Game Reserve. A consultancy report prepared at the request of the Selous Conservation Programme. Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). Dar es Salaam. Tanzania. SCP Discussion Paper No.11. 12 p. Baldus R.D (ed).

Inamdar, A. and Cobb, S. 1998. Can wildlife contribute to poverty elimination?. The Department for International Development Linking Policy and Practice in Biodiversity: Wildlife Issues Paper. EDG the Environment and Development Group. 39 p.

Jambyia, G. and Kiwango, E. 1999. The case of Duru-Haitemba community-based forest management project. Babati District, Arusha Region Tanzania. An assessment of community-based natural resource management. EPIQ /Tanzania. 33 p.

Kaare, B. 2000. The Tanzania National Land Policy: reflection on some of its probable consequences on the pastoral and hunter-gatherer peoples. Department of Insurance and Social Security Administration, Institute of Finance Management, Dar es Aslaam. 21 p.

Kabigumila, J. 1995. Assessment of breeding performance of captive tortoises in Arusha and Dar es Salaam tortoises farms. October 1995. Ministry of Tourism, Natural Resources and Environment. Tanzania. 14 p.

135

Laarman, J. and Gregersen, H. 1994. Policy Brief. No.5 July 1994. Making nature-based tourism contribute to sustainable development: A policy framework. The Environmental and Natural Resources Policy and Training Project. USAID-Funded. Environmental and Natural Resources Policy and Training Project. 6 p.

Laarman, J. G. and Durst,P. B. 1991. Nature tourism as a tool for economic development and conservation of natural resources. Draft. 34 p.

Leader-Williams N., Kayera, J. A and Overton, G. L. 1995. Mining in protected areas in Tanzania. planning and assessment for wildlife management. Department of Wildlife. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, March 1995. 30 p.

Leader-Williams, N and Tibanyenda, R K. 1995. The Live Bird Trade in Tanzania. Proceedings of a workshop, held in December 1991. Planning and Assessment for Wildlife Management. Department of Wildlife. Dar es Salaam, March 1995. Tanzania. 115 p.

Leader-Williams N, Kayera, J. A and Overton, G. L. (Eds) 1996. Tourist Hunting in Tanzania. Proceedings of a Workshop, held in July 1993. Planning and Assessment for Wildlife Management. Department of Wildlife. Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No.14.

IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom. viii + 138 p.

Lindberg K., McCool, S. and Stankey, G. 1996. Research notes and reports. Rethinking carrying capacity. pp 460-465.

Lindeque, M. 1999. Policy on capture, keeping in captivity, trading and transporting live wild animals in Namibia. Ministry of Environment and Tourism. Republic of Namibia. 23 p.

Lindeque, M. 1999. Policy on game fences and the management of game-fenced areas (excluding proclaimed protected areas). Ministry of Environment and Tourism. Republic of Namibia. p4-9.

Lindeque, M. 1999. General policy on wildlife production and utilization in Namibia. Ministry of Environment and Tourism. Republic of Namibia. 11 p.

Majamba, H. I. 2000. Legal aspects of the draft guidelines for wildlife management areas (WMA’S) EPIQ (USAID) / Tanzania Natural Resources Management Project and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. (Wildlife Division). Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania. 38 p.

136

M.N.R.T. 1998. The Wildlife Policy of Tanzania. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 35 p.

M. N. R T. 1997. National Fisheries Sector Policy and Strategy Statement. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. The United Republic of Tanzania. 24 p.

M.N.R.T.F.B.D. 2000. Support to formulation of natural forestry programme in Tanzania. Proceedings of the orientation workshop on beekeeping, 18-19 April 2000, Dar es Salaam. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism Forestry and Beekeeping Division. Tanzania.109 p.

M.L.H.S.D. 1998. Guidelines for Participatory Village Land Use Management in Tanzania. First Edition, December 1998. Ministry of Lands and Human Settlements Development. National Land Use Planning Commission. Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. 152 p.

M.L.H.S.D. 1999. The Land Act No.4 of 1999. and The Village Land Act No.5 of 1999. Ministry of Lands and Human Settlements Development (MLHSD). Tanzania. 4 p.

Mgode, H. M. 1999. Hambo Crocodile Conservation Village. The crocodile conservation village and sustainable management of the Nile crocodile. P.O.Box 67404 Dar es Salaam. Tanzania. 19 p.

M.N.R.T. 1998. National Beekeeping Policy. March 1998. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. Dar es Salaam. Tanzania. 57 p.

Monela G. C., Zahabu E., Malinbwi R. E., Jambyia, G and Misana, S. 2000. Socio-economics of charcoal extraction in Tanzania: A case of eastern part of Tanzania. Forestry and Nature Conservation. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 13 p.

