M.Sc. Programme

“Management of Protected Areas”

Understanding the factors responsible for the absence of African lion (Panthera leo) in

Arusha National Park, Tanzania

Author: Emanuel H. Martin (Bsc) Supervisor: Mag. Michael Jungmeier E.C.O. Institute for Ecology Kinoplatz 6, A – 9020 Klagenfurt Tel.: +43 – (0) 463-5042144 Email: jungmeier@e-c-o.at Carried out at: Department of Economics University of Klagenfurt Universitaetsstrasse 65-67

A-9020 Klagenfurt Tel.: +43 (0) 463/ 27 00 4192 Email: mpa@uni-klu.ac.at

Klagenfurt, 26th June 2009

Citation: Martin, E. H. 2009. Understanding the factors responsible for the absence of African lion (Panthera leo) in Arusha National Park, Tanzania. A Thesis submitted for a partial fulfillment of a Masters of Science in Management of Protected Areas, University of Klagenfurt, Austria.

Martin Emanuel

I

DECLARATION OF HONOUR

I herewith declare that I am the sole author of the current master thesis

according to art. 51 par. 2 no. 8 and art. 51 par. 2 no. 13

Universitätsgesetz 2002 (Austrian University Law) and that I have

conducted all works connected with the master thesis on my own.

Furthermore, I declare that I only used those resources that are

referenced in the work. All formulations and concepts taken from printed,

verbal or online sources – be they word-for-word quotations or

corresponding in their meaning – are quoted according to the rules of

good scientific conduct and are indicated by footnotes, in the text or other

forms of detailed references.

Support during the work including significant supervision is indicated

accordingly.

The master thesis has not been presented to any other examination

authority. The work has been submitted in printed and electronic form. I

herewith confirm that the electronic form is completely congruent with the

printed version.

I am aware of legal consequences of a false declaration of honour.

Klagenfurt, 26th June 2009 Signature:

Martin Emanuel

II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost I would like to thank the Almighty God for His blessings

and protection throughout the time of study. Special appreciations are

extended to the two course’s Directors Prof. Michael Getzner and Mag.

Michael Jungmeier for accepting me to the Masters of Science Degree

Program in Management of Protected Areas. The program did not only

expose me to well experienced lecturers and various Protected Areas in

Europe but also its international focus was worth of breathe taking. Also I

would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Mag. Michael

Jungmeier for his insights, patience, commitment and guidance whenever

I needed his assistance throughout the research period. Further thanks

are extended to the managements of Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute

(TAWIRI) for granting me a research permit and Tanzania National Parks

Authority (TANAPA) for allowing me to conduct the research in Arusha

National Park (ANAPA). I am also highly indebted to the following:

• 14 Anonymous experts who shared their opinions;

• Alex Kisingo (CAWM lecturer) for helping with field materials;

• Bosco Kessi (ANAPA Ecologist) for hosting me during data collection

and other logistical supports;

• Chairman of Uwiro village Mr. Dawson Urio and other villagers who

appeared for interviews and meetings;

• Dr. Bernard Kissui (lion researcher) for assisting me with literatures

and other materials;

• Dr. Jane Ntalwila (Ecologist Oikos Instituto East Africa - Arusha) for

information and materials;

• Elikana Kalumanga (Research fellow) for insights and ideas;

• Erastus Lufungulo (Chief Park Warden - ANAPA) for his insights and

support;

Martin Emanuel

III

• Families of Mr. and Mrs. Mohamed Udikaluka, Neema George and

Rebecca Schwitzer for their companionship and hospitality which

made me feel at home during my stay in Austria;

• Hermenegilde Nkurunzinza for assisting in data analysis;

• Lincoln Njiru for technical advice and spellings check;

• Magnus Mosha for support during research permit processing;

• Malima Mbijima (Tourism warden in ANAPA) for support during data

collection;

• Marry Mtenga (CCS warden in ANAPA) for transport assistance and

organizing the meetings with the villagers;

• Mr. & Mrs. Bob McColaugh for encouragement and additional

financial supports;

• My fellow classmates for their valuable contributions and

encouragement during class discussions;

• Austrian Agency for International Cooperation in Education and

Research (ÖAD) for partly sponsoring both my flight ticket during

data collection and my stay in Austria; and

• Ragnhild Salomonsen for additional financial support;

Last but not least I would like to thank my parents Mr. and Mrs. Hendrick

M. Gingi and members of the family for their encouragement, parental

advice and full support. I could be so mean if not thanking my beloved

fiancée M/s Yuster Mtei for always being my hope and inspirations during

the whole time of studies. I know that it is very hard to thank everyone

individually, but let me kindly ask you all who contributed immensely

towards successful completion of this research to accept my cordial

appreciations. May God bless you all!

