East African Journal of Education and Social Sciences

EAJESS April– June 2021, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 41-50

ISSN: 2714-2132 (Online), 2714-2183 (Print), Copyright © The Author(s)
Published by G-Card
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46606/eajess2021v02i02.0074
URL: http://eajess.ac.tz

Benefit Sharing in Community Based Conservation Programs: The Case of

Makao Wildlife Management Area, Tanzania
1
Emmanuel B. Lwankomezi*, 2Dr James Kisoza and 2Dr Emmanuel Patrobas Mhache
1
St.Augustine University of Tanzania, 2Open University of Tanzania
*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract: Wildlife Management Area establishment around protected areas in Tanzania have been faced with
various challenges including failures to adequately involve local populations in planning, governance and
management of wildlife related resources. This study examined the benefit sharing mechanisms in
Community Based Conservation programs, the case of Makao Wildlife Management Area in Meatu District,
Tanzania. The study was conducted in Jinamo, Mwabagimu and Makao Villages. Data were collected from
281 heads of households using a survey design within the mixed approach. The study used simple random
sampling based on the names of all heads of the households in each study village who were obtained from
the village households as registered by village chairs. The major findings indicate that in the past five years,
there is a considerable increase of income generated from wildlife investment in the study area which is used
for payment of VGS salaries, food and other expense for VGS, community development and sharing among
member villages. The study further shows that, inadequate involvement in the WMA activities results in local
people having low perception on the WMA accrued benefits. The study recommends that it is essential to
involve the local community in the WMA design and management in order to improve its acceptability and
ownership. Benefit sharing in the WMAs should be designed as a strategy to offset conservation costs and
build support for biodiversity conservation among conservation actors mainly local communities.
Keywords: Community Conservation; Benefit Sharing; Wildlife Management Areas

Introduction communities participate in resource planning and

Crop damage, livestock depletion, loss of human management and gain financially from wildlife
life, diseases and human-wildlife conflict are some utilization (Smyth, 2006).
of the major unprecedented development Protected areas are considered not only as a
challenges facing communities bordering protected conservation tool, but also as a resource base to
areas (Kideghesho, 2008; Redford et al., 2008; contribute to the reduction of poverty in many
Songorwa 2015). Various scholars and developing countries (Redford et al., 2008).
environmental experts (Smyth, 2006; Taylor, 2006; Different players like international conservation
UNESCO, 2005) have contended that among other groups, development partners and African
factors, lack of proper benefit sharing scheme from governments mention local community participation
wildlife and natural resource management among as an imperative element in their programs despite
local people is one of the factors influencing the having different approaches of what really
current anti-conservation activities resulting into constitutes participation and its role in conservation
threatening of wildlife conservation in protected (McLaughlin, 2011). According to Kideghesho
areas. In a response, various reports and literature (2006), most of Community Based Natural
(Caro et al., 2003; Weladji et al., 2003; Pritchard, Resources Managements (CBNRM) rely entirely on
2006; Underwood et al., 2009) have indicated that external finances for their development and
community wildlife conservation is a major scientific sustenance; this diminishes the perceived value of
management and planning tool that helps solve the natural resources and detracts from local
social, economic, and environmental challenges stewardship of the CBNRM processes when external
facing protected areas. One of the goals of finances come to an end. In some cases, inadequate
community wildlife conservation is to make sure government support has discouraged local
41 East African Journal of Education and Social Sciences (EAJESS) 2(2)41-50
communities from participating in wildlife realized form conservation are global while
conservation activities. conservation costs are borne by local people,
According to Redford et al., (2008) and Borrini- predominantly poor and politically weak individuals
Feyerabend et al., (2002), involving local community in the community. For example, Songorwa (1999,
has been a prerequisite condition for the wildlife 2015) found out that local community living next to
conservation to succeed. However, Borrini- protected areas lose more than half of their per
Feyerabend et al., (2004) notes that conservation capita income due to damage caused by wildlife.
costs are largely skewed towards local communities, This means communities continue to bear the cost
hence no equitable benefits and costs. This notion and become disempowered and marginalised in
has caused protected areas to be considered not terms of natural resource management
only as a conservation tool but also as a resource (Brockington et al., 2008). Most gains from
base to contribute to the reduction of poverty biodiversity conservation are appropriated by the
among local communities in developing countries developed world, local elites and regional users of
(Redford et al., 2008). Community incentives to ecosystem services (Gereta, & Røskaft, 2010).
