MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND TOURISM

WILDLIFE DIVISION & TANZANIA NATIONAL PARKS

in collaboration with IRINGA DISTRICT

MBOMIPA PROJECT
Matumizi Bora ya Malihai Idodi na Pawaga
Sustainable Use of Wild Resources in Idodi and Pawaga

NOTES FOR MBOMIPA

PROJECT VISITORS
Report No.MMN1
August 1998

by

Martin Walsh

MBOMIPA Project
Iringa District Natural Resources Office
P.O.Box 398
IRINGA

Tel. 064-2686
Fax. 064-2807
NOTES FOR MBOMIPA PROJECT VISITORS

INTRODUCTION
MBOMIPA is a joint project of the Wildlife Division and Tanzania National Parks
(TANAPA) in the Government of Tanzania’s Ministry of Natural Resources and
Tourism. Financial and technical support is provided by the U.K. government
through its Department for International Development (DFID, formerly ODA).

MBOMIPA is a Swahili acronym, short for Matumizi Bora ya Malihai Idodi na

Pawaga, loosely translated into English as ‘Sustainable Use of Wild Resources in
Idodi and Pawaga’. Idodi and Pawaga are two administrative Divisions in Iringa
District, Iringa Region, and the project is being implemented in 16 villages in this area
in collaboration with the Iringa District authorities.

These villages all lie within the Lunda-Mkwambi Game Controlled Area (LM GCA)
on the south-eastern edge of Ruaha National Park. The specific purpose of the project
is to establish ‘an effective and sustainable wildlife management system, under
community authority and responsibility’ in the inhabited southern section of LM
GCA. MBOMIPA is pioneering implementation of the government’s new Wildlife
Policy, by facilitating the conversion of LM GCA into a Wildlife Management Area
(WMA) in which local communities derive direct social and economic benefits from
their role as natural resource managers.

MBOMIPA began officially at the end of October 1997. The project was developed
out of the successful experience of the ODA-assisted Ruaha Ecosystems Wildlife
Management Project (REWMP), which ended in mid-1996. Whereas the community
development component of REWMP was concerned primarily with the sustainable
utilisation of game, MBOMIPA is promoting the sustainable management of all
natural resources, both flora and fauna, as a means of enhancing social and economic
development and alleviating rural poverty.

It is hoped that by the end of the four-year project period villagers, working in
collaboration with the District and other stakeholders, will possess the capacity to
manage the natural resources on their lands sustainably and for the benefit of all. The
principal beneficiaries of this process will be the villagers themselves, channelling
incomes from sustainable resource utilisation into community development initiatives.
The District will also benefit in a number of ways from this more efficient use of
resources, while the future of natural resources (including game) in the project area
will be assured.

Building upon the experience of REWMP and activities undertaken in the interim
period between projects, MBOMIPA has already made significant progress towards
the achievement of its objectives. It has also begun to generate considerable interest
at national level, and is poised to make an important contribution to the development
of policy and its implementation elsewhere in Tanzania.

1
Many challenges, however, remain ahead. The following brief notes are intended to
provide project visitors with an introduction to some of the problems and issues which
MBOMIPA is currently addressing. More detailed information and technical
discussion is available in the Project Memorandum and project reports. Most of all,
visitors are encouraged to elicit the views of men and women villagers living in the
project area, in addition to those of other project stakeholders in Iringa District and
further afield.

THE PROJECT AREA AND ITS POPULATION

LM GCA lies in the Rift Valley to the north and west of Iringa town. This is the
easternmost branch of the Rift Valley, which follows the upper course of the Great
Ruaha River. The south-eastern boundary of Ruaha National Park follows the line of
the Great Ruaha, which for part of its course comprises the actual boundary between
the park and LM GCA.

LM GCA is semi-arid and the natural vegetation is dominated by a mixture of Acacia,

Commiphora, Combretum and transitional miombo (Brachystegia) woodland. LM
GCA covers a total area of some 6,000 km2. The northern section of LM GCA
(c.2,000 km2) is maintained as a tourist hunting block and is uninhabited (though used
opportunistically by migrant pastoralists and others close to the Great Ruaha and the
reservoir of the Mtera Dam). The southern portion of LM GCA (c.4,000 km2)
contains the 16 project villages. The larger part of this area is village land, with the
exception of the southernmost section (Mkupule) which extends to the boundary
between Iringa and Mbeya Regions and the soon-to-be gazetted Usangu Game
Reserve.

