Towards Overcoming the Challenges to Adopting Ecosystem-Based Management Approach for Protected Areas: The Case of Serengeti Ecosystem

Abstract

Ecosystem-based planning and management strategies concerning wildlife protected areas are a necessary development in ensuring ecological integrity of protected areas and hence the stability and survival of wildlife populations in them. Ecosystem-based planning and management strategies are however a new approach, and thus, most protected areas in Africa were established before the approach became known. Consequently, most protected areas need to adopt ecosystem-based management (EBM) to ensure ecological integrity of the areas and the survival of wildlife, as well as maintenance of other environmental services in general. Serengeti Ecosystem is one very complex system, with a large expanse of area and a multitude of stakeholders. Thus, adoption of EBM for Serengeti Ecosystem is faced by several challenges, the most daunting of which is human-wildlife conflicts (HWCs). The chapter analyzes this challenge through fairly detailed examination of the case in examples of the most outstanding HWCs and the initiatives that have been tried out to facilitate ecosystem-based management of the Serengeti, and comes to the conclusion that, with some modifications, the Greater Serengeti Conservation Society presents the best chance under the circumstances to succeed in overcoming the challenges to adoption of EBM for the Serengeti Ecosystem.

1. Introduction

Ecosystem-based management (EBM) approach is one that seeks to integrate all ecosystem components, functions, interactions, processes, and all related dynamics of a given resource or area. For wildlife protected areas (WPA), the approach aims to sustainably manage natural resources, their environment, and the services they provide to humans within a defined ecosystem, as opposed to arbitrarily defined ones, which is the way most wildlife protected areas were established and are being managed.

Many protected areas in Africa had their boundaries demarcated depending on availability of land that could be set aside for respective conservation purposes or that was deemed necessary for some specific conservation purpose. This is partly because many protected areas in Africa were established before the concepts of ecology and ecosystem were very well understood, and thus, their implications on wildlife protected area management relative to human land uses were not taken into account. Moreover, wildlife management problems arising from arbitrarily demarcated protected area boundaries such as protected animals being killed outside protected areas, on the one hand, and wild animals raiding people’s farms and settlements or killing and maiming humans and domestic stock, on the other, had not grown to problematic proportions.

The situation has since changed. With human population having grown tremendously and still growing, while wildlife habitats are shrinking due to human development activities encroaching upon protected areas, or destroying natural vegetation, and consequently wild animals being compelled to seek food, water, and other necessities of survival outside protected areas. This is the essence of human-wildlife conflicts (HWCs), as we have come to label it, and the number one threat to the survival of certain protected areas and wildlife species. Various measures have been taken for years to combat or mitigate HWCs, but none seems to hold a lasting solution, and this is one of the major reasons for adoption of EBM strategies.

Other major threats to the survival of natural resources in protected areas include illegal hunting or poaching, various forms of habitat destruction, and climate change.

Tanzania has taken initiative to adopting EBM strategies since the 1980s; but, to date, none of the initiatives has brought a lasting solution yet. This is because there are challenges to adopting EBM strategies that must be overcome for the strategies to provide a lasting solution to threats to ecosystem survival. An analysis of the initiatives that have been tried out to date indicate the latest one, the Greater Serengeti Conservation Society (GSCS), if improved upon, could very well provide Tanzania with an effective instrument to overcome the major challenges to EBM and hence ensure Serengeti Ecosystem of eternal survival.

This chapter presents the premises for my conclusion and the proposals of what might have to be done for Greater Serengeti Conservation Society (GSCS) or any such initiative to help overcome the challenges to EBM and hence promote the survival of Serengeti Ecosystem.

This chapter gives an overview of the general challenges to EBM strategies in planning and managing protected areas. The case of Serengeti Ecosystem is then examined, and the need and challenges to EBM are analyzed based on experience and reality on the ground. This is done by presenting fairly detailed case examples to elucidate the situations in question so as to enable the reader to see the rationale for what is concluded and ultimately proposed towards overcoming challenges to EBM adoption in the Serengeti Ecosystem.

The selection for case examples, both for challenges and solution initiatives, is based on representativeness or centrality of the case to the subject in question. What is finally proposed for action towards overcoming the challenges to EBM strategies for the Serengeti Ecosystem is based on the analysis of what has worked and what has not worked for the initiatives that have been tried to the effect, and my experience and knowledge of the workings of the legal and institutional landscape and arrangements for conservation matters in Tanzania.

2. The need for and the challenges to implementing EBM approaches in protected areas: an overview

2.1 The need for EBM approaches

A century ago, when many countries in Africa started establishing national parks and game reserves, protected areas were few and far apart, and human population was low and land uses were also few, and did not cover as much land as today. Thus, there was plenty of land for wild animals, and animals crossing protected area boundaries were not seen to be a problem if they did not raid farms or kill humans or livestock. Today, wild animals raiding farms and killing humans and domestic stock are rampant in countries like Tanzania, as is livestock grazing in protected areas and human settlements and farms neighboring protected areas. This is so much so to the extent that human-wildlife conflicts (HWCs) are probably the number one wildlife protected area management problem in the past one decade. HWCs are thus the biggest challenge to EBM, the ones threatening ecosystem management most, and hence raising the most concern and consequently receiving the most attention.

For communities living near wildlife protected areas, farm raids are a perennial problem, and wild animals maiming and killing humans and livestock is a common occurrence. Consequently, wide ranging animals such as elephants are costing the nation a lot in loss of crops and domestic stock, as well as human life and limb. On the other hand, the government is losing a tremendous amount of funds on the problem of human-elephant conflicts (HECs), for instance, in terms of money spent on research, consolation payments to victims, vermin control, and a variety of conflict mitigation measures. As I have pointed out in my article on human-elephant conflicts [1], the situation is dire and calls for institution of an integrative wildlife conservation strategy, which should also embrace a manipulative scientific wildlife management strategy [2].

For its part, the government has been fairly vigilant in addressing the HECs, largely by educating the affected communities on the problem and training them on how to live with the problem by taking mitigation measures. Government personnel are also involved in carrying out some of the mitigation measures such as conducting patrols and chasing away the problem animals from settlements. However, with a possible exception of insignificant local successes, the problem is still growing and the government has yet to find a lasting solution.

Apart from taking mitigation measures, the government has had to degazette portions of protected areas, including parts of Serengeti Ecosystem to resolve human-wildlife conflicts arising from human encroachment on protected areas, as has been the case for Maswa Game Reserve that has had parts of its area degazetted three times. In some cases, encroaching communities have had to be relocated at huge government expense to give way to wildlife conservation requirements, as has been the case for Ngorongoro Conservation Area and former Loliondo Controlled Area. At this rate, protected areas cannot be said to provide sustainable security for natural resources. This is why there have been calls for institution of ecosystem-based planning and management of protected areas in recent years.

Ecosystem-based management is indeed the widely recognized framework for promoting sustainable management of natural resources, especially for wildlife protected areas suffering from human-wildlife conflicts due to proximity of human settlements and wide-ranging nature of some animal species, as are cases of elephants and wildebeest of Serengeti Ecosystem.