N.C.A.A. 1999. A community based natural resource management assessment (CBNRM). Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority (NCAA). 25 p.

N.F.P. 1998. National Forest Policy. Dar es Salaam March 1998. N.F.P./ Tanzania. 59 p.

Nshala, R. 1999. Granting Hunting Blocks in Tanzania: The Need for Reform. Policy Brief No.5. Lawyers’ Environmental Action Team, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 29 p.

Nshala R., Ngoitiko, D and Gardner, B. 1999. Natural Resource. Management By-Laws. Lawyers Environmental Action Team (LEAT), Dorobo Fund for Tanzania. EPIQ/Tanzania/USAID. 84 p.

137

Ndiaye, S. 1999. Trade in wild species in Senegal. In Wildlife and Nature. International Journal on Nature Conservation in Africa. vol.15 No.2 July-December 1999. FAO /UNEP / PNUE. F.A.O. Regional Office for Africa, Accra, Ghana. pp28-38.

Nomoko M. 1999. Initiatives towards the restoration of ostrich populations in the Sahel. In Wildlife and Nature. International Journal on Nature Conservation in Africa. vol.15, No.2 July-December 1999. FAO /UNEP / PNUE. F.A.O. Regional Office for Africa, Accra, Ghana. pp39-48.

Okaeme, A.N., Ayorinde, K.L. and Ayeni, J.S.O. 1986. A General Guideline on Guineafowl Management for Meat Production. Kainji Lake Researche Institute Occasional Paper. No 1. Kainji Lake Research Institute Private Mail Bag 6006. New Bussa, Nigeria. 26 p.

Owusu-Nsiah, W. 1999. Exploitation, husbandry and trade in Royal Python (python regius) in Ghana. In Wildlife and Nature. International Journal on Nature Conservation in Africa. vol.15 No.2 July- December 1999. FAO/UNEP/PNUE. Regional Office for Africa, Accra, Ghana. pp13-27.

P. O. R. I. (1999?). USAID support to Partnership Option for Resources Use Innovations (PORI). Project of the African Wildlife Foundation in Tanzania. Partnership Option for Resources Use Innovations (PORI). Project of the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF). USAID/Tanzania. 5 p.

Prato, A. A. (2000?). Economic value of wildlife. 8 p.

P. O. 1997. Tanzania Investment Centre. Procedure for Obtaining TIC Certificate of Incentives. President’s Office (PO). United Republic of Tanzania. 5 p.

P. O. P. C. 1996. The National Investment Promotion Policy. President’s Office Planning Commission. Dar es Salaam, October 1996. United Republic of Tanzania. 45 p.

S. R. C. S. 1999. The Serengeti Regional Conservation Strategy. A community based natural resource management (CBNRM) assessment. Serengeti Regional Conservation Strategy (SRCS). 48 p.

Siege, L. and Baldus, R D.(Eds). 2000. From Decline to Recovery, the Elephants of the Selous. Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit Selous, Saadani and Katavi Rukwa Conservation Programmes, Community Based Conservation. Wildlife Division. Dar es Salaam 2000. Tanzania Wildlife Discussion Paper No 27. 6 p.

138

Shauri, V. and Hitchcock, L. 1999. Wildlife Corridors and Buffer Zones in Tanzania: Political willpower and wildlife management in Tanzania. Policy Brief No. 2. April 1999. Lawyers’ Environmental Action Team (LEAT). Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 19 p.

S. C. P. 1999. Selous Conservation Programme. July 1999. / G.T.Z

Shari-Kasulu, S. B. 1999. Beekeeping in Kasulu District. In Njiro Wildlife Research Centre. Issue No.11 March 1999. Njiro Newsletter. Arusha, Tanzania. 11 p.

Songorwa, A. N. 1999. Community-based wildlife management (CWM) in Tanzania: Are the communities interested ?. World Development vol.27, No.12. pp2061-2079.

Southgate, D. (ed). 1999. Round table discussion on wildlife policy (1998) and community based conservation. Bagamoyo, Tanzania 25-26 January 1999. 39 p.

Sosovele, H. (2000?). An introduction to the EIA process. This briefing paper explain what is Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Institute of Resources Assessment. Dar es Salaam Tanzania. 6 p.

Sosovele, H. (2000?). EIA and the project cycle. Institute of Resource Assessment. University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 10 p.

T. N. P. N. P. C. 1994. National Policies for National Parks in Tanzania. Tanzania National Parks National Policy Committee. March 1994. Management Policies. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Tanzania. 66 p.

T. T. C. S. 1999. Macro economic reforms and sustainable development in Southern Africa. Tanzania Tourism Case Study. Economic Research Bureau. University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 14 p.