conserve wildlife and the conditions they depend on
In Tanzania, community based conservation is
vary at different times for different people (Makupa,
practiced through Wildlife Management Area which
2013). Further, economic considerations need to be
is an area of communal land set aside entirely as
incorporated into community approaches to wildlife
habitat for wildlife by member villages (URT, 2009).
conservation to form a part of whether such
Wildlife management area is also a protected area
approaches can be judged to have been successful
set aside for the conservation of wildlife and for
in development and conservation terms. Kaswamila
recreational activities involving wildlife (Kaswamila,
(2012) and Moyo, et al., (2016) identified initiatives
2012). To ensure that protected areas contribute in
that have been implemented that benefit local
poverty reduction and in improving rural livelihoods,
community including integrated conservation and
the government of Tanzania since 2003 has been
development programmes, sharing tourism revenue
promoting the establishment of Wildlife
generated from Protected Areas (PAs) such as
Management Areas (WMAs), a new protected area
entrance fees, provision of social services to
category under community management (URT, 2009
adjacent communities, communities selling goods
and Kaswamila, 2012). Makao is the newest WMA
and services to tourists and employment
officially launched in 2007 and gazetted in 2009.
opportunities.
Makao WMA covers 780 km2 and is comprised of 7
According to Kideghesho (2008), benefit sharing is villages in the south-western Serengeti Ecosystem.
essential, but in itself might not be a satisfactory Makao WMA is of highly importance to Tanzania’s
condition for communities to engage in wildlife protected area as it acts as a wildlife corridor
conservation. Whether or not communities have between Maswa Game Reserve, Ngorongoro
economic incentives to conserve wildlife, and conservation area and Serengeti National Park (URT,
whether or not they are economically better off in 2012). Therefore, findings of this study were
the presence of wildlife, goes far beyond ensuring expected to contribute insights on the possible ways
that a proportion of wildlife revenues are returned of sharing benefits that are appropriate to allow full
to them as broad development or social community participation in wildlife conservation
infrastructure benefits (Salafsky, 2011). It also and management. This study was guided by the
depends on the economic costs that wildlife incurs, following research questions:
on the form in which wildlife benefits are received, 1. What are the benefits attributed to Makao
on the costs and benefits of other economic by the WMA?
activities which compete with wildlife and on a 2. What is the Perception of local communities
range of external factors which all limit the extent to on the WMA benefits?
which communities are able to appropriate wildlife 3. What are the opportunities arising from
benefits as real livelihood gains (Nelson, 2010). introducing the WMA?
Several literatures have found out that biodiversity Research Methodology
conservation costs and benefits are not reasonably This study employed the case study research design
shared among different conservation actors (see for collection and analysing of data in order to gain a
Baldus, et al., 2003; Nelson, 2007; Moyo 2016). deeper understanding of the situation in Makao
Adams and Hutton, (2007) indicate that benefits WMA. Creswell, (2013) defines a case study as an
42 East African Journal of Education and Social Sciences (EAJESS) 2(2)41-50
empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary different categories for entry into SPSS; the
phenomenon in depth and within its real-life categories were identified after looking through the
context. This study employed a mixed method range of responses received from the respondents
research approach, a form of research in which the and then each response categories were assigned
researcher converges or merges quantitative and numbers. Before entering the information from the
qualitative data in order to provide a comprehensive questionnaires into the SPSS, the code book was
analysis of the research problem (Creswell, 2013). prepared. This gave the summary of the instruction
that was used to convert the information that was
This study used Slovins’s (1960) formula to calculate
obtained from each case into a format that SPSS can
an appropriate sample size from the total number of
accept. To ensure uniformity in data entrance, a
Households (945) to select 281 heads of households
frequency run was carried out for all variables to
drawn from three villages namely Jinamo,
verify any values that may have been entered
Mwabagimu and Makao. This study used simple
incorrectly.
random sampling because each unit of the
population has a known, equal, non-zero probability Findings and Discussion
of being included in the sample (McNabb, 2002). This section presents the findings related to the
The names of all heads of the households in each benefits attributed to Makao WMA, the perception
study village were obtained from the village of local communities on the WMA benefits and the
households register maintained by village chairs. A opportunities arising from introducing the WMA.
random number generator was used to generate
random numbers of households to be surveyed in Research Question 1: What are the benefits
each study village. Household heads were surveyed attributed to Makao by the WMA?
at each selected household on agreed time and Results in Table 1 shows that, Makao WMA income
date. The heads of households involved in this study estimate for the past five years is Tsh 1,920,173,989.
had a role to play in Makao WMA. Results show a considerable increase of income over
this period from Tsh 306,326,307.31 in 2015-2016 to
Statistical Treatment of Data 433,902,911 in 2019-2020. This is attributed to fines
Questionnaires were entered into the Statistical and new terms in the renewed investment contract.
Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 21. Before
that, responses were summarized into a number of
Table 1: Makao WMA revenues and expenses in TSH
Financial Year Reported Revenue CBO Expenses Shared with Revenue received
Member villages by each village
2015-2016 306,326,307.31 246,201,307 60,125,000.00 8,589,285.714
2016-2017 381,319,502.80 186,576,352 131,743,150 18,820,450
2017-2018 426,434,126.60 329,621,626.60 96,812,500 13,830,357.14
2018-2019 372,191,141.04 267,577,896 104,613,245.00 14,944,749.29
2019-2020 433,902,911 315,477,911 118,425.000.00 16,917,857.14
Total 1,920,173,989 1,345,455,092.60 511,718,895 73,102,699.28

Results further indicate that over the past 5 years, During interview with a Makao Accountant, it was
Tsh 511,718,895 was shared with member villages, noted that, “Income generated from Investment
which is approximately Tsh 541,501.47 per company is used for payment of VGS salaries, food
household in five years corresponding to Tsh and other expense for VGS, community development
13,168.27 approximately per person per year based and for sharing among member village.”
on the 2012 census estimate of 7,772 (people
Furthermore, results indicate that, the WMA has
residing in the Makao member villages). Further,
attained Tsh 110,989,400 in five years as an income
data shows that, Tsh 1,345,455,092.60 was used for
from fines (Makao Financial Report, 2020).
CBO expenses like payment of salaries, office
These fines were paid by people who were caught
expenses, administration and rule enforcement.
grazing animals in the WMA. The fine was Tsh
Mwiba Holdings Company limited as an investor has
10,000 per livestock which is equivalent to about
contributed a total of Tsh 1,179,594,507 for the past
11,100 livestock caught grazing in the restricted
five years which is equivalent to 61% of the total
areas. The highest fine payments were recorded
income generated from Makao WMA (Makao
during the financial year 2017/2018 when Tsh
Financial Report, 2020).
43 East African Journal of Education and Social Sciences (EAJESS) 2(2)41-50
92,959,400 was reported (Makao Financial Report, determination is dependent on the benevolent of
2020). the central government (Kicheleri, et al., 2018; URT,
During interview with the Makao secretary, it was 2012). For example, WMA regulation section 66
revealed that the operation to evict pastoralists admits that benefit sharing will be determined by
from WMA was costly to Makao CBO as about Tsh “circulars issued by government from time to time”
101,717,500 was used for operation per diems, (URT, 2012). The proportion that is captured by the
transport, fuel and veterinary services. This resulted AA, regulation states that, At least 15% must be
to reduced amount of money shared among reinvested for resource development of the WMA.
member villages. Makao chairman had this to say, At least 50% must be given to member villages in
“Makao CBO did not agree with funding the the WMA. At least 25% must be reinvested in
operation, we had to follow directives from DGO and strengthening the AA (URT, 2012). The Regulations
District Commissioner for promise that the amount offers a leeway for the individual AA to decide on
of money used will be refunded by the government.” the definite allocation within the above stipulated
limits, this again jeopardize the ability of the
Results show that, WMA through the Authorized
community organization exercising their power.
Association was collecting non-consumptive
utilization revenue direct from investors until 2012 However, from this narration of distribution of
when the revenue started to be collected by Wildlife income, 10% of the revenue accrued by the AA
division. This was after the introduction of the Non- remains unaccountable (Moyo et al., 2016; URT,
Consumptive Wildlife Utilization Regulations of 2008 2012). The current study could not establish how
(revised 2016). These new directives took power of the proponents of the WMA regulation made this
revenue collection from the authorized association mistake on giving sharing modalities on only 90% of
to central government. Regulation 16 (3) states that revenue captured by AA. It was however observed
“the Director shall collect the fees prescribed under that, AA is taking 60% and villages 40% which is
these regulations on behalf of the Authorized against section 66 of the regulation which states
Association” (URT, 2012). In this study, the central that “Authorized Association shall ensure that (a) at
government was frightened with total devolution of least 15% of its annual gross revenue is re-invested
power to local community with fear of losing for resource development; (b) at least 50% of its
revenue. annual gross revenue is directed to villages forming
part of the Wildlife Management Area; and (c) at
WMA regulations Section 73 states that benefit least 25% of its annual gross revenue is used to
sharing will be determined by circulars issued by strengthen the Authorized Association” (Makao
government from time to time. For the proportion Financial Report, 2020; URT, 2012).