At the last national census (in 1988) the 16 villages had a total population of just
under 30,000 people. The large majority of these are settled cultivators growing
maize and rice along the valleys of the rivers and seasonal streams which flow down
towards the Great Ruaha from the Rift Escarpment. Most of these farmers are Hehe
and closely related Bantu speaking peoples from neighbouring parts of Iringa, Mbeya
and Dodoma Regions, including people who were moved out of Ruaha National Park
following its creation in 1964. There are also significant numbers of pastoralists and
agropastoralists in the project area, including Il-Parakuyu Maasai (long resident in the
area) and Barabaig and Sukuma from further north in Tanzania. The scarcity of
grazing and water resources in the dry season often results in competition and conflict
over these resources, both between cultivators and livestock-keepers and between
different groups of livestock-keepers. These conflicts are exacerbated in some
villages by the fact that recent migrants are under-represented in village government.

INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT

REWMP established Village Wildlife Committees (VWCs) in pilot villages. The

VWCs, in turn, appointed local Village Game Scouts (VGSs) to patrol hunting blocks
and assist District and TANAPA staff in controlling poaching and other illegal
utilisation activities.

2
One of the first tasks of MBOMIPA has been to develop and modify the institutional
framework for natural resource management at village level. The original VWCs
were not as effective as they might have been for a number of reasons. Committee
members were often hastily appointed without due consideration of their skills and
ability to represent the interests of villagers as a whole. Little effort was put into
training VWCs, but rather more into training (at least some) VGSs. Most seriously,
perhaps, the VWCs, who had direct access to new and significant sources of village
income, tended to operate independently of the existing organs of village government,
generating conflicts over the use of funds.

In order to tackle these problems, MBOMIPA began by reforming the VWCs (often
referred to as ‘MBOMIPA committees’) as Village Natural Resource Committees
(VNRCs) – emphasising their enlarged role in natural resource (and not just game)
management. New guidelines were provided on the election of committee members
and officials: on their number, level of literacy, and committee composition as a
whole (to balance gender and the interests of different ethnic and resource-use
groups). The existing VWCs were reformed and new VNRCs formed in villages
which had not had them before. The project then embarked on a participatory training
programme which is still in its initial stages. Back-to-back workshops were held for
VNRC officials to discuss and define the roles and responsibilities of the VNRCs, and
at the same time provide the project with an opportunity to assess further training
needs. These workshops were facilitated in collaboration with District and Park staff,
and followed by further consultation at District level in order to formalise the position
VNRCs as recognised sub-committees of village government and define procedures to
make them more transparent and fully accountable.

Further workshops are planned with the participation of VNRC members and other
village government officials. The project has also provided preliminary guidelines for
the preparation of committee reports and accounts, and a lot more work is anticipated
in this direction in collaboration with the District offices and drawing upon the
experience of other projects in the Region which have tackled similar issues. The
project recognises that the development of an effective institutional structure and
processes at village level is critical to the success of natural resource management.
We also recognise that this is not an easy task, and Tanzania’s historical experience of
collective village enterprises indicates many of the pitfalls involved. Project and
District/Divisional staff (especially from the Community Development Office) are
often called upon to advise and/or intervene in specific cases (e.g. cases of alleged
misuse of funds). Ideally this kind of intervention should be at a minimum.

While giving first priority to VNRC training, project staff have also begun to review
the training and other needs of the Village Game Scouts. The external training
offered to VGSs in the past has proved to be inadequate for local needs, and the
project is therefore in the process of planning its own training programme with the
assistance of expertise available at District level. Plans are afoot to reform the VGSs
(like the VNRCs), before addressing the more difficult question of how the VNRCs
can best resource their VGSs.

At District level the project has reformed the District Steering Committee (DSC)
which was first established under REWMP. The DSC meets quarterly, with

3
additional extraordinary meetings being held to take decisions on pressing issues (e.g.
the sale of the game quota and organisation of the hunting season). The DSC is
chaired by the District Commissioner and its members include other key District
Officers, Ward Councillors, and other stakeholder representatives. To date it has
proved to be extremely effective. Some concern, however, has been expressed over
the future duplication of committees of this kind. In addition to the existing activities
of the DANIDA HIMA (Hifadhi ya Mazingira) Project, two new DANIDA-funded
natural resource management projects are planned for Iringa District, one of them
dealing with miombo woodlands bordering the MBOMIPA Project area. While this is
good news in most respects (given the potential for fruitful project interactions), it is
also recognised that some rationalisation of natural resource project management /
facilitation at District level will be necessary.

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES

Whereas the community development component of REWMP focused primarily on
game hunting, MBOMIPA is charged with fostering natural resource management
initiatives across all of its sub-sectors. This is in keeping with the new Wildlife
Policy’s broad (biodiversity-based) definition of ‘wildlife’ and the proposed functions
of Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs).