TA.WI.CO/GGL. 2000. Project proposal for game cropping, March 2000. Tanzania Wildlife Corporation and Glitter Gems Ltd. TAWICO/GGL. Arusha Tanzania. 16 p.

T. L. C. T. 2000. Trust deed of Tanzania Land Conservation Trust (TLCT). In the trustees’ incorporation ordinance (chapter 375 of the Laws of Tanzania). 35 p.

T. L. C. T. 2000. Rational for allocating Manyara ranch to the proposed Tanzania Land Conservation Trust (TLCT). 3 p.

Thresher, P. 1981. The economics of a lion. Schaller, GS. The serengeti Lion. Uniersity of Chicago. pp34-35.

139

T. W. F. A. 2000. Draft of the Tanzania Wildlife Farmers’ Association. Tanzania Wildlife Farmers Association. Po box 68406, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 8 p.

T. G. T. Safaris and Hurt, R. Safaris. 1995. Environmental protection and village benefits through Robin Hurt Safaris (TZ) Ltd. Tanzania Game Trakers Safaris and Robin Hurt Safaris. Dar es Salaam: Planning and assessment for wildlife management, Tanzania. 9 p.

U. R. T. 1978. An Act to Amend the Wildlife Conservation Act, 1974. United Republic of Tanzania. pp229-237.

U. R. T. 1997. The Tanzania Investment Act 1997. No. 26-27. pp435-469.

U. R. T. 1997. National Environmental Policy. Vice President’s Office. December 1997. Dar es Salaam. United Republic of Tanzania. 41 p.

U. R. T. 1997. Agricultural and livestock policy, 1997. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Dar es Salaam, January 1997. United Republic of Tanzania. pp153-155.

Wily, L A. 1999. The socio-politics of emerging community management of forest in the East African State of Tanzania. 29 p.

Wily, L A. 1999. Document on community-based forest management in Tanzania. 8 p.

W. D. 2000. Proceedings of a workshop on the formulation of wildlife management areas (WMAS) Guidelines. Proceedings of a workshop, held at Impala Conference Room-Impala Hotel, Arusha, from the 15th -19th December 1999. Wildlife Division (WD). Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Tanzania. pp5-102.

W. D. 2000. Annex “A.” Draft wildlife management area (WMA) guidelines. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. Wildlife Division (WD). The United Republic of Tanzania. pp36–80.

W. C. 1974. The Wildlife Conservation Act, 1974. Parts 1-9. Fourth Schedule. United Republic of Tanzania. pp55-96.

W. C. 1974. The Wildlife Conservation Act. 1974. Government Notice No. 267-278. United Republic of Tanzania. pp 329-428.

W. D. 1999. “Draft” guidelines for: game farming, game ranching, breeding operations, and other similar establishments in Tanzania. Wildlife Division (WD). Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Tanzania. 7 p.

140

W. M. A. (2000?). The wildlife policy of Tanzania and the establishment and management of wildlife management areas (WMAs). Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 4 p.

William, E. 1999. Assessment of community-based natural resources management in Tanzania. Mbomipa Project Idodi and Pawaga Divisions. Iringa Region, Tanzania and Selous Conservation Program Songea and Morogoro Districts, Ruvuma and Morogoro Regions Tanzania. Environmental Policy and Institutional Strengthening Indefinite quantity Contract (EPIQ). Selous Conservation Programme. Tanzania. 76 p.

141

Appendix 5: Partial Bibliography on Species of Interest for Game Farming in Africa

142

Appendix 5: Partial Bibliography on Species of Interest for Game Farming in Africa

Antelope Species

Densmore, Mary A. (1980) Reproduction of Sitatunga (Tragelaphus spekei). International zoo yearbook, 20 : p. 227-229

Dittrich, L. (1972) Beobachtungen bei der Haltung von Cephalophus-Arten sowie zur Fortpflanzung und Jugendentwicklung von C. dorsalis und C. rufilatus in Gefangenschaft. Zool Garten NF. 42 :1-16.

Dubost, G. (1983) Le comportement de Cephalophus monticola et C. dorsalis Gray, et la place des céphalophes au sein des ruminants. (1ere partie). Mammalia, 47, (2) p.141-177. (2ème partie). Mammalia, 47, (3), p.281-309.

Dubost, G. & Feer, F. (1992) Saisons de reproduction des petits ruminants dans le nord-est du Gabon, en fonction des variations des ressources alimentaires. Mammalia, 56, (1), p.25-43.

Kranz, K. R., & Lumpkin, S. (1982) Notes on the yellow black duiker Cephalophus sylvicultor in captivity with comments on its natural history. Int Zoo Yearb., 22 :232-240.