2.2 The challenges of implementing EBM strategies in protected areas

Although the benefits of EBM approaches and related policies have been identified and acknowledged in natural resources conservation circles, there are also significant challenges in implementing these strategies in protected areas, Serengeti Ecosystem being the case in example. The magnitude, extent, and complexity of challenges depend on a number of factors. These include the complexity of the ecosystem involved in terms of the diversity of species and their interaction with each other and their environment, ecological processes, and changes over time. Consequently, an ecosystem-based approach to managing protected areas requires comprehensive understanding of all the parameters of the ecosystem, which in turn requires extensive ecological research.

Apart from the challenges deriving from the complexity of the ecological environment, there are those that derive from the human environment. These, too, can be quite complex, depending on expanse of protected area and what constitutes its ecosystem, the socioeconomics of surrounding communities, the economics of the country, as well as the sociopolitical setting and dynamics. These challenges and their trends need to be studied, too, and be taken into account in planning as well as in management.

Another major challenge to practicing EBM is the diversity of stakeholders. Although this is basically part of the human environment, it deserves special attention, as it is the one that poses the most threat to managing many wildlife protected areas (WPAs). Major among stakeholders are the management, respective boards of directors or trustees, the local communities, conservationists, donors, researchers, local politicians, tourists, tour operators, respective government authorities, and non-governmental organizations. These stakeholders have diverse and often conflicting perspectives and goals in relation to the objectives and activities of WPAs, which can lead to disagreements regarding management decisions and make it challenging to implement EBM strategies successfully.

In addition, there are unpredictable but, nonetheless, certain-to-occur climate change challenges. It is usually not known exactly what form climate change events might take, but as they are already occurring in terms of extreme weather events like droughts, too much rain, and flooding and have impacts on wildlife populations, it is important to make anticipative plans regarding climate change. This is because some events result in deaths, others in increased births, while others result in migration in search of food, water, and other survival necessities. Migrations may result in farm raids and cause more conflicts with farmers. In view of the damages and losses that may be caused by climate change, it is imperative that WPAs should have anticipatory mitigation plans for such occurrences.

Another challenge shared by most wildlife protected areas is that ecosystem-based management strategies are an add-on feature to existing management of a protected area, a consideration that came after the protected area had been established. This may entail re-demarcation of boundaries, re-settlement of surrounding communities, and any other change in surrounding land uses that may be necessitated by the requisite changes in management objectives and shift in boundaries.

Serengeti Ecosystem is faced by all of the above challenges and much more due to additional attributes. Apart from its expanse, which entail encompassing a diversity of habitats and species, as well as a large number of surrounding tribal communities, Serengeti National Park, the protected area on which the ecosystem is based, is an iconic protected area with several superlatives in its description, international statuses, and a large number of local and nonlocal stakeholders.

An overview of Serengeti National Park’s historical, natural, and socioeconomic features is presented here to give the reader some idea about the complexity of Serengeti Ecosystem and its management challenges and hence the challenges to practicing EBM strategies.

2.3 Overview of Serengeti National Park

Serengeti Ecosystem encompasses several protected areas of different protection statuses, the core being Serengeti National Park, from which the ecosystem derives its name. Others (see Figure 1), starting with the most northerly moving clockwise, are Maasai Mara National Game Reserve (in Kenya), Pololeti Game Reserve, Malambo Game Reserve, Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Makao Wildlife Management Area, Maswa Game Reserve, Grumeti Game Reserve, Ikona Wildlife Management Area, and Ikorongo Game Reserve. The ecosystem also includes surrounding buffer zones.

Figure 1.

A map of Serengeti Ecosystem showing the boundary and major protected areas. Source: Ref. [3]. Serengeti shall not die: Transforming an ambition into a reality.

Each one of the protected areas listed above has its own history, geography, and ecological features. For the purpose of this chapter, the historical and geographical notes in this section are of necessity centered around the Serengeti National Park, as it is the core of the ecosystem by geography and ecology, as well as management activities. Other protected areas will be described as necessary in covering respective issues.

2.3.1 The history of Serengeti National Park

Widely acknowledged as the iconic national park of Tanzania and branded as the most unique area in the world by the author of two of the most used field guides to Tanzania national parks and Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Lilla N. Lyogello [4]. Serengeti National Park is the oldest protected area that was initially established as game reserve in 1921, and later upgraded and gazetted as a national park in 1951, thus becoming the first national park in Tanzania [4, 5, 6].

The idea of establishing Serengeti as a national park originated from the colonial masters in England but was strongly opposed by local colonial administrators of the then Tanganyika Territory and local communities. According to Jaffari Kideghesho [3], the most important criteria in judging the suitability of an area as a national park were interests and priorities of the Europeans. The Serengeti was rated as suitable for creation of a national park, because of its insignificant mineral deposits, presence of the tsetse fly, and scant rainfall, which made the land unattractive to European miners as well as farmers. The idea of creating national parks, however, was opposed by the colonial administrators in Tanganyika, who felt that the strategy was infringing on natives’ rights and thus was posing a risk to the political stability of the colony.

The colonial masters’ wish was subsequently reinforced by the 1933 London Convention on Flora and Fauna of Africa. The convention required all signatories (including Tanganyika) to investigate the possibility of creating a system of national parks. Powerful individuals in London consistently overstated the problem of what they termed “destructive behavior of Africans to wildlife” as a way of pressing the colonial government to act.

In 1940, the first game ordinance that gave the governor a mandate to declare any area a national park was enacted. Serengeti was upgraded from a game reserve into a national park in that year. However, its implementation had to be delayed largely due to the World War II (1939–1945), and although it was gazetted in 1951, it remained a national park on paper only, without effective enforcement of the laws and regulations governing national parks. The fact that there were Maasai livestock keepers within the park was contradictory to the national park idea.

According to Kideghesho’s narration of the events that ensued, the gazettement of the Serengeti as a national park precipitated conflicts and opposition from the natives. This was a consequence of conservationists’ placing more value on wild animals than on human beings. For example, one of the former park managers of Serengeti stated blatantly that: “The interests of fauna and flora must come first, those of man and belongings being of secondary importance.”

In the eastern part of Serengeti, the Maasai resisted the proposed park boundaries through violence and sabotage/vandalism. They speared the rhinos, set fires with malicious intent, and terrorized civil servants. The Ikoma hunters in western Serengeti, on the other hand, contravened the colonial conservation laws, which barred them from hunting, while swearing to use poisoned arrows against any wildlife ranger who would interfere with their hunting activities.

To resolve these conflicts, the Colonial Government divided Serengeti National Park into two parts, the western and the eastern; the former remaining as a national park we know today and the eastern becoming Ngorongoro Conservation Area. Whereas all human activities were proscribed in remaining park, livestock keeping and a limited level of crop cultivation were allowed in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA), thus becoming a multiple land use protected area. The Serengeti Maasai were relocated to NCA through a special agreement to that effect and as provided in the Ngorongoro Conservation Ordinance of 1959. The Ordinance applied to the Maasai as well as the original residents of the area that included a small population of Tatoga (Datooga) and Barabaig in the Crater and other Mbulu tribes in the highlands, altogether making an estimated total of 8000 residents. Soon after, the Maasai chased the original residents of the area and kept the area to themselves.