As might be expected, and given the amount of initial groundwork which has to be
undertaken, this work is still at a preliminary stage. The four project team members
have each been assigned multiple responsibilities: among these are responsibilities
for particular natural resource sub-sectors with counterparts in the District Natural
Resources Office. The Project Manager and Game Officer (representing the Wildlife
Division) has particular responsibility for fauna, in particular game hunting and
fisheries. The Community Conservation Officer (representing TANAPA) has
particular responsibility for forestry and bee-keeping, in addition to environmental
education. The Field Manager and Social Development Adviser (representing DFID)
has special responsibility for socio-economic issues, including monitoring and
evaluation and the ‘pastoralist question’. The Technical Adviser / Community
Development (employed directly by the project) is mainly concerned with
institutional development and training at village level. The latter two members of the
team share responsibility for gender issues.

The two government officers on the project team have therefore divided the four
natural resource sub-sectors between them. These sub-sectors correspond to divisions
in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, and these two team members
undertake this work in collaboration with the corresponding District Officers (Game,
Fisheries, Forestry, and Beekeeping). Game aside, their first task has been to review
existing baseline information and activities in the project area, including the legal
aspects of utilisation, and to review relevant experiences in these sub-sectors
elsewhere in Tanzania. Given the importance of vegetation communities in the
project area, in terms of both supporting biodiversity and their economic value, most
progress to date has been made in the forestry sub-sector. At present a team of
consultants from the University of Dar es Salaam and TANAPA is in the field
undertaking a major survey of vegetation communities and the impacts of different
forms of utilisation on them throughout the project area. The report and its

4
recommendations are eagerly awaited, because it is expected to provide the project
with a set of starting points for further work. In the meantime, work in this sub-sector
has been somewhat ad hoc. Some VNRCs have already taken the initiative in
controlling forest utilisation, while the project and District authorities have provided
preliminary advice on licensing procedures and intervened to stop some major abuses
of these.

Although some villages have already begun their own land use planning, it is
anticipated that the significant development of village natural resource management
initiatives in each of these sub-sectors (excluding game) will follow detailed work at
individual village level. A series of participatory research and planning exercises is
planned for the next year in each of the project villages: exercises which will be led
by a consultant and will involve project team members, District staff, and villagers
themselves.

The project’s Community Conservation Officer is also in the process of planning

environmental education activities, starting with primary schools in the project area,
while the Social Development Adviser is still gathering baseline information on
socio-economic and resource conflict issues.

Given the work already undertaken under REWMP and during the interim period
between projects, initiatives relating to game hunting are by far the most advanced.
LM GCA South receives an annual game quota set by the Director of Wildlife, based
on reports and advice provided by the project and District Game Officers. Resident
hunters can apply for licenses to hunt the animals on this and other quotas. License
fees for resident hunters are low (e.g. Tshs.6,000 per buffalo), whereas most of the
hunters themselves are wealthy farmers or businessmen (in the MBOMIPA case
living in and around Iringa town). Even so, the licensing system and is regulations is
abused by some hunters, and continues to be abused outside of the MBOMIPA
Project area. Under REWMP the Director of Wildlife authorised villages to collect an
additional levy on the game animals sold on village lands: the District was also
authorised to collect its own levy on the quota for non-village lands (the Mkupule
area). As a result the cost to hunters rose by an order of magnitude (e.g. to more than
Tshs.100,000 per buffalo), while village incomes doubled, trebled and more. Not
surprisingly the village and District levies met with considerable resistance from the
resident hunters, represented in Iringa by the local branch of the Hunters’ Association
of Tanzania (HAT).

Since the end of REWMP and the 1996 hunting season, the conflict generated over
sale of the game quota has lessened considerably. In 1997, following more than a
month of difficult negotiations, a successful compromise was reached whereby the
previous system of auctioning individual animals on the quota was abandoned.
Instead the quota was sold by hunting block. The four hunting blocks on village lands
were purchased by HAT Iringa on behalf of its members, while the District hunting
block (Mkupule) was sold to the Ruaha Conservation Group – a new grouping which
was primarily concerned with protecting game on land adjacent to Ruaha National
Park. In 1998, after another series of negotiations, a similar conclusion was reached.
This time HAT Iringa was outbid by the Chairman of HAT (acting as a private
individual) and members of his family together with other named resident hunters.
The Ruaha Conservation Group retained the District block without challenge. Both

5
successful bidders pledged to contribute additional sums to the development of
patrolling activities in the hunting blocks they had bid for.

Despite the apparent division in HAT Iringa, very few hunters remain who are vocal
in their opposition to the sale process. This has been helped enormously by the fact
that the project District Steering Committee has firmly established its authority as the
mediator between villages and hunters in the annual negotiations. A number of
hunters have also begun to recognise that the quality of hunting has improved in some
of the hunting blocks (because of improved patrolling) and that they are getting their
money’s worth. The real impact of these activities on game populations remains to be
assessed: MBOMIPA is planning to contract bi-annual surveys of game which will
answer this question, provide a firmer basis for setting the annual quota, and also
advice on monitoring procedures which can be sustained in the absence of project
funding.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS

The measurable benefits of natural resource management initiatives in the project area
currently derive from three main sources.