Wilson, V.J., & Clarke, J. E. (1962) Observations on the common duiker, Sylvicarpa grimmia Linn, based on material collected from a tsetse control game elimination scheme. Proc Zool Soc London. 138 : 487-497.

Red-River Hog (Potamocheorus porcus) and/or Bush Pig (Potamochoerus larvatus):

Cooper, S. M. & Melton, D. A. (1988) The bushpig as a problem animal in sugar cane. South African Journal of Wildlife Research. 18 :4, 149-153.

d’Huart, J. P. (1991) Habitat utilisation of old world pigs. In Eds. Spitz, F. & Barret, R.G.. Biologie des Suidés, IRGM, pp. 30-48.

Gbelusi, E. A. (1992) Somme aspects of Ecology of Bushpig in Forest Reserves of Ondo State, Nigeria. Proceedings of the 2nd international symposium on Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) and on Order Suiformes, Torino (Italy), p. 45.

143

Mauget, R. (1991) Reproductive biology of wild suidae. In Eds. Spitz, F. & Barret, R.G.. Biologie des Suidés, IRGM, pp. 49-64.

Seydack, A. H. W. (1991) Quelques aspects d’une étude sur l’écologie diu potamochère. In Eds. Spitz, F. & Barret, R.G.. Biologie des Suidés, IRGM, pp. 130-140.

Grass-cutter (Thrynomys swinderianus):

Adjanohoun, E. (1988) Contribution au développement de l’élevage de l’aulacode (Thryonomys swinderianus Temminck, 1927) et à l’étude de sa reproduction.. Thèse, Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire d’Alfort, France. N?111, 198 p.

Adjanohoun, E. (1992) Quelques aspects du cycle sexuel de l’aulacode (Thryonomys swinderianus) et leurs conséquences pratiques sur la conduite des élevages. In Actes, 1ère conférence internationale sur l’aulacodiculture: Acquis et perspectives, Cotonou, Benin, pp. 111-117.

Adjanohoun, E. (1992) Le cycle sexuel et la reproduction de l’aulacode (Thryonomys swinderianus

Temminck, 1927) Mammalia, tome 56, N?1, pp 109-119.

Adjanohoun, E. & Mensah, G. A., (1989) L’élevage de l’aulacode (Thryonomys swinderianus). La Lettre du Réseau Arbres Tropicaux 9 et 10, supplément à Silva (Arbres, Forêts et Sociétés), pp. 21.

Adoun, C. (1992) Place de l’aulacode (Thryonomys swinderianus) dans le règne animal et sa répartition géographique. In Actes, 1ère conférence internationale sur l’aulacodiculture: Acquis et perspectives, Cotonou, Benin, pp. 35-40.

Afolayan, T. & Anadu, P. A. (1980): Preliminary observation of the ecology and domestication of the grasscutter (Thryonomys swinderianus T.). Journal of the Institute of Animal Technicians.vol. 31 n?l.

Ajayi, S. S. & Tewe, O. O. (1980) Food préférence and carcass composition of the grasscutter (Thryonomys swinderianus) in captivity. Afr. J. Ecol. vol. 18, pp. 133-140.

Akomedi, C. T. (1988) Aperçu sur la pathologie de l’aulacode. Rev. Int. pour la Conservation de la Nature en Afrique 4 (4) : 29-37.

Alogninouwa T, Kaboret. T, Kpodekon M, Agossou E. & Fall E. H. M. (1992) Le tube digestif de l’aulacode (Thryonomys swinderianus): Relations morphologie structure et pathologie. In Actes, 1ère conférence internationale sur l’aulacodiculture: Acquis et perspectives, Cotonou, Benin, pp.73-78.

144

Baptist, R & Mensah, G. A. (1986) The cane rat farm animal of the future. World Animal Review, vol, 60, pp. 2-6.

Campbell, J. A. E. A. O. Asibey & Y. Ntiamoa-Baidu. (1978) Rodent ticks in Ghana. In: Proc. ofint. Cont..: Tick-bome Diseases andtheir Vectors. Univ. Press, Edingburgh: 68-74.

Codjia, J.T.C. (1985) Utilisation du gibier et son impact socioéconomique en zone rurale à travers une étude comparative de l’écoéthologie des rats de Gambie (Cricetomys gambianus, C.emini), du rat palmiste (Xerus erythropus) et de l’aulacode (Thryonomys swinderianus) en captivité étroite. Thèse Ir. agr.. Université Nationale du Bénin, 188 p.

Codjia, J. T. C. & Heymans, J. C. (1988) Problématique liée à l’utilisation du gibier et écoéthologie de quelques rongeurs consommés au Bénin. Revue Nature et Faune, vol 4, n?4, pp. 4-16.