For about a decade or so, the Ngorongoro’s multiple land use arrangement seemed to work. But as the population of humans and livestock increased, human activities threatened the environment, and the government had to forbid crop cultivation. This was effected by enacting the 1975 Ngorongoro Conservation Area Act Cap. 284 [7]. This gave rise to a conflict. The Maasai considered the law an infringement on their human rights and a default on the 1959 agreement. Meanwhile, the population of humans and livestock continued to grow beyond what could be sustained by the area and threatened the natural resources of the area. In June 2022, Morenda [8] published an article in the Guardian quoting the Minister of Natural Resources and Tourism, Madame Pindi Chana, to have said that by 2022, there were about 110,000 Maasai and one million head of livestock in NCA.

It is worth noting that the conflicts that existed in western Serengeti when the Park was gazetted have continued to date, whereas those that existed in eastern Serengeti have changed very little. Details on these conflicts are presented by case examples in respective sections below.

2.3.2 Geography and ecology

Though with the size of 14,763 sq.km, Serengeti comes in third after Nyerere National Park (30,893 sq.km.) and Ruaha National Park (20,226 sq.km.), Serengeti is the national park with the most superlatives in terms of characteristics, history, tourism, and management. As pointed out earlier, Serengeti is the first protected area and national park, the most visited, most researched, most filmed, and most written about. Still Serengeti National Park remains arguably the wildest [4], and its wildebeest migration the world’s most renowned. The name Serengeti is derived from the Maasai word siringet, meaning “extended area,” referring to a large expanse of plain that characterizes much of Serengeti National Park landscape.

Because of its size, Serengeti National Park, and hence Serengeti Ecosystem, is surrounded by over 30 communities of different ethnicity and hence different customs, activities, and impact on the Park and Serengeti Ecosystem, at large. Serengeti’s border location with Kenya and Maasai Mara National Reserve is a unique ecosystem feature in that the ecosystem transcends the national boundary, an attribute that is amply demonstrated by the annual wildebeest migration by which the animals involved spend part of the year in Serengeti, and the other part in Maasai Mara. In fact, the boundaries of Serengeti Ecosystem are defined by the Serengeti Wildebeest migration route (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Serengeti National Park wildebeest migration route. Source: Affordable AfricaSafaris.com.

Ecology is what defines the boundaries of Serengeti Ecosystem beyond those of Serengeti National Park from which it derives its name. The boundaries of the ecosystem are defined by the route of the widest ranging Serengeti National Park animal species, which is the wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus) and accompanying angulates, in the form of annual migration mentioned earlier (Figure 2). The so defined Serengeti Ecosystem covers about 25,000–30,000 sq.km [3, 9] in the northern part of Tanzania (Figure 1), west of the Rift Valley, in a highland savanna region with plains and woodlands ranging from 900 to 1500 m above sea level.

In addition to Serengeti National Park, the Serengeti Ecosystem encompasses several different types of protected areas, with different management regimes and falling under four different institutions (TANAPA, NCAA, TAWA, and Kenya Wildlife Services). Protected areas include the Ngorongoro Conservation Area; several game reserves including Maswa, Ikorongo, Grumeti, Kijereshi, and Pololeti; wildlife management areas including Ikona na Makao (all in Tanzania); and Maasai Mara National Reserve in Kenya (Figure 1).

The ecology of Serengeti Ecosystem, particularly the Serengeti National Park, has been very much studied and written about by a number of researchers, much of it of higher academic interest and not easily available to readers for practical interests, even for conservation bureaucrats and practitioners. For the purpose of this chapter, the description in a small book titled “Serengeti,” by David Martin for Tanzania National Parks [6], is sufficient to give the reader some idea about the ecological setting of Serengeti Ecosystem. In this book, the Serengeti Ecosystem is described as being bounded by the Rift Valley and Ngorongoro Crater Highlands in the east, Lake Victoria to the west, and Isuria escarpment to the north. The south east of the park is flat with open grass plains interspersed with kopjes. In the south and western parts, there are undulating hill ranges, which are broken and divided by open and grassland areas. The north and north-west are more undulating with heavier rainfalls and dense tall grassland and woodland vegetation, and the north is fringed with hills bearing the densest vegetation found in Serengeti.

The Serengeti National Park is generally divided into three vegetation areas. In the south east are the open grasslands, to the north open woodlands, and in the west a mosaic of grasslands and woodlands.

It is the ungulates’ ecological necessity for survival around the three major vegetation zones and water availability that gave rise to the annual migration of which Serengeti is best known. Consisting mainly of wildebeest, zebra, and gazelle, the migration begins on open grassland during the rainy season and head west and north in search of grazing during the dry season. A research by Eric Wolanski et al. [10] confirmed that wildebeest migration is determined by availability and quality of vegetation and water and hence the variation in the calendar when rainfall pattern and amount changes.

Sinclair et al. [11], a team of scientists who had studied Serengeti Ecosystem extensively, described the Serengeti Ecosystem as being of special importance because of being one of the few ecosystems with a high diversity of wildlife, one of the last protected ecosystem whose dynamics are driven by millions of migratory herbivores and at the same time containing one of the largest remaining and functioning migration of terrestrial mammals, and that though it has been subject to a wide range of disturbances, it has remained largely unaltered by human intervention. The conditions and change state of Serengeti Ecosystem have thus provided opportunities to examine naturally functioning ecosystems, to study the dynamics of a variety of major components of terrestrial food web and to explore ecological theories in order to understand the process and functioning of large ecosystems. It also provides long-term date on environmental changes in an unusually well-studied ecosystem.

3. The challenges to implementing EBM in the Serengeti Ecosystem

The complex history, geography, and ecology of Serengeti National Park are what make Serengeti Ecosystem extra complex. Thus, EBM for Serengeti Ecosystem is extra complex as is the ecosystem itself and related socioeconomic dynamics. Therefore, as pointed out in Section 2.2, Serengeti Ecosystem is faced with all the major challenges mentioned in that section and more. The challenges mentioned are the complexity of the ecosystem, human environment, diversity of stakeholders, and climate change. What is more for the Serengeti Ecosystem is the magnitude of each challenge, their impact on ecosystem management, and the consequent difficulty there is in overcoming any one of those challenges.

For such a complex ecosystem, one of the major challenges in planning and managing the ecosystem, and perhaps the number one challenge, is to mobilize, enlist support of, and forge a good working relationship with all stakeholders. Given its expanse, the number of contiguous protected areas, communities, and institutions involved make for a multitude of stakeholders. The stakeholders for Serengeti Ecosystem include protected area managers, CEOs, and Boards of Directors/Trustees of wildlife institutions concerned with the protected areas within the Serengeti Ecosystem (TANAPA, WD, TAWA, NCA, KWS), Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, representatives of local communities, representatives of tourist companies, representatives of hunting companies, respective local governments (regional, district, village/mtaa¹), Maasai Mara Management, Narok County representative, Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute, local and international conservation organizations, conservation NGOs, etc. Thus, any initiative aiming at overcoming challenges to EBM must be able to engage all stakeholders meaningfully and effectively.