that the AA does capture, the Regulations state that
This study found out that, villages received equal
at least 15% must be reinvested for resource
share from WMA investment which is about Tsh
development of the WMA. At least 50% must be
14,620,539.86 on average for the past five years
given to member villages in the WMA. At least 25%
(Makao Financial Report, 2020). During interview
must be reinvested in strengthening the AA (URT
with conservation officials, there were no
2012). Further, the sharing of wildlife related
explanations from AA, DGO and Wildlife division
benefits are given in the Non-Consumptive Wildlife
why villages had to be given equal amount of share
Utilization Regulation section 19 (b). This regulation
despite villages having different settings. During
states that, 5% shall be directed to the District
focus group discussion, Makao village respondents
Council, 25% to the Director of Wildlife and 70% to
could not agree with sharing of equal amount of
Authorized Associations’ (URT, 2012). WMA
benefits with other village. For example, one
regulations also provide the directive of sharing
respondent from Makao village had this to say, “we
income generated from resident hunting that;
advised for designing new sharing mechanism which
Authorized Association (40%) and District Council
will increase our share because we are the one
60% (URT, 2012).
providing large land compared to all villages forming
During focus group discussions with member the WMA”. Further, local people reported that,
villages, local community could not understand how some other village like Jinamo was less used as
benefit is shared. However, this was not surprising wildlife corridor and therefore had low economic
because of the recklessness of the system. While value compared to Makao.
the sharing mechanism may be known, its

44 East African Journal of Education and Social Sciences (EAJESS) 2(2)41-50

Also during focus group discussions, respondents WMA is to provide incentive and promotion of local
from Makao village insisted that, the village communities to participate in conservation,
providing large area for conservation has to receive protection and devolution of wildlife resources
larger portion of benefit from WMA. This is a fact as management to communities by enhancing
from the WMA land use plan Makao village’s area is community benefit retentions. Similarly, Kisoza
as twice much as Mwabagimu and Jinamo (2007) found out that community members bear the
combined. During interview with Makao village same notion of benefiting from wildlife
leader, the village executive director noted that, “…. management; however, the nature and kind of
It is not fair for Makao village to receive equal share benefits realized is doubtful.
of benefit from investors similar to other member
village; the village providing large area for Research Question 2: What is the Perception of
conservation has to receive larger portion of benefit local communities on WMA benefits?
from WMA.” Study results indicate that wildlife management
area is beneficial to local community as 66.5%
The study found out that majority of local percent was reported (see Table 2). Despite two
community were not aware of the amount of money third of respondents perceiving the WMA as
paid to the village and could not understand the beneficial to local community, about one third
expenditure. This was revealed during the interview (32.7% percent) responded in negation. Local
as one of respondents said “we don’t know the community who indicated that WMA is beneficial
amount of money paid to our village neither do we must have been aware of community projects
know the expenditure of the money given to our implemented in the village like schools, dispensaries
village.” This implies that, while most of and community houses built in the study villages.
conservation efforts are channelled to inclusivity
and community involvement, the implementation Most of respondents in Table 2 perceived the WMA
and the outcome of the same is not assumed. Again as beneficial to local community, while few
lack of information could be attributed to respondents, responded in negation. This is due to
inadequate local involvement in village the reason that, most of the communities consider
development plans. The involvement of local tangible related benefits from wildlife resources. A
community in village planning is very important review of Makao financial report and Makao annual
since it helps community ownership of conservation reports revealed that there are no direct financial
projects. The findings are similar to Kideghesho benefits directed to the household level. In most
(2006) that the greatest potential for local gain from cases, WMA related benefits are intended to
wildlife conservation is for the direct participation of motivate people to align their behaviours with
landholders in wildlife decision-making which lies in conservation goals. They also aim to reduce poverty,
the involvement of community members the main driving force triggering unsustainable
themselves as wildlife managers and entrepreneurs. activities through projects that benefit the village at
large.