Cox, J. M., Marinier, S. L. & Alexander, A. J. (1988) Auditory communication in the cane rat (Thryonomys swinderianus). Zoology Society London, vol. 216, pp. 141.-167.

Ewer, R. F. (1969) Form and flinction in the grasscutter Thryonomys swinderianus (Rodentia, Thryonomydae). Ghana Journal Science, vol. 9, pp. 131-141.

Garrod, A. H. (1873) On the visceral anatomy of the ground rat (Aulacodus swinderianus). Proc. Zool. Soc. London, pp. 788-789.

Heymans, J. C. (1992) Sur l’écoéthologie de l’aulacode (Thryonomys swinderianus T.)- Rongeur thryonomyide. In Actes 1ère Conférence sur l’aulacodiculture: Acquis et perspectives–Cotonou, Bénin, pp. 41-47.

Heymans, J. C. (1996) L’élevage de l’aulacode (Thryonomys swinderianus). Cahier technique de la FAO n?31

Heymans, J. C. & Mensah, G. A. (1984) Sur l’exploitation rationnelle de l’aulacode- Rongeur Thryonymyadae en R.P. Bénin. Données préliminaires. Tropicultura, vol. 2, pp. 56-59.

Holzer, R., Mensah, G. A. & Baptist, R. (1986) Aspects pratiques en élevage d’aulacodes (Thiyonomys swinderianus). III. Comportement de coprophagie. Revue d’élevage et de médecine vétérinaire en pays tropicaux, vol. 39, pp. 247-252.

I.E.M.T-C.I.R.A.D. (1992) L’élevage de l’aulacode. Fiches techniques d’élevage tropical. Productions Animales. Ministère de la Coopération et du Développement. Maisons Alfort. N?2, 10 pp.

145

Jori, F., Mensah, G. A. & Adjanohoun, E. (1995) Grasscuter production: an example of rational exploitation of wildiife. Biodiversity and conservation 4, 257:265.

Jori, F. & Noel, J. M. (1996) Guide pratique d’élevage d’aulacodes au Gabon. VSF/Coopération Française. 64 p

Lamarque, F. (1995) Une mystérieuse maladie de l’aulacode. Bul. dinf. sur la Pathologie des animaux sauvages en France, Vol. 12, pp. 24-28.

Lawani, M. M. (1989) Physiologie digestive chez l’aulacode (Thryonomys swinderianus): Etude préliminaires. Thèse de doctorat, E.I.S.M.V. de l’Université Cheik Anta Diop, Dakar (Sénégal), 134 p.

Marczynska, B. & Pigon, H. (1972) Karyological analysis of African cane rat (Thryonomys swinderianus Temminck). Cytologia, vol.. 36, pp. 513-517.

Mensah, G. A. (1990) zur Domestikation des Grasnagers (Thryonomys swinderianus). Biologie einschliessiich Verhaten. Polycopie, Colloquium, Université de Hohenheim, 17.

Mensah, G. A. (1991) Elevage des espèces de gibier: cas de l’aulacodiculture (élevage de l’aulacode Thryonomys swinderianus). Actes du Dixième Congrès Forestier Mondial, Paris -1991, Revue Forestière Française, Hors série. Volume n? 5, pp. 301-309.

Mensah, G. A. (1992) Termes zootechniques en élevage d’aulacode. In Actes 1ère conférence sur l’aulacodiculture: Acquis et perspectives. Cotonou, Bénin, pp. 219-220.

Mensah, G. A. (1993) Futteraufnahme und Verdaulichkeit beim Grasnager (Thryonomys swinderianus). Doctorate Thesis, Institut 480, Université de Hohenheim, Allemagne, 107 p.

Mensah, G. A. (1995) Consommation et digestibilité alimentaire chez l’aulacode Thryonomys swinderianus. Tropicultura, 13, 3, 123-124.

Mensah, G. A. & Baptist R. (1986) Aspects pratiques en élevage d’aulacodes (Thryonomys swinderianus).l. Modes d’accouplement et durée de la gestation. Revue d’élevage et de médecine vétérinaire en pays tropicaux, vol. 39, pp. 239-242.

Mensah, G. A., Brônnemann, A., Stier, C.-H. & Gall, C. F. (1992) Aspects pratiques en élevage d’aulacodes (Thryonomys swinderianus). V. Croissance et usure normales des incisives. Revue d’élevage et de médecine vétérinaire en pays tropicaux, 45 (2): 175-178.

146

Mensah, G. A., Holzer, R., Schroder, W. & Baptist R. (1986) Aspects pratiques en élevage d’aulacode (Thryonomys swinderianus). II. Détection des chaleurs. Revue d’élevage et de médecine vétérinaire en pays tropicaux, vol 39, pp. 243-246.