Another challenge of concern arising from the complexity of Serengeti Ecosystem is the human-wildlife conflicts. These conflicts not only are they a big challenge to the implementation of EBM but currently they are a number one threat to the integrity and sustainability of Serengeti Ecosystem. It is for this reason that the chapter focuses on human-wildlife conflicts with view pointing to pointing out the causes and, more importantly, identifying solutions, as a way towards overcoming the major challenges to EBM.

For the purpose of this chapter, we will look at the dynamics of human-wildlife conflicts by examining one case example on either side of the Serengeti Ecosystem. Ololosokwan in Loliondo represents conflicts on the eastern side, whereas Ikona WMA neighborhood represents conflicts on the western side of the ecosystem.

4. Human-wildlife conflicts

4.1 Human-wildlife conflicts on the eastern side of the Serengeti Ecosystem

Ololosokwan: The Case of a Border Community Abutting Serengeti National Park and Maasai Mara National Reserve in Kenya.

Ololosokwan is selected as a case example that demonstrates locational effects; residents being largely from the Maasai tribe that is at the center of the conflict on the eastern side of Serengeti, plus belonging to both Tanzania and Kenya; the community being in an area affected by HWC; the community having been involved in some community natural resources management scheme that has been analyzed and documented; the document upon which much of the information has been drawn having used false statements that may have inadvertently fueled the conflict that is still raging on (August 2023) in the area.

Ololosokwan is located in northern Tanzania along the Tanzania/Kenya adjacent to the Maasai Mara National Reserve in Kenya and the Serengeti National Park in Tanzania. Its inhabitants are largely Maasai, and it is one of the most wildlife-rich areas in the world [12]. Hundreds of thousands of wildebeests, zebra, and other ungulates pass through the community’s land during their annual migration between the Maasai Mara and Serengeti plains.

The authors observed that Ololosokwan’s wildlife resources made it one of Tanzania’s leading example of community-based ecotourism. They described two ventures that the village had developed since the late 1990s with private tourist companies that earned the village upwards of US$55,000/− annually, and which they cited as the most substantial revenues earned by any village in Tanzania from wildlife-based enterprises, and have been used for communal investments in any array of social services and infrastructure projects. They observed that the realization of these benefits from wildlife had led to increased interest in development of community land and other resource management institutions and practices. And that wildlife is seen as an important economic asset by the community, and consequently, various efforts are being made to capitalize on this natural endowment. They further observed that with this realization, however, there had been growing conflicts over use, control, and management of land and related resources.

The most outstanding of these conflicts has been one between the villagers and a hunting company that has held a hunting concession in the area since 1992. Whereas government authorities maintain that the hunting company complies with legal requirements a hunting outfit, the communities view the presence of the hunting company as an infringement on their rights to benefits, access, and control of their natural resources.

Another bone of contention over what the villagers consider to be their rights to access and use of natural resources in the area is the concept of community-based conservation (CBC) as provided by law and as practiced by the government, relative to the understanding and interests of the villagers. The government players’ perspective, interests, and actions are based on the principles and procedures of managing a wildlife management area (WMA), which the villagers consider to sideline them in planning and decision-making, and as a consequence short-change them in terms of benefits. Thus, the communities are skeptical and resistant to government guidance and directives.

The conflict that has ensued following dissent, illegal activities, and complaints over what is perceived as Maasai being denied of ancestral and human rights, has attracted sympathizers and human rights activists that have for many years created an impasse due to levelling false accusations against the Government. This situation has, in the process, attracted more NGOs and researchers in the area, as the government was being seen not to pay heed to calls and advices.

Sidney Trompell’s research in the area, as published in his article of 2019 titled “The Conservation Bias in Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas,” [13] is one piece of work that demonstrates some of the false accusations and notions that helped to fuel controversy and accusations over what was seen as the government denying the Maasai their rightful access to then Loliondo Controlled Area.

One of the damaging statements in Trompell’s work was that, “Ololosokwan lands also fall within the boundaries of Loliondo Game Controlled Area, a purely nominal protected area category that only restricts wildlife utilization and not settlement, livestock grazing, cultivation, or any other human activity.” Legally, this is a false statement. He quoted the Wildlife Conservation Act of 1974 that had long been replaced by one enacted in 2009.

According to the Wildlife Conservation Act of 2009 [14] and subsequent amendments, human settlement and livestock grazing are prohibited in Game Protected Areas (GCAs). These prohibitions are spelt out in the provisions of two sections as follows. Concerning establishing Game Protected Areas, Section 16 (5), provides that, “…The Minister shall ensure that no land falling under the village land is included in the Game Controlled Areas.” Section 21 (1), on the other hand, prohibits grazing in GCAs by stating that, “Any person shall not, save with the written permission of the Director [of Wildlife] previously sought and obtained, graze any livestock in any game controlled areas.”

Another damaging notion is that of referring Maasai as indigenous tribe/people when accusing the government of evacuating the Maasai from what is referred to as ancestral home. Legally, there are no indigenous tribes in Tanzania, and chronologically, the Maasai are more recent comers to Tanzania than most tribes. In fact even in Ngorongoro Conservation Area where the Maasai from Serengeti were transferred to as a compromise agreement in 1959, the Maasai were not the first to settle there. They found some Mbulu tribes, Sonjo, Barabaig, and Tatoga (Datooga) and chased them from the area [15].

The various stakeholders and actors that have ostensibly come to the aid of the villagers of Ololosokwan and other parts of Ngorongoro District have for a long time failed to move the government, as much of their premises for advocacy were based on falsehood, misinformation, lies, and what appeared to be wrong ulterior motives. Occasionally, the conflicts between the villagers and government officials that arose from false information degenerated into violent clashes, as it happened in June 2022, which resulted in a group of villagers killing a policeman.

Meanwhile, the situation in Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) was becoming intolerable. With the support of sympathizers, the Maasai in the NCA organized to confront the government to demand what they considered to be their rights to resources, social services, and livelihood, at the time when the government had plans to resettle some of them to relieve the pressure on the natural resources of the area and the environment. The people refused to be moved before they could talk to the Minister of Natural Resources and Tourism. The government realized the situation was tense and volatile. The President sent the Prime Minister to speak to the people instead of the Minister of Natural Resources and Tourism that the Maasai of NCA had asked to see.

When the Prime Minister (PM) arrived at Ngorongoro, the situation had degenerated into violent clashes. The PM managed to calm down the villagers, educate them on legal issues, and inform them about the government plan to relocate them to Msomela (Otherwise spelt as Msomera), Handeni District in Tanga Region those who were willing to. The package for moving to Msomela included free transportation of households and their properties, including livestock, a three-bedroom modern house, 3 acres of farmland per family unit, plus 5 acres grazing land; plus a common village land for grazing livestock. Moreover, the community was provided with all the basic social services. This was more than the Maasai could have legally bargained for, and it was more than what the government had ever done for any community of people in compensation for vacating conservation land.

Yet there were detractors, people who ostensibly presented themselves as Maasai human rights advocates and who cried foul and incited the Maasai to refuse to vacate NCA and Loliondo. Other Maasai were persuaded to refuse to go to Msomela where the government had already prepared the area to accommodate them, and instead asked to be relocated to other places that were not in the plan. What is really challenging is that up until August 2023, there were still foreigners persuading Maasai to refuse to relocate to the extent that some Maasai youth were being paid to engage in violent activities to make the exercise difficult, such as beating up journalists so as to hide the truth about who was resisting and why.