Martin Emanuel

IV

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

African lion is the largest cat found in Africa. As one of the top predators

and its important role of regulating the population of large herbivores, lion

has been considered as a keystone species in balancing the ecosystem.

The species is categorized as vulnerable by the IUCN red list of threatened

species of the world. Its preferred habitat includes open grassland,

savanna woodland, thick shrubs and dry forest. Due to habitat loss,

shrinking prey population and direct persecution its population has

decreased dramatically in Africa.

In Arusha National Park, which is situated in the northern part of Tanzania

near the fast growing and densely populated city of Arusha, lions’

sightings have been recorded periodically since its establishment in 1960.

The first time was in 1972 and the second time was in the period between

1997 and 1998 in various sections of the park. Despite the fact that, the

park has stable potential prey populations for lion such as buffalo, zebra,

waterbuck and giraffe and is linked to other parks such as Amboseli

National Park in Kenya and Kilimanjaro National Park in Tanzania through

migratory corridors, lion’s sightings inside the park has never been

recorded again since 1998. To find out which factors are responsible for

that, this research was carried out. Data were collected by using various

methods which included direct field observations, seeking opinions from

the experts who are knowledgeable with the ecosystem of the study area

and have experience on working with lions as well as interviewing villagers

living adjacent to the park. However, the research was limited by a

number of factors such as delay in obtaining the research permit from

relevant authorities in Tanzania, cancellations of some meetings with

villagers and existing tension between the park management and some

neighboring villages.

Martin Emanuel

V

Based on the field observations, interviews with the locals and experts’

opinions, it became clear that increased human population around the

park is the leading factor followed by blockage of migratory corridors

linking the park and other ecosystem. Currently, the research revealed,

the existing corridors are threatened by increasing human activities such

charcoal burning, livestock keeping and farming practices. The third factor

is unsuitable habitat for lions inside the park which is mountainous in

nature and dominated by thick forest whereas human-wildlife conflicts and

poaching factors were ranked fourth and fifth positions respectively. The

absence of lions in the park saw spotted hyena dominating the role of top

predator in regulating the population of large herbivores in the park. For

example most of the buffalo carcasses inside the park were results of

hyena killings. At the same time resident animals such as buffalo, giraffe

and waterbuck appeared to be very relaxed even when approached within

close proximity on foot, suggesting that there are little or no potential

dangers to them.

Apart from letting nature take its course and maintaining the current

migratory corridors, the park has no specific intention of creating

conducive environment or introducing lions inside the park.

In order to mitigate the problem, among others it is recommended that:

The central government in collaboration with other stakeholders needs to

address the issue of increasing human population and its impact on the

biodiversity; All the existing migratory corridors need to be secured by the

park through all legal procedures and human activities found therein must

be monitored or stopped; The park should leave nature to take its course

for the habitat of the park; Financial assistance and training should be

given to the locals for building predator proof kraals in order to prevent

their livestock from potential raids of lions; The park through its outreach

program should provide environmental education in order to raise public

awareness to the local communities on the importance of conserving

Martin Emanuel

VI

wildlife; The park through its Anti-poaching unit should partner with locals

in an effort to curb poaching activities inside the park and; the Problem

Animal Control (PAC) unit in each district need to be strengthened and

provided with all necessary equipment in order to respond timely to any

reported animal raid.

Martin Emanuel

VII

ACRONYMS

ANAPA: Arusha National Park

ANP: Amboseli National Park

AWF: African Wildlife Foundation

CAWM: College of African Wildlife Management (Mweka)

CCS: Community Conservation Services

CITES: Convention of International Trade of Endangered Wild Flora

and Fauna Species

GMP: General Management Plan

GPS: Global Positioning System

IRA: Institute of Resource Assessment

IUCN: World Conservation Union

KINAPA: Kilimanjaro National Park

LGCA: Longido Game Controlled Area

MNR&T: Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism

NARCO: National Ranching Company

NCA: Ngorongoro Conservation Area

NGOs: Non Governmental Organizations

PAC: Problem Animal Control unit

PAs: Protected Areas

TANAPA: Tanzania National Parks Authority

TAWIRI: Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute

UDSM: University of Dar es Salaam

Martin Emanuel

VIII

TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION OF HONOUR……………………………………………………………………………………..I ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………………………………………………………………………II EXCUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………………………………………………………IV ACRONYM………………………………………………………………………………………………………………VII 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................... 1

1.1 Lion population in Arusha National Park (ANAPA). .............................. 2

1.2 Habitat requirement of African lion in Africa ...................................... 2

1.3 Distributions of African lion in Africa ................................................ 2

1.4 Study significance ......................................................................... 3

1.5 Objectives of the study .................................................................. 4

2. STUDY AREA ................................................................................... 5 2.1 Brief description of ANAPA.............................................................. 5