Mensah, G. A., Schwarzenberg, A, Stier,C.-H, Kangni, T. C. & Gall, C. F. (1996) Aspects pratiques en élevage d’aulacodes (Thryonomys swinderianus). VI. Mesures préventives contre la mauvaise usure des incisives. Revue d’élevage et de médecine vétérinaire en pays tropicaux, 49 (4):341-346.

Mensah, G. A., Stier, C.-H. & Gall, C. F. (1992) Aspects pratiques en élevage d’aulacodes (Thryonomys swinderianus). IV. Premiers essais de tranquillisation per os d’aulacodes indociles–Revue d’élevage et de médecine vétérinaire en pays tropicaux, 45 (l): 37-39.

Monod, Th. (1970) A propos d’un aulacode (Thryonomys) du gisement néolitique d’Amekni (Ahaggar). Bull. de l’I.F.A.N., T. 32, pp. 531-550.

Oduor-Okelo, D. & Gombe, S. (1982) Placentation in the cane-rat (Thryonomys swinderianus). Afr. J. Ecol.vol. 20, pp. 49-66.

Pbaau. (1992) Actes, 1ère conférence internationale sur l’aulacodiculture: Acquis et perspectives, Cotonou, Bénin, 226pp.

Romer, A. S. & Nesbitt, P. H. (1930) An extinct cane-rat (Thryonomys logani sp.n.) from the Central Sahara. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. VI, Ser. 10, pp. 687-690.

Schrage, R. (1990) Untersuchungen zur Eignung von Thiyonomys swinderianus (Grasnaer) aïs landwirtschaftiiches Nutztier.Thèse, Université de Hohenheim, Rép. Féd. d’Allemagne.

Schrage, R., Mensah, G.J.L & Mack, R.-P. (1987) Neuere Eifahrungen mit der Haltung von Rohrratten (Grasnagern) in der Volksrepublick Bénin.Entwicklung und landiicher raum 21, (5), 7-10.

Schrage, R. & Yewadan, L. T. (1995) Abrégé d’aulacodiculture. Schriftenreihe der GTZ, No. 251, 103 p.

Schrage R. & W. Muller. (1989) Die Typisleung von im Dam der Bambusratte (Thryonomys swinderianus) vorkommoenden Clostridium perfringens, Keimen , Tierârztl, Umschau 44: 471-475.

147

Schwarzenberg, A., Stier, C.-H., Gall, C. F. & Bessel, W. (1992) Sur des aspects del éthologie de la reproduction chez l’aulacode (Thryonomys swinderianus). In Actes 1ère Conférence sur l’aulacodiculture: Acquis et perspectives. Cotonou, Bénin, pp. 119-122.

Stier, C.-H., Mensah, G. A., & Gall, C. F. (1991) Elevage d’aulacode (Thryonomys swinderianus) pour la production de viande: choix des critères de sélection. Revue mondiale de zootechnie, 69,4: 44-49.

Temminck, C. L (1827) Aulacodus swinderianus Temminck 1827, Monographies de mammalogie l, Sierra Leone: 248.

Thenhjs, E. (1980): Grundzüge der Faunen-und Verbreitungsgeschichte der Saugetiere: Eine historische Tiergeographie. 2e Ed., Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart, Allemagne.

Thomas, O. (1894) Description of a new species of reed-rat (aulacodus) from East Africa, with remarks on thé milk-dentition of the genus. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. XIII, ser.6: 202-204.

Thomas, O. (1922) On the aulacodes known as “ ground-hogs “ or “ cane-rats “ in Afirica. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. IX, Ser. 9: 389-392.

Van de Velde, M. (1991) Elevage d’Aulacodes au Zaïre. Publication du Service Agricole No. 27, AGCD, Place du champ de Mars, 5, Boîte 57, B 1050 Bruxelles–Belgique–90 pages.

Yewadan, T. L. (1992) Alimentation des aulacodes (Thryonomys swinderianus) élevés en captivité étroite.. In Actes 1ère Conférence sur l’aulacodiculture: Acquis et perspectives. Cotonou, Bénin, pp. 143-149.