Unfortunately, much of the time the stories being told by the Maasai are in stark contrast to statements issued by the government. Some Maasai petitions and complaints do not even mention having been given relocation package! The government on its part has generally been tardy in responding to claims and demands, hence protracted conflicts. Thus, in some instances, it may be difficult to know the truth of the matter, and often, the public is fed with false information. In any case, it is important that the public and all concerned know the following basics about the Maasai and other community vs. government land conflicts, which are in accordance with the Village Land Law No. 5 of 1999 [16].

One, legally, all land in Tanzania is public land vested in the President as trustee on behalf of all citizens.

Two, “Where the President is minded to transfer any area of village land or reserved land for public interest, he may direct the Minister (responsible for lands) to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the section.”

Three, for the purpose of the above provision, public interest includes investments of national interest.

Four, the law provides for procedures for effecting transfers and respective compensation, which if followed would prevent unnecessary conflicts.

Five, it is important to note that Maasai are semi-nomadic, practicing transhumance mode of animal husbandry such that the Maasai identifying themselves as residents of a particular area in Ngorongoro District can be found grazing their livestock in any other area within the district or even outside it during a dry season and going back to home area during the rainy season. This applies also to the Maasai from across the border in Kenya, some of whom cross into Ngorongoro District in search of better pasture. In the same vein, the Maasai from Northern Tanzania can be found as far south as Mbeya grazing their livestock anywhere they can find grass. Some may even decide to settle in new areas, outside what is generally regarded to be Maasai land. A good example is that of Maasai that have even settled in communities in the south around Ruaha National Park in Iringa Region. Thus, putting up ancestral land as the reason for refusing to move from NCA or Loliondo, or any part of Ngorongoro, for that matter is just scapegoating to justify some unreasonable motives.

4.2 Conflicts on the western side of the Serengeti Ecosystem

Human-wildlife conflicts in the Serengeti, as pointed out earlier, are a historical phenomenon. According to Kideghesho [3], there is common agreement that most of these conflicts emerge as a result of wild animals being accorded a higher priority than human beings. For example, one of the former Serengeti park managers was once quoted as saying openly: “The interests of fauna and flora must come first, those of man and belongings being of secondary importance.”

The current government narrative is more positive than it was years ago, but the understanding of the communities and attitudes remain pretty much the same. This is because, though the express goal of the government is to make wildlife conservation beneficial to neighboring communities by making wildlife contribute to improved livelihoods through community-based natural resources conservation initiatives, such as WMAs, and supporting income generating activities, the results on the ground have not matched what is spoken and written by authorities.

First of all, community-based conservation initiatives are usually implemented as a way to deter communities from engaging in illegal natural resources harvesting, which is well and good for the communities if they do indeed realize the promised benefits. Unfortunately, the results have been more to the contrary. Most researchers and writers point to what has variously been seen as communities being cheated.

Bluwstein et al. [17], having worked extensively on WMAs and other community-based conservation issues in Tanzania, made an observation that encapsulate most of the researchers’ observations, remarks, and conclusions about WMAs in Tanzania. He said, “Our findings suggest that WMAs foster limited ownership, participation, and collective action at community level, because WMA governance follows an austere logic of centralized control over key resources. Thus we suggest that it is difficult to argue that WMAs are community-owned conservation initiatives until genuinely devolved and more flexible conservation models are implemented to give space to popular participation rule making.”

Such statements are proven correct by facts and figures of western Serengeti situation as presented by Kideghesho [3] on the benefit-based approaches, which were adopted in the Serengeti in 1990s as a strategy of promoting a positive conservation attitude and therefore motivating people to support conservation efforts that have failed to meet expectations. He mainly attributed this to the fact that the benefits granted to local communities have been too minimal to offset the costs caused by prohibitive conservation policies (opportunity costs of conservation) and damage inflicted by wildlife on property such as crops and livestock. The cost-benefit analyses conducted in the Serengeti have shown that the ratio of wildlife-induced costs to benefits received by local communities was 250:1. Furthermore, these benefits have often been realized indirectly through community development projects, although the costs are localized to individuals.

On the other hand, Kideghesho further observed that the opportunity cost of forgoing the economic activities that are ecologically damaging is often very high, thus making these activities inevitable. For example, illegal hunting in the Serengeti has been flourishing, despite stringent law enforcement, because its returns were 45 times greater compared to those provided legally through the Serengeti Regional Conservation Projects community cropping scheme. Destruction of the breeding and calving grounds for wildebeest in the Maasai Mara (Kenyan part of the Serengeti Ecosystem) between 1977 and 1997 and, consequently, reduction of the wildebeest population by 75%, were mainly caused by the high opportunity cost that landowners would incur by opting for wildlife conservation instead of pursuing mechanized agriculture. The latter was ecologically destructive but economically more attractive to farmers. Its profit was 15 times greater. Furthermore, by virtue of being too minimal, conservation benefits do not contribute adequately to poverty reduction. People’s direct dependence on natural resources has therefore remained inevitable.

Currently, the problem of major concern on the western side of Serengeti is the human-elephant conflicts, which have risen to the extent that some communities have to be trained to co-exist with elephants by learning some mitigation measures and being facilitated by conservation authorities and organizations, whenever possible, to have elephant-proof food storage facilities [3, 18, 19]. HECs are said to have risen following elephant population recovery from the period of intense poaching (2009–2014) and as humans have settled in protected area buffer zone traditionally used as elephant migratory routes.

Writing about the farmers living around Ikona WMA, Lucy King of Save the Elephants, and Head of Human-Elephant Co-existence Program at the Save the Elephants and Elephant Crisis Fund observed that perennial raids on crop fields and grain stores had made the community intolerant of elephants and that they often viewed them as problem animals. She observed further that although there was enough land to grow enough food, one elephant could wipe out food that would have lasted a family several months [19].

The above observation having been made by a pro-elephant person on damage caused by elephants speaks volumes about the losses suffered by communities from elephants, considering elephants do not move about singly, and that they move about in herds, plus they may not raid a farm only once. And, apart from crops in the fields, elephants may also devour the year/season’s food storage and leave the farmer without food. The situation in certain parts of western Serengeti communities is dire, and the victims thus feel compelled to turn to protected areas for bush meat for the pot and cash to survive.

5. Management and technical issues

Usually when discussing challenges or problems facing protected areas management, there is a general tendency of writing as if it were from the management view point and thus overlooking issues within the administration or management of the resources that could pose problems in advancing conservation interests. This section demonstrates the importance of having the right leadership, particularly, the chief executive officer of an institution. For you could have resources and a good board of directors, but if the chief executive officer is inept or incompetent, the institution could collapse or the conservation objectives may not be achieved.