The study is in line with the findings by Makupa,
(2013) who stated that the main intention of the
Table 2: Perceived WMA benefits to local communities
Perception on WMA Frequency of respondents
Benefits Makao Jinamo Mwabagimu Total
(n= 95) (n=91) (n= 95) (n= 281)
Non Beneficial 45 (47.4%) 14 (15.4%) 33 (34.7%) 92 (32.7%)
Beneficial 50 (52.6%) 77 (84.6%) 60 (63.2%) 187 (66.5%)

Results in Figure 1 indicate that, benefit sharing in percent and 36.8% percent from Jinamo village and
the study villages on average was fair as 40.13% Makao village reported also reported so. About 20%
percent was reported. Study results also shows that, percent of all respondents on average could not
on average 39.87% percent of respondents understand whether benefit sharing was fair or not.
indicated that WMA benefit sharing was not fairly This could be attributed to local people inadequate
distributed among study villages. Particularly, involvement in WMA activities.
42.10% of respondents from Mwabagimu village
indicate that sharing of benefit is not fair, 40.70%
45 East African Journal of Education and Social Sciences (EAJESS) 2(2)41-50
During interview with Makao village leader, the from investor similar to other member villages; the
village executive director noted that “…. It is not fair village providing large area for conservation has to
for Makao village to receive equal share of benefit receive larger portion of benefit from WMA.

Figure 1: Pecieved Benefit sharing

The reason benefit sharing in the villages under development (Makao Financial Report, 2020). One
investigation was perceived not fair was probably of the intentions of establishing the WMA was to
because communities were not involved in contract help community access and manage wildlife related
negotiations with investor and therefore could not benefits (Mariki, 2015). This notion is highly
understand the amount of money or any other supported especially when local communities are
related benefit paid by the investor. giving out their land for conservation of wildlife
(Kicheleri, et al., (2018). Similarly, Brianne (2015)
Heads of households further revealed that the WMA
conducted a study on effect of community-based
income and share to member villages has greatly
natural resource management on household
reduced requests from village leaders for the village
welfare in Namibia and results indicated that the
development. For example, one revealed that the
economic benefits derived from conservancies do
fund received from WMA have been invested in
not affect the wealth index of individual households.
development projects such as maintenance and
construction of secondary and primary school The results further found out that most of
classrooms, village offices, health care centre and conservation benefits were channelled to
community services house. While income share community level with no benefits or minimum
among villages is very much appreciated, benefits directed to local household. For example,
community members continued to view it as a ploy one of respondents had this to say “we have never
because of its inability to compensate for the received any benefit (cash) from the WMA, what are
forgone land. we going to do with schools? Can you eat the
school?” It was further observed that, projects like
During focus group discussions with heads of
school buildings, dispensaries and water holes were
households, it was put forward that, local
constructed in prime areas which were seen as
communities who received direct benefits from the
hindrance to communities on the edges of Makao
WMA like employment were very much contented
WMA. Similar findings were noted by Makupa
and were prepared to support the WMA
(2013) that poor distribution of benefits at the
development. For example, if you compare the level
community level especial when physical structures
of WMA ownership among study villages, Makao
are built in one part of the village threatened the
village was the most contented with the benefit
sustainability of the Community Based Natural
accrued from WMA (Figure 1). This was because
Resources Managements efforts.
Makao village was receiving addition of about 100
Million each year from the investor for land renting Kaswamila (2012) conducted a study in Burunge
of Ngitili ranch and 26 million for community Wildlife management area in Tanzania and found
46 East African Journal of Education and Social Sciences (EAJESS) 2(2)41-50
out that community attains benefits like the building that wildlife management areas benefit-based
of classrooms, village offices and other social models are based on partial understanding of the
services; nevertheless, community lacking capacity economics of community conservation and of the
to influence authorized associations endangers nature of wildlife benefits.
benefits routed or realized at the household level
Research Question 3: What are the opportunities
compared with the participating village population.
arising from introducing the WMA?
The results demonstrate that most local people
Results in Table 3 indicate that, 29.2% percent of all
would rather not be part of the WMA provided they
respondents reported employment as an
do not benefit. This study is in line with Songorwa
opportunity arising from the WMA in the study area.
(1999) who reported that “the basic rule is that one
The highest employment opportunities were
participates if and when the program benefits him
reported in Makao village by 47.4% of respondents.
or her.”
About 23.8% percent of all respondents identified
However, the study found out that despite the fact Small business as an opportunity arising from the
that local community realized less perceived WMA in the study area. The highest percentage
benefits from the wildlife management area, their (29.5%) of local people engaging in small business
desire to protect and manage resources is high. was found in Mwabagimu village followed by
During the interview, a village Leader from Jinamo Jinamo Village (26.4%).
said, “… conservation and protection of wildlife is
Results in Table 3 further indicate that, 17.8% were
our life, we will continue to protect our animals no
practicing cash crops farming. At village levels, there
matter what we get in return.” These findings are
were variations on respondents’ perception with
supported by Kiss, (2004) and Kaswamila, (2012)
regards to cash crop farming. In Makao village, only
that local people living in natural resources areas
10.5% of respondents reported the same whereas in
have a bigger interest in the sustainable use of
Mwabagimu village, a pastoralist village, about
natural resources than centralized or distant
18.9% reported practicing cash crop farming and in
government or private management institutions.