Giant Gambian Rat (Cricetomys gambianus):

Ajayi, S. S. (1974)(c) Giant Rats for meat and some taboos. Oryx 12 : 379-380

Ajayi, S. S. (1975) Observations on the biology, domestication and reproductive performance of the African Giant Rat (Cricetomys gambianus Waterhouse) in Nigeria. Mammalia, 39 (3) : 343-363

Ajayi, S. S. (1976) Field observations on the African Giant Rat (Cricetomys gambianus Waterhouse) in southern Nigeria. Mammalia, 40 (2):191-198

Ajayi, S. S. & Olawoye. O. O. (1974) (a) Some indications of the social acceptance of the African Giant Rat (Cricetomys gambianus Waterhouse) in Southern Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Forestry, 4 (1) : 36-41

148

Ajayi, S. S. & Tewe O.O., Faturoti E. O. (1978) Behavioral changes in the African Giant Rat (Cricetomys gambianus Waterhouse) under domestication. E. Afr. Wild. J., 16 : 137-143

Amubode, F. O. (1982) Effect of dietary protéin and energy levels on growth and blood urea nitrogen of the African Giant Rat (Cricetomys gambianus Waterhouse). Journal of the Institute of animal technicians, 33 (2) : 11-20

Amubode, F. O. (1985) The relation of growth performance to dietary oil source in African Giant Rat (Cricetomys gambianus Waterhouse). Laboratory Animals, 19 (2) : 134-137

Amubode, F. O. (1987) Influence of protein source and level on the utilization of proximate nutrients by the African Giant Rat (Cricetomys gambianus Waterhouse). Beitrage trop. Landwirtsch. Veterinarmed., 25 (1) : 97-101

Anizoba, M. (1980) Reproductive cycle in the African Giant Rat (Cricetomys gambianus Waterhouse). Bulletin de l’IFAN, 42 (3) ser.A : 635-638

Codjia, J. T. C. (1985) Utilisation du gibier et son impact socio-économique en zone rurale à travers une étude comparative de l’écoéthologie du rat de Gambie, du rat palmiste et de l’aulacode en captivité étroite. Th. lr. Ag. UNB/FSA–Univ. lbadan, 197 p.

Codjia, J. T. C. & Heymans, J. C. (1988) Problématique liée à l’utilisation du gibier et écoethologie de quelques rongeurs consommés au Bénin. Nature et Faune, 4(4): 4-15

Codjia, J. T. C., Heymans, J. C. & Adjallala, H. F. (?) Description du comportement de coprophagie chez les cricetomes (Cricetomys gambianus Waterhouse) Rongeurs Africains -. Cahiers d’Ethologie appliquée. Univ. de Liège.

Delvigne, P. (1988) L’élevage du rat de Gambie (Cricetomys gambianus Waterhouse) en République Populaire du Bénin Th. lr. Ag. l. S. l. H : 92 p.

Faturoti, E. O., Tewe O. O. & Ajayi, S. S. (1982) Crude fibre tolerance by the African Giant Rat (Cricetomys gambianus Waterhouse). Afr. J. Ecol., 20 : 289-292

Faturoti, E. O., Tewe, O. O. & Ajayi, S. S. (1984) Utilisation of plant and animal protein sources by the African Giant Rat (Cricetomys gambianus Waterhouse) and the albino rat. Trop. Veterinarian, 2 : 164-171

Genest–Villard, H. (1976) Révision du genre Cricetomys (Rongeur, cricetidae) Mammalia, 31 : 390-445

149

Heymans, J. C. & Codjia, J.T. C. (1987) Sur l’actogramme en captivité de quatre rongeurs africains : les Rats de Gambie (Cricetomys gambianus et C.emini), le Rat palmiste (Xerus erythropus) et l’aulacode (Thryonomys swinderianus ). Cahiers d’Ethologie appliquée, 7 (3) : 247-262

Houben, P. (1990) Participation à la mise au point de l’élevage du rat de Gambie (Cricetomys gambianus Waterhouse) en République du Bénin. Th. Ir. Fac. Sc. Agr. Gembloux, 102 pp.

Tewe, O. O. (1982) Effect of variyng dietary energy levels on the performance and nutrient utilisation of the African Giant Rat (Cricetomys gambianus Waterhouse). Journal of thé insttute of animal technicians, 33 (1) : 29-33

Tewe, O. O. (1984) Effect of cassava-based diets variyng in cyanide content on the performance and physiopathology of the African Giant Rat (Cricetomys gambianus Waterhouse) An. Feed Se. and Techn., 11(1):1-9

Tewe, O. O. & Ajayi, S. S. (1979) Utilisation of some common tropical foodstuffs by the African Giant Rat (Cricetomys gambianus, Waterhouse). Afr. J. Ecol., 17 : 165-173

Tewe, O. O. & Ajayi, S. S. (1982) Performance and nutrient utilization by the African Giant Rat (Cricetomys gambianus Waterhouse) on household wastes of some local foodstuffs. Afr. J. Ecol., 20 : 37-41

Tewe, O. O. & Kasali, O. B. (1986) Effect of cassava peel processing on the performance, nutrient utilization and physiopathology of the African Giant Rat (Cricetomys gambianus Waterhouse). Trop. Agric., 63 (2) : 125-128

Giant African Snail: (Achatina sp. and Archachatina sp.)