Basically, the understanding and inclination of leadership has a tremendous bearing on what can be and what is done towards managing personnel, resources, and conservation actions, which, in turn, is reflected in the performance in advancing conservation goals. Although boards of directors are the highest leadership positions for organizations, the chief executives are central to the management of the organizations and hence the protected areas under them. Boards of directors are essentially as good as their chief executives. This is largely due to the official tradition of boards of directors meeting quarterly to deliberate on and approve what is presented to them by the CEO in a 1- or 2-day meeting. What I learnt from my experience as a member of the Board Trustees sitting in those meetings is that CEOs determine the agenda, the proceedings, and outcome of Board Meetings and hence the direction and performance of protected area management.

This was amply demonstrated by what happened to TANAPA and NCAA in the early 1980s when the two institutions almost collapsed due to management problems deriving from the personalities of the chief executives, although, on the surface, the problems of the two institutions appeared to be lack of funds. For TANAPA, the problem was that the CEO of that time was more concerned with his personal matters than the needs of the institution, personnel, and conservation activities. In addition, the CEO seemed to be lacking in requisite professional qualifications.

The CEO of NCAA, on the other hand, had the necessary professional conservation expertise and experience, plus experience in administering government entities and high offices, but by reason of attitude, he could not get along with the Maasai in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, in spite of being a Maasai himself.

I found out about the moribund state of the two institutions through a small investigation I conducted in several northern protected areas and subsequently wrote a petition to conservation authorities imploring them to take measures to save the two institutions. The petition ended up in the National Assembly and was discussed by members of Parliament during the budget session of 1984. The National Assembly took the matter seriously and threatened to “withhold a shilling” from the budget (meaning, not to approve the budget) of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. Hon. Paul Bomani, the then Minister of MNRT, responded by appointing a Commission of members of Parliament including the petitioner to investigate the two institutions and recommend a course of action. The Commission was chaired by one of the Members of Parliament, Hon. Tabitha Siwale, hence the name Siwale Commission, and I was appointed to serve on the Commission as the technical expert member of the otherwise, all Members of Parliament. Two senior officers from the Wildlife Division in the Ministry served as the Secretariat to the Commission.

Following submission of the Siwale Commission recommendations, among other things, the two CEOs were removed from their positions, and with new management and other changes in the administration of the two institutions, the latter were revived in a very short time. Within 3 years, the institutions were back to normal level of operations and financially liquid.

The lesson I have learned from the above story and elsewhere is that, for any initiative, strategy, and management approach to succeed, it has to be led by a chief executive who is appropriately and adequately qualified for the mission, and, above all, s/he must have the passion necessary to work beyond duty.

6. Initiatives that hold lessons on overcoming ecosystem-based management challenges

There have been several initiatives in Tanzania aimed at overcoming challenges to Serengeti Ecosystem–based management approach, with different names and slightly different approaches and strategies. The one thing these initiatives have in common is that of main objective being to aim at maintaining the integrity and sustainability of Serengeti Ecosystem. However, their differences in approach have meant difference in effectiveness, success, and sustainability.

Unfortunately, to date, there seems to be no initiative that has been effective in delivering on its objectives and withstood the test of time to prove to be sustainable. In this chapter, we will look at two initiatives that seem to offer more lessons in designing effective, successful, and sustainable initiatives. One of these is the Serengeti Regional Conservation Strategy (SRCS). Although now closed, SRCS left behind considerable foundation of knowledge and institutional structures to build on or learn from.

The other initiative is current and has features that could very well make it the best initiative in overcoming ecosystem-based management challenges, if improved upon.

6.1 The Serengeti Regional Conservation Strategy

Perhaps the earliest of the Serengeti Ecosystem initiatives was a government project under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT) that was financed by the Royal Norwegian Embassy (NORAD). The project was called the Serengeti Regional Conservation Strategy (SRCS). According to the workshop report and project proposal [9, 20], the project concept was first formally declared and debated in 1986 at an IUCN and World Bank facilitated workshop at the then Seronera Research Station within Serengeti National Park. The concept was further explored with selected villages that include Robanda, Makundusi, Mbiso, and Nyiberekera in Serengeti District. The workshop to resolve the concept was attended by relevant leaders in the three Serengeti wards of Isenyi, Ikona, and Natta, and an agreement reached to start the project within identified communities. The SRCS Project was formerly initiated in 1989; the 2 years in between were used for fundraising, organizational development, and construction of the project headquarters at Fort Ikoma.

The SRCS Project worked with the following communities, Robanda, Makunwelusi, Mbiso, Singisi, and Iharara in Serengeti and Mgeta, Kyandege, Nyaliwanda, Nyamatoke, and Hinyari in Bunda District. Each village had a Natural Resources Committee of eight members, which was also a subcommittee of the Village Government. Ten individuals, at least two of whom had to be women, were elected by the Village General Assembly to be trained as Village Game Scouts at the Community Based Natural Resources Conservation Institute in Likuyu, Songea District.

Preparations also included the following activities:

• Establishment of Community Based Natural Resources Account and training of related personnel

• Establishment of hunting quotas

• Learning visits both inside and outside the country

• Establishment of tree planting nurseries

In working with other related institutions/entities, SRCS was accorded the observer status in all meetings. Such institutions included the Serengeti National Park (SENAPA), the Community Conservation Service, the Frankfurt Zoological Society (FZS), and the Wildlife Division.

Among SCRS’ major achievements was its involvement in the establishment of Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) in the area in partnership with other stakeholders. By the year 2000, SCRS had worked with over 20 communities in the establishment of Ikona WMA in Serengeti District, Eramatare in Loliondo Division, Lake Natron in Loliondo Division, and Makao WMA in Meatu District. In establishing WMAs in those area, SRCS engaged in activities and provision of services listed below:

• Wells and water points

• Water pumps

• Three seasonal boreholes

• Three dams

• Cattle dips

• Milling machines for grains

• Roads

• Health facility

• Schools

• Village offices

The project was subsequently phased out when funding stopped in 2006 [21], and there was no take over initiative to carry the initiated work forward. Although the headquarters has since been converted into WMA offices, the Project left behind a very important mark in efforts to protect the integrity of the Serengeti Ecosystem in the form of WMAs. It also left behind infrastructures that have improved the well-being of the communities living adjacent to the Serengeti Ecosystem, which is crucial in deterring illegal consumptive use of natural resources in neighboring protected areas. The Natural Resources Committees and Village Game Scouts are very important in conserving the natural resources of the area. Another important mark from the project is the conservation education it imparted to communities living adjacent to the Serengeti Ecosystem, which must have translated in some way into improved attitudes and behavior towards protected areas personnel and natural resources conservation in general.

Overall, the Serengeti Regional Conservation Strategy Project served as an important stepping stone for further work on Serengeti Ecosystem–based Management and provided lessons to aid other initiatives towards the cause. Thus, every initiative towards protecting the integrity of the Serengeti Ecosystem will do well to make reference to the Serengeti Regional Conservation Strategy Project work before concretizing its strategy, plan, and objectives.

6.2 Greater Serengeti Conservation Society (GSCS)

Another initiative aimed at facilitating ecosystem-based approach to managing Serengeti Ecosystem is what is known as the Greater Serengeti Conservation Society (GSCS, or simply, the Society). Founded by the Late Dr. Markus Borner and Hatim Karimjee as a Serengeti Ecosystem multi-stakeholder non-governmental organization seeking to maintain the integrity and resilience of the ecosystem for the benefit of present and future generation, GSCS is probably the best initiative thus far in involving all stakeholders in ensuring sustainable management of protected area resources in Tanzania.