Jinamo village 24.2% of respondents reported
Mariki (2015) assessed the impact of conservation
practicing cash crop farming. The varied responses
on local communities and the reaction of local
could be attributed to the high level market
communities towards conservation around the
integration of farmers in the study villages.
Enduimet Wildlife Management Area. Results show
Table 3: Income generating activities brought by WMA
Income generating Frequency of respondents Total
activities Makao (n=95) Jinamo (n=91) Mwabagimu
(N=95) (N=281)
None 5 (5.3%) 3 (3.3%) 3 (3.2%) 11 (3.9%)
Cash crop farming 10 (10.5%) 22 (24.2%) 18 (18.9%) 50 (17.8%)
Food crop production 13 (13.7%) 11 (12.1%) 16 (16.8%) 40 (14.2%)
Small business 15 (15.8%) 24 (26.4%) 28 (29.5%) 67 (23.8%)
Wage employment 45 (47.4%) 17 (18.7%) 20 (21.1%) 82 (29.2%)
Handcrafts for sale 3 (3.2%) 2 (2.2%) 1 (1.1%) 6 (2.1%)
Water Vending 1 (1.1%) 9 (9.9%) 6 (6.3%) 16 (5.7%)
Tourism Guide 2 (2.1%) 2 (2.2%) 2 (2.1%) 6 (2.1%)
Other 1 (1.1%) 1 (1.1%) 1 (1.1%) 3 (1.1%)
Key: Percentages in some columns are not totaling to 100 because of missing data

Study results indicate that responses on the income Findings in Table 3 show that some community
generating activities arising from Makao WMA members had secured job opportunities from
varied among villages. For example, In Makao tourist investors in Makao WMA; other community
village, respondents identified employment members had opportunity to sell crops and conduct
opportunities as the major income generating small businesses.
activities by 47.4% percent while Jinamo and
Interview with village leaders shows that local
Mwabagimu village identified small business as a
community members were contented that Makao
major income generating activities by 26.4% and
WMA has brought direct employment. This was
29.5% percent respectively.
because most of the community members were
47 East African Journal of Education and Social Sciences (EAJESS) 2(2)41-50
employed in tourism related activities while others few people from the study area. This notion of few
were employed as village game scouts (VGS). While community members securing employment in
community members perceived an increase of conservation related activities created few local
employment opportunities compared to before the elites who pocket significant share of the
establishment of the Makao WMA, just a few conservation income that would otherwise be used
individuals had an opportunity to secure for community development (Makupa, 2013 and
employment from tourist investors in Makao WMA Moyo et al., 2016).
as most employment opportunities were taken by
Furthermore, in assessing the employment status in
people from outside.
the study area, results in table 4 show that, while
One of respondents said, “Employment is provided
60% and 54.7% of respondent in Makao and
to either the daughter/ sons of our leaders or to
Mwabagimu villages respectively reported to
outsiders not coming from Makao WMA forming
understand procedures used for employment, only
villages.” This is in line with the study findings by
39.6% percent of the respondents in Jinamo village
Makupa (2013) which revealed that those few who
understood employment procedures. This could be
secured jobs and their relatives were the only
attributed to community low participation in the
members of the community who perceived direct
WMA management.
benefits from the wildlife. Most of local community
members complained about investors employing
Table 4: Local Understand on employment procedures
Understanding Frequency of respondents
Employment Makao Jinamo Mwabagimu Total
procedure
(n= 95) (n=91) (n= 95) (n= 281)
No 38 (40.0%) 55 (60.4%) 43 (45.3%) 136 (48.4%)
Yes 57 (60.0%) 36 (39.6%) 52 (54.7%) 145 (51.6%)
Key –Numbers in brackets are Valid Percentages
The identification of the opportunities arising from and creation of alternative income sources to local
introducing the Makao WMA was tricky because community in order to improve their livelihoods.
some of these activities were practiced prior to
gazzetment. However, communities which had been
Conclusions and Recommendations
There is a considerable increase of income
practicing crop farming were of the opinion that
generated from wildlife investment in the study
production of crops has increased tremendously
area for the past five years, which is used for
after the Makao WMA gazetment. It was also
payment of VGS salaries, food and other expense for
revealed that villages owned considerable pieces of
VGS, community development and sharing among
land even after some of their land were taken to
member villages.