Ajayi, S. S., Tewe. O.O., Moriarty, C., & Awesu, M.O. 1978. Observations on the biology and nutritive value of the African Giant Snail Archachatina marginata. E. Afr. Wildl. J. 16: 85-95.

Allen, J.A. 1983. The Inheritance of Shell Colour Polymorphism in Achatina fullca (Bowdich) from East Africa. J. Conch, 31. 185-189.

Assogba, F., & Ehouinsou, M. 1993. Assolement (maraîchage) héliciculture au Sud Bénin. Tropicultura 11(3): 91-94.

Barcelo, P.M., & Barcelo, J.R. 1991. The Potential of Snail (Pila leopoldvillensis) Meal as Protein Supplement in Broiler Diets. Tropicultura 9(1): 11-13.

150

Boni, P. 1993. Etude de quelques parametres écoéthologiques des escargots géants Africains: Archachatina. sp.and Achatina sp. UNB/FSA. Abomey-Cainvi. 80pages. (These).

Cobbina, J. R., 1994. Snail Farming in West Africa. A Practical Guide. CTA, Wageingen, the Netherlands. 50pages.

Ehouinsou, M., Koudande, O.D., & Assogba, F. 1994. Technical Reports No. 7 and 8 of the projet “Microlivestock as Food and Feed in Semi-Urban Farming Systems.” TS2-0263. B(CDF), CEE/DOXII. Institut National de Recherches Agricoles, M.D.R. Cotonou, Bénin. p 9-13.

Feugnet, J. P. 1993. Rapport de consultation (transformation et conditionnement). Projet “Formation d’Héliciculteurs” TCP/BEN/2252 (T). AGAP. FAO. Rome. 54pages

Hardouin, J., Codjia, J. T. C., & Heymans, J. C. 1993. Guide Pratique d’ Elevage d’ Escargots Géants Africains. FAO et UNB Eds. 72 pages.

Hardouin, J., Stievenart, C., & Codjia, J. T. C. 1995. L’ Achatiniculture. Revue Mondiale de Zootechnie, 83: 29-39.

Hodasi, J. K. M. 1979. Life History of Achatina achatina (Linne). J. Moll. Stud. 45: 329-339.

Hodasi, J. M. K. 1984. Les Escargots Géants Africains d’ Afrique Occidentale. Revue Mondiale de Zootechnie 52: 24-28.

Imeybore, E. A. 1992. Perspectives of Snail Farming in Tropical Africa: the Nigerian Situation. In Proc. Invertebrates (Microlivestock) Farming Seminar. La Union, Philippines.

Koudande, O. D., & Ehouinsou, M. 1995. Influence de l’ alimentation sur la production chez Archachatina sp. Revue Mondiale de Zootechnie 83: 60-63.

Mead A. R. 1950. Comparative genital anatomy of some African Achatinidae (Pulmonum). Bul. Muz. Comp. Zoo. 105: 218-294.

Mead, A. R. 1979. Anatomical studies in the African Achatinidae. A Preliminary Report. Malacologia 18:133-138.

Owen, D. F. & Reid, J. C. 1988. The white snails in Africa, the significance of man in the maintenance of a striking polymorphism. Oikos 46(2):267-269.

151

Pilsbry, H. A. 1919. A review of the land mollusks of the Belgian Congo chiefly based on the collection of the American Museum Congo Expedition, 1909–1913. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, XL:1-369.

Plummer, J. M. 1975. Observation on the reproduction growth and longevity of a laboratory colony of Archachatina (Calachatina) marginata (Swainson) subspecies ovum. Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond. 41: 395-413.

Raut, S. K. 1993. Quelques pathogenes d’ Achatina et leur influence sur la production d’escargots géants Africains / Some pathogenes of Achatina and their influence on the production of giant African snails. Bulletin Semestriel d’Information Sur le Mini-Elevage. BEDIM (FAO/CTA/IMT) 2(2): 9-10.

Stievenart, C. 1994. Concordance entre l’habitus, le poids vif et l’agrandissement coquillier d’escargots géants africains Archachatina marginata suturalis. (submitted for publication).

Stievenart, C., & Hardouin, J. 1990. Manuel d’ Elevage d’ Escargots Géants Africains Sous les Tropiques. CTA, Wageningen, the Netherlands. 40pages.

Takeda, N., Takayanagi, H., Sugiyama, K., Ohtake, S. L., Oka, K., & Hasegawa, K. 1985. Studies on the control of some terrestrial pulmonates. Nissan Science Foundation 8(60):161-203.A. W. F. 1999. Workshop report on strategies for sustainable wildlife management on large scale farms in the Tarangire-Manyara heartland, Arusha 20 September 1999. African Wildlife Foundation (AWF). Arusha, Tanzania. 7 p.

152