The founders, both late now, were driven by their passion for wildlife conservation and knowledge of the dynamics involved in managing Serengeti Ecosystem as a single conservation entity against the different interests and demands of a multitude of stakeholders. Markus Borner had worked in the Serengeti as a representative of the Frankfurt Zoological Society for 40 years and served on TANAPA Board of Trustees for several years. He also sat on other wildlife conservation Boards, including that of TAWIRI, and Mweka College of Wildlife Management. He was also involved in research in the Serengeti.

Hatim Karimjee, a well-known businessman in Tanzania, coming from a family with several business lines in the country and a history of philanthropy, had also served on TANAPA Board of Trustees for several years. The impression I got of Karimjee, when we served on the TANAPA Board of Trustees together, was that, though coming from the private sector, he was very knowledgeable and had great passion for wildlife conservation. And, apart from the business acumen gained from the many years of managing the family business empire, he also had very good analytical skill, and he was good with numbers. Thus, Hatim Karimjee and Markus Borner were a very good combination of people to found a Serengeti Ecosystem management initiative, as they knew the inner workings of TANAPA, had the knowledge of Serengeti Ecosystem, and the passion and skills necessary to found an initiative with better chance of being more successful than the ones preceding it.

The founders of the initiative saw the exponential growth of human activity around the Serengeti Ecosystem as the major threat to its survival, as it was seen to have transformed the Greater Serengeti Ecosystem (Serengeti National Park and all the protected areas that surround it, as well as buffer zones and dispersal areas) and that it was encroaching on the ecosystem borders with unprecedented intensity [22]. They consequently set the initiative’s vision to be, “to ensure a resilient and thriving Greater Serengeti Ecosystem to the benefit of the local and global communities.” The motto of the initiative is, “Serengeti forever.”

In practice, the initiative seeks to bring together Tanzania, Kenya, and international leading conservation professionals and scientists for common action in advancing the cause of saving and working to maintain the ecological integrity of the area and its natural resources, as well as its environment. To this effect, the Society was set up as an NGO with a status of a membership society based in Tanzania but with members from Tanzania, Kenya, as well as interested scientists and individuals abroad. And, in conformity with Tanzania’s law, the Society is headed by a Board of Directors based in Tanzania.

Currently, the Society is also registered as a Charity Organization in London, England as well as in the USA [23]. The two charities constitute the main source of funding for the operations of the Society. The Chairman and President of the two charities, respectively, together with the Chairman of the Board of Directors for the Society in Tanzania, constitute the Board of Trustees of the Society.

The stakeholders constituting the Society’s membership include managers of all protected areas within the ecosystem, major conservation entities, and individuals in Tanzania such as the Wildlife Division; Tanzania Wildlife Management Authority (TAWA); government leaders in surrounding districts; Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI) and other relevant research institutions and individuals; conservation professionals and scientists both from within and outside Tanzania; conservation NGOs; relevant entities in Kenya including Kenya Wildlife Services, Maasai Mara National Reserve, Narok County, etc.

The Society meets once every year in an Annual Stakeholder Symposium, a forum to deliberate on issues pertaining to maintaining the integrity and sustainability of the Serengeti Ecosystem. The Symposium deliberates on pertinent issues, come up with resolutions, and makes recommendations that are then reported in the Society’s newsletter. Implementation actions on recommendations are subsequently deliberated on at the following year’s symposium, except for actions deemed urgent and for which respective stakeholders are required to take action before the following symposium.

The society’s day-to-day activities are run by a management unit consisting of a Website Manager, a lawyer, and an accountant; all of them volunteers, and working on part time basis. The Unit is virtually based in Dar es Salaam, with the lawyer and accountant accommodated at the Board Chairman’s Office and the website manager based overseas. The team is working under the Oversight Committee, which is composed of chief executives of the main relevant institutions in Tanzania and Kenya viz. TANAPA, NCAA, TAWA, TAWIRI, Director of Wildlife, Director of Kenya Wildlife Services, Chief Park Warden (Kenya).

On technical issues, the Society is served by a Scientific Committee and a consultant. The latter is working on part-time contractual terms; currently working 2 days per week. The consultant is the chief technical resource person of the Society, serving largely as a technical coordinator in organizing the annual symposium, serving as a rapporteur, compiling symposium reports, and coordinating the implementation of the Society’s decisions, recommendations, and plans eg training. The consultant also works with the accountant to prepare the society’s budget.

The Society has been in existence for a little over 6 years, and although quite lacking in institutional structure and organizational development, it has already made its mark in resolving some critical disputes deriving from the difference in stance between the Tanzanian Government policy and that of Kenya over grazing livestock in protected areas, allowing large commercial farms near protected area and cultivation in catchment areas. Initially, livestock grazing was allowed in Maasai Mara National Reserve and, this, in addition to large commercial farms adjacent to the Reserve degraded the habitat for ungulates. Cultivation in Mao Forest, on the other hand, degraded catchment area for Mara River, which had already been showing signs of drying [24]. There had also been a misunderstanding over Sasakwa dam on Tanzania side. The Kenyan side felt that by Tanzania damming Sasakwa, they were reducing water for the ungulates, which would ultimately alter the migration route. These issues could have been very complicated, if they had been approached differently and allowed political interests to filter in.

What can happen when multiple stakeholders with respect to a common natural resource have no common platform like one provided by the Society is very well demonstrated by what has been happening in Loliondo and NCA for the past two decades. Even with the government ceding 2500 km² out of the 4000 km² of the former Loliondo GCA to the communities and offering a very handsome resettlement package to those who volunteered to relocate, by providing them and their stock with relocation transport, ready-made modern homesteads, complete with modern houses, farming and livestock land, plus all necessary social services, has not completely resolved the conflict. There are those who have refused to go to government-selected area, Msomela in Handeni, Tanga Region, and demanded to be relocated to places of their choices. And, now (September 2023) a group of Maasai has taken the Government to Court contesting for the 1500 km² of land that was upgraded into a game reserve to protect a bit of the Serengeti Wildebeest Migration route, the breeding ground, and water catchment areas (see Figure 3), all of which are of critical importance in retaining some measure of protection to the function and integrity of Serengeti Ecosystem.

Figure 3.

Map of eastern part of Serengeti Ecosystem showing Pololet GR and Malambo GR. Source: Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism.

The strength of the Society lies in the following attributes:

1. The Society was born out of passion for conservation of wildlife and sustenance of Serengeti Ecosystem integrity, in particular.

2. The founders’ knowledge of the ecosystem, the stakeholders, and failure of preceding initiatives must have helped in coming up with a strategy of involving all stakeholders in a forum that was not likely to suffer the same fate.

3. Availability of funds for holding the annual symposium and some of the initial costs of running the management unit and other initial activities.

4. Being served by a scientific committee, the factor that assures the Society of the necessary scientific information whenever it is required.

5. Retaining the services of a consultant with first-hand knowledge of Serengeti Ecosystem gained from many years of working as a researcher and Managing Director of TAWIRI.