satisfy the need for the wildlife conservation. Most
of the crops grown included Maize, sorghum, sun Local community perceived the current WMA
flower and millet. These crops were sold to benefits to be insufficient to offset the wildlife-
neighbour villages, towns and visitors in the village. induced costs and opportunity costs of
conservation. Further, there were no direct financial
During the focus group discussion, respondents benefits directed to the household level. This was
revealed that, their life had been improved by because most of the communities considered
selling farm produces which reduced the burden on tangible/direct gains as the only benefits from the
the wildlife and was used as an alternative for wildlife resources. However, study results identified
improving their socio-economic conditions. One of other opportunities arising from introducing the
respondents from Mwabagimu village had this to WMA as cash crop farming, food crop production,
say, “Crop production has really improved our living small business, wage employment, water vending,
standard, we sell and get some money which is used tourism guide and handcrafts for sale.
to cater for our needs, hence reducing dependence
Therefore, benefit sharing in the WMA should be
on wildlife.” This is in line with findings of
designed as a strategy to offset conservation costs
Kideghesho (2008) and Kaswamila (2012) who
and build support for biodiversity conservation
argued that the main intention of community
among conservation actors mainly local
conservation is to promote diversification of income
communities. It also recommends that there should
48 East African Journal of Education and Social Sciences (EAJESS) 2(2)41-50
be a proper community involvement in planning and Kideghesho, J.R. (2006). Wildlife conservation and
management of the wildlife related resources in local land use conflicts in Western
order for the local people to own and support Serengeti corridor, Tanzania. PhD thesis of
conservation efforts. There is need for integration of Norwegian University of Science and
the local community related activities in the wildlife Technology, Faculty of Natural Science and
management in order to empower the Technology.
diversification of economy around protected areas. Kideghesho, J.R. (2008). Co-existence between the
traditional societies and wildlife in western
Reference Serengeti, Tanzania: Its relevancy in
Adams, W.M. & Hutton, J. (2007). People, parks and contemporary wildlife conservation
poverty: Political ecology and biodiversity efforts. Biodiversity Conservation, 17:
conservation. Conservation and Society, 1861-1881
5(2):147-183. Kisoza L. J. A. (2007) The Role of Local Institutions in
Baldus, R., B. Kibonde, and L. Siege. (2003). Seeking the Management of Agro-Pastoral and
conservation partnership in the Selous Pastoral Systems: A Case Study of Mkata
Game Reserve, Tanzania. Parks 13:50-61. Plains, Kilosa District and Ngorongoro
Brianne Riehl, Hisham Zerriffi, and Robin Conservation Area, Ngorongoro District,
Naidoo (2015) Effects of Community- Tanzania. A Thesis Submitted in fulfillment
Based Natural Resource Management on of the Requirements for the Degree of
Household Welfare in Namibia. PLOS, Doctor of Philosophy of the Sokoine
Open access journal e0125531. University of Agriculture
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article Kiss, A. (2004). Making biodiversity conservation a
s/PMC4429124/. Retrieved on 20/1/2020 land-use priority. In T.O. McShane & M.P.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Banuri, T., Farvar, T., Miller, Wells (Eds.), Getting biodiversity projects
K., & Philips, A. (2002). Indigenous and to work: Towards more effective
local communities and protected areas: conservation and development (pp. 98-
Rethinking the relationship. Parks, 12, 5- 123). New York: Columbia University Press.
15. Kicheleri R. P. Thorsten T., Martin R. N., Kajembe G.
Brockington, D., Duffy, R. & Igoe, J. (2008). Nature C., Mombo F. M., (2018) Power Struggles in
unbound: Conservation, capitalism, and the Management of Wildlife Resources: The
the future of protected areas. London: Case of Burunge Wildlife Management Area,
Earthscan. Tanzania Journal of Environment &
Caro, T., Mulder, M. and Moove, M. (2003). Effects Development. 2018:1-15.
of conservation education on reasons to
conserve biological diversity. Biological Makupa. E. E. (2013) Conservation efforts and local
Conservation, 114, 143–152. livelihoods in Western Serengeti, Tanzania:
Creswell, J.W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, Experiences from Ikona Community
quantitative, and mixed methods Wildlife Management Area. A Dissertation
approaches (4th Ed). Sage Publication, Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
London. Requirements for the degree of doctor of
Gereta, Emmanuel J, and Eivin Roskaft (2010) philosophy in the Department of
Conservation of Natural Resources, some Geography University of Victoria.