One of these is by and large independent of the project. Ruaha National Park, like
other parks, operates a benefit-sharing scheme with neighbouring communities. This
is TANAPA’s Support for Community Initiated Projects (SCIP) programme, run by
its Community Conservation Service (CCS). TANAPA allocates funds to the SCIP
programme in each of its parks on an annual basis, and Ruaha is no exception. These
funds are used to support village development projects – most typically in the
education and health sectors (the construction of schools and clinics), though
increasing consideration is being given to income generating projects. Villages are
invited to submit costed proposals, indicating their own contributions to the proposed
projects, and these are then evaluated by the park management and SCIP committee.
Many of the villages in the MBOMIPA Project area have benefited from SCIP funds.

The MBOMIPA Project budget provides for a matching contribution to the Ruaha
SCIP fund of c.Tshs.20 million per annum. This year the park has indicated that it
would like to spend MBOMIPA’s contribution on the provision of a reliable water
supply for the new Idodi Secondary School, due to opened later in 1998. In principle
the project has no objection to this request, and it is hoped that it can be processed
shortly.

The second and third major sources of benefit are village incomes from hunting. For
some years Iringa District has received a portion of the revenues generated by tourist
hunting in the northern part of LM GCA. In 1997 the District received more than
Tshs.2.8 million. REWMP had earlier lobbied for this revenue to be distributed to the
seven villages in Pawaga division which border the tourist hunting concession and do
not have a game quota on their own village lands. In 1997 this request was partially
granted for the first time and Tshs.1.75 million shared among the seven villages,
which received Tshs.250,000 each for specific development projects. This year
(1998) the District has recently received over Tshs.2.1 million from the same source,
and a second allocation to the Pawaga villages is expected.

6
The principal source of village income, however, is from the levies raised on the sale
of the LM GCA South game quota. As the following table shows, most village
incomes from this source have increased progressively since 1996, when animals
were first auctioned individually.

VILLAGE AND DISTRICT INCOME FROM SALE OF GAME

QUOTA 1996-98
(Tanzania shillings)

BLOCK VILLAGE 1996 1997 1998

VILLAGE LEVY
Pawaga Isele 194,200 600,000 1,025,500
Kisanga 374,500 600,000 1,025,500
Lunda Malinzanga 854,860 1,250,000 1,025,000
Mafuluto 774,860 1,250,000 1,025,000
Kitisi Idodi 388,500 600,000 1,025,500
Mapogoro 273,000 600,000 1,025,500
Mkupule Villages Tungamalenga 281,233 400,000 683,666
Makifu 281,233 400,000 683,666
Mahuninga 281,233 400,000 683,666
Sub-total 3,703,620 6,100,000 8,204,000
DISTRICT LEVY
Mkupule District 1,402,100 2,100,000 2,100,000

TOTAL INCOME 5,105,720 8,200,000 10,304,000

The District levy is used to fund activities relating to the District’s role in the natural
resource management of the area. At present it is planned to use some of the funds to
cut an access road through the Mkupule District hunting block.

The village levies provide VNRCs with their main source of income and are used to
pay both running costs (including provisioning of Village Game Scouts) and to
contribute towards village development projects. The record of villages to date in
managing these funds is mixed, though it is hoped that with further training and
advice increasingly transparent and effective use of the funds will be made. The
following table summarises one village’s record of expenditure in 1997, mostly prior
to the official start of MBOMIPA.

7
IDODI VILLAGE:
USE OF VILLAGE NATURAL RESOURCE
COMMITTEE FUNDS 1997
(Tanzania shillings)

RUNNING COSTS
Committee expenses 92,310 11%
Village game scouts 186,550 22%
Sub-total 278,860 33%

VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
Road maintenance 212,600 25%
Smallholder irrigation 100,000 12%
School development 250,000 30%
Sub-total 562,600 67%

TOTAL EXPENDITURE 841,460

POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION

Before ending these notes, a final word might be said about MBOMIPA’s
contribution to the development of the new Wildlife Policy (March 1998) and its
implementation. Partly because of its long pedigree (stretching back to the
community development component of REWMP), MBOMIPA has already attracted
considerable interest within Tanzania from both government and non-government
institutions active in the natural resources sector. Project staff are hard pressed to
meet all the requests for information, collaboration and proposed visits, though we
hope that this level of interest will be maintained and that we can make a positive
contribution. Most recently, in August 1998, the Ministry of Natural Resources and
Tourism held a week-long workshop on Wildlife Policy Implementation in Iringa.
This was attended by two members of the project team, and workshop participants
concluded their week with a field trip to villages and VNRCs in the project area.

We hope that these brief notes will encourage you to ask more about the project and
challenge us with your comments.