6. Being an NGO and non-partisan, and therefore not likely to be swayed due to conflicts of interest, nor be encumbered by bureaucracy in decision-making.

The Society, in its present form, appears to have the following weaknesses, which threaten its sustainability:

1. Absence of assured local source of funding. Presently the Society is funded from external sources.

2. Absence of office that is owned by the Society.

3. Absence of permanent and paid Society staff.

It is important to note, however, that, as an NGO, for national natural resources and environmental matters, the Society can only contribute to ecosystem-based management of Serengeti Ecosystem by working in partnership with or supporting the government as provided by pertinent laws and regulations. Currently, the Society has both the respective protected areas (within the ecosystem) and the WMAs to support or to work with. The Society can also support the government on any other initiative as deemed fit or necessary. The mode of engagement and operation, as well as choice of entity to work with would depend on what is legally permissible and mutually agreeable.

6.3 Wildlife management areas

Wildlife management areas (WMAs) are not one of the initiatives established to specifically overcome challenges to EBM for Serengeti Ecosystem. WMAs are a community-based wildlife conservation category of protected areas that can be established around any protected area in Tanzania, provided it fulfills the need for its establishment and satisfies the legal requirements. However, their inclusion here is necessitated by their default relevance as can be discerned from their mentions in other sections.

Indeed, in as much as HWCs are a major challenge to EBM for the Serengeti Ecosystem, WMAs, as a community-based conservation (CBC) initiative in communities around Serengeti Ecosystem, have a role to play. Besides, the shortcomings of WMAs and other forms of CBC have been variously blamed for people’s negative attitudes towards protected areas and conservation, and consequent illegal utilization of natural resource in protected areas. Thus, any effort aiming to resolve HWCs, or overcome challenges to EBM, will do well to take WMAs into account. As discrete areas, with their coverage limited by the sizes of village land in question, the socioeconomic impacts of WMAs are equally limited, but their influence on mindsets and attitude towards protected areas and the resources within goes much beyond the communities concerned with the WMAs in question.

Wildlife management areas within the Serengeti Ecosystem include Ikona in Serengeti District, Makao in Meatu District, Elamantare in Ngorongoro District, and Lake Natron in Ngorongoro District. Apart from increased land under community-based conservation, which means increased buffer area to respective protected areas, this year the government has published the WMA strategy that has basically changed the government narrative on WMAs and made it more positive to the livelihood needs of the surrounding communities. The stated overarching aim of the National Wildlife Management Areas Strategy (NWMAS) for the period 2023–2033 is to “align Tanzania on a path towards a rewarding community and livelihood-based approach with a high returns rate” [25].

7. Conclusion and proposals

Ecosystem-based management strategies are certainly a necessary approach to ensuring sustainable management of natural resources, and this is particularly so in wildlife protected areas. Although this is generally acknowledged by the conservation community, its adoption has been very difficult due to challenges, chiefly, by human-wildlife conflicts.

Currently, human-wildlife conflicts are Serengeti Ecosystem’s major challenge to ecosystem-based planning and management, and these conflicts go back to the time Serengeti National Park was established as a national park in the 1950s. The measures that the government and conservation partners have taken over the years to resolve the various conflicts have, at best, served as temporary respite, and, at worst, they have proved futile. Today, contrary to what would be expected, conflicts have been escalating in certain areas to the extent of requiring emergency action, in addition to ongoing mitigation measures.

In addition to emergency and mitigation measures that are usually directed to specific incident or area, there have been several initiatives specifically aiming at saving Serengeti Ecosystem against HW conflicts. These initiatives have, in turn, been in addition to or in support of the WMAs. The latter, too, have not been successful, in spite of reviewing the strategy on which they are based several times since their inception in 2003. To date, none of the mitigation measures, nor Serengeti Ecosystem conservation initiatives, has been successful in resolving the HWCs. These failures, in the face of rising human-wildlife conflicts and resource degradation, have given rise to the need and calls for a solution towards overcoming challenges to EBM.

On examining the initiatives that have to date been tried out for ecosystem-based management for the Serengeti Ecosystem, both past and present, it appears the conditions listed below constitute constraints to their effectiveness in enabling EBM, largely by curtailing their sustainability.

1. Community-based natural resources conservation in the form of WMAs not delivering true on promised benefits to the targeted communities and hence the communities feeling cheated.

2. Initiatives operating as projects on limited area, and for a limited span of time, and therefore having limited impact, or no impact at all.

3. Initiatives being driven by foreign organizations, and therefore lacking genuine local ownership.

4. Initiatives operating on off-shore funding and consequently dying when funding ceases.

5. Initiatives not being mainstreamed into respective protected area management; that is, operating as stand-alone projects.

6. Initiatives lacking anchorage or linkage into TANAPA, and therefore not mainstreamed into the organization’s plans and strategies.

7. Initiatives lacking anchorage into MNRT and thus missing budget link and consideration in case of funding problems.

Out of the several initiatives I read and consulted about, and the two that I have made a case example out of, the Greater Serengeti Conservation Society seemed to be better placed to provide the solution for overcoming the challenges to adopting the ecosystem-based planning and management strategies for the Serengeti Ecosystem. Below are some of its strengths.

1. Involving all stakeholders in its annual symposium, thus providing a forum for all concerned to voice their ideas and concerns.

2. The supervising committee being constituted by all concerned wildlife conservation authorities.

3. The initiative having been born out of passion and knowledge and continuing that way even after the demise of the founders.

4. Having known and established source of funding that is registered as charity.

5. Being a non-governmental organization, and therefore being less encumbered by bureaucracy, and at the same time having the potential to work in partnership with government, and in support of its work, which makes for more efficient execution of activities and effective performance.

7.1 Proposals

Based on the experience gained through the initiatives that have been implemented so far towards the management of Serengeti as an ecosystem, against the challenges inherent in managing a complex ecosystem like Serengeti, and those related to integrating the multitude of diverse stakeholder interests, as well as timely coordination of interventions, I propose the following foundation actions towards overcoming the challenges.

1. The Greater Serengeti Conservation Society, or any other stakeholder initiative with the capability to effectively carry out or facilitate the necessary activities as listed here, raises the funds necessary to carry out the foundation activities. Such an initiative is referred to here as the Foundation Initiative. This could be GSCS, its modified form, or any other choice of the GSCS majority stakeholders.

2. The Foundation Initiative should establish itself firmly by building its institutional capacity and essential infrastructure, acquiring necessary equipment, and hiring and training the necessary full-time personnel.

3. The Foundation Initiative should carry out ecosystem-wide strategic environmental assessment (SEA) to provide baseline information, establish management needs, and management strategy and plan.

4. The Foundation Initiative should, based on SEA, develop a program and schedule that will allow scaling up activities, including increasing the frequency of stakeholder meetings.

Author note

Retired Senior Instructor: Wildlife Conservation, Ecology, Climatology, and Biostatistics; for Certificate, Ordinary Diploma and Post-graduate Diploma Courses at the College of African Wildlife Management, Mweka, Tanzania.

Semi-retired Independent Natural Resources and Environmental Consultant and member of Tanzania Environmental Experts Association.