Africa and Asia Examples. Tapir Academic Mariki. S. B., (2015) Communities and conservation
Press. No-7005 Trondheim, Norway. in West Kilimanjaro, Tanzania:
Kaswamila, A.L. (2012). An analysis of the Participation, costs and benefits, Doctor
contribution of community wildlife (PhD) Thesis. Department of International
management areas on livelihood in Environment and Development (Noragric)
Tanzania. Retrieved on July 12, 2018, Norwegian University of Life Sciences
http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/25746/In
Makao Financial Report (2020). The Makao wildlife
TechAn_analysis_of_the_contribution_of_
management area income and
community_wildlife_management_areas_
expenditure report for conservation and
on_livelihood_in_tanzania.pdf
development activities for the year 2015-
2020, issued in September 2020.
49 East African Journal of Education and Social Sciences (EAJESS) 2(2)41-50
McLaughlin, C.M. (2011). People living in protected Slovin, E. (1960) Slovin’s formula for sampling
areas: A comparative study of the social technique.
impacts of conservation in Latin America‟s https:www.jobmer.org/2020/jobmer_vol4_i
Mamirauá Sustainable Development ssue2_article7%20full%20text.pdf.
Reserve and Ría Celestún biosphere Retrieved on 15/3/2021.
reserve. MA Thesis. United Nations‟ Songorwa, A.T. (1999). Community-based wildlife
University for Peace, USA management (CWM) in Tanzania: Are the
McNabb, David E (2002), Research Methods in communities interested? World
Public Administration and Non Profit Development, 27(12): 2061-2079.
Management, Quantitative and Qualitative Songorwa AN (2015) Sustaining wildlife
Approaches, Armonk, New York, M E conservation in growing socio-economic
Sharpe. demands: Can the elephant in Tanzania
Moyo, F., J. Ijumba, and J. F. Lund. (2016). Failure by survive the current wave of poaching? The
design? Revisiting Tanzania’s flagship 10th TAWIRI Biennial Scientific Conference
Wildlife Management Area Burunge. December 2–5, 2015 Arusha, Tanzania
Conservation and Society 14:232–242. Taylor, R.D. (2006). Case study: Communal Areas
Nelson, F. (2007). Emergent or illusory? Community Management Programme for Indigenous
wildlife management in Tanzania. IIED, Resources (CAMPFIRE) Zimbabwe. Prepared
Issue paper no. 146. Nottingham, UK: for the USAID=FRAME project: case studies
Russell Press Nelson F, Blomley T. (2010). on successful southern African NRM
Peasants’ forests and the King’s game? initiatives and their impacts on poverty and
Institutional divergence and convergence governance. IUCN, SOUTH Africa, Pretoria.
in Tanzania’s forestry and wildlife sectors. Underwood, E., Klausmeyer, K., Morrison, S., Bode,
Pages 79–105 in F Nelson, editor. M. and Shaw, M. (2009). Evaluating
Community rights, conservation and conservation spending for species return: a
contested land. Earthscan, London. retrospective analysis in California.
Pritchard T. (2006) Environmental Education. Its Conservation Letters, Sage Publication,
Social Relevance in North West Europe Calfornia.
Council of Europe Unpublished Report CE / UNESCO (2005). United Nations Conference on the
May/ (68 / 67) Strasbourg. Environment and Development: Agenda 21.
Redford, K.H., Levy, M.A., Sanderson, E.W. & de Tech. rep., UNESCO.
Sherbinin, A. (2008). What is the role for URT (2009). United Republic of Tanzania. The
conservation organizations in poverty Wildlife Conservation Act of 2009
alleviation in the world’s wild places? Oryx, URT (2012). United Republic of Tanzania: Ministry of
42:516-528. Natural Resources and Tourism: Wildlife
Salafsky, N. (2011). Integrating development with Conservation (Wildlife Management
conservation: A means to a conservation Areas) Regulations of 2012.
end, or a mean end to conservation? Weladji, R.B. & Tchamba, M.N. (2003). Conflict
Biological Conservation, 144: 973-978. between people and protected areas
Smyth, J.C. (2006) Environment and education: a within the Be´noue Wildlife Conservation
view of a changing scene, Environmental Area, North Cameroon. Oryx, 37(1):72-79.
Education Research 12(3,4):247-264.

50 East African Journal of Education and Social Sciences (EAJESS) 2(2)41-50