2.2 History of ANAPA .......................................................................... 7

2.3 Social economic situation ............................................................... 9

3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 10 3.1 Research permit ......................................................................... 10

3.2 Literature review......................................................................... 10

3.3 Reconnaissance survey ................................................................ 11

3.4 Field observations ....................................................................... 11

3.5 Data collection............................................................................ 11

3.5.1 Meeting with Villagers............................................................ 12 3.5.2 Experts’ opinions .................................................................. 12 3.5.3 Limitations of the study ......................................................... 13

3.6 Data analysis.............................................................................. 13

4. RESULTS ...................................................................................... 14 4.1 Field observations ....................................................................... 14

4.1.1 General observation of the ANAPA ........................................... 14 4.1.2 Condition of migratory corridors .............................................. 15

4.2 Experts’ opinions ........................................................................ 17

4.2.1 First round of questionnaire.................................................... 17 4.2.2 Second round of questionnaire................................................ 18

4.3 Meeting with villagers .................................................................. 20

Martin Emanuel

IX

5. DISCUSSION................................................................................. 21 5.1 Facts and figures confirming the situation of lions in the area ............ 22

5.2 Natural and manmade features responsible for the absence of lions ... 23

5.3 Condition of migratory corridors .................................................... 27

5.3.1 Identification of wildlife corridors............................................. 27 5.3.2 Status of the corridors ........................................................... 27 5.3.3 Threats to migratory corridors ................................................ 29 5.3.4 Direct and signs of wildlife presence ........................................ 31

5.4 Habitat requirements for lions in ANAPA ......................................... 32

5.5 Management intention towards lions .............................................. 33

6. CONCLUSION ................................................................................ 34 7. RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 36

7.1 Persons ..................................................................................... 36

7.2 Institutions ................................................................................ 37

7.3 Programs................................................................................... 38

7.3.1 Research and Monitoring........................................................ 38 7.3.2 Education and outreach program............................................. 38 7.3.3 Training and funding ............................................................. 39

8. REFERENCES................................................................................. 40 8.1 Literature................................................................................... 40

8.2 Internet resources....................................................................... 44

8.3 Others....................................................................................... 45

9. APPENDICES ................................................................................. 46 9.1 Appendix i.................................................................................. 46

9.2 Appendix ii................................................................................. 47

9.3 Appendix iii ................................................................................ 50

Martin Emanuel

X

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Shows extent and status of lion distribution areas in Sub-Saharan

Africa. ..................................................................................................... 3

Figure 2: A map of Tanzania (small map) showing location of ANAPA (large

map)....................................................................................................... 6

Figure 3: Shows the area of ANAPA before and after annexation of Meru forest.8

Figure 4: Shows experts’ parks knowledge versus lion’s experience .............. 17

Figure 5: Shows an average ranking from the experts regarding the factors

responsible for the absence of lions in ANAPA. ............................................ 18

Figures 6 & 7: Shows cross section of villagers in Uwiro during the meeting .. 21

Figure 8: A herd of buffaloes look very relaxed even when approached closely 23

Figure 9: A female giraffe with the tip of its tail chopped off probably by hyena

............................................................................................................ 23

Figure 10: A patient admitted at the hospital after being attacked by lion ...... 26

Figure 11: A body of lion surrounded by people after being killed by locals. ... 26

Figure 12: Photo of a map showing elephant migrating to ANAPA via Kisimiri

valley, ................................................................................................... 29

Figure 13: Charcoal burning is one of the major problems in wildlife areas that

are not under protection .......................................................................... 31

Martin Emanuel

XI

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Shows the condition of migratory corridors visited during the survey 15

Table 2: Experts’ position on whether agreeing or disagreeing with average

rankings ................................................................................................ 19

Table 3: Experts’ position regarding special consideration of lions in the park . 19

Table 4: Experts’ reactions regarding the proposed solutions to the blockage of

key migratory corridors............................................................................ 19

Table 5: Experts’ reactions regarding the proposed solutions to increasing

human population outside the park............................................................ 20

Martin Emanuel

1

1. INTRODUCTION

Before humans colonized the Western Hemisphere, the lion (Panthera

leo), was perhaps the most widespread terrestrial mammal, ranging from

southern Africa to northern Europe, across all of Asia and North America,

extending south as far as Peru (Kurten and Anderson, 1980; Turner and

Anton, 1997). Lions remained widespread into historic times, persisting in

most of Africa, and parts of Europe and Asia. However, the surviving

population is much smaller than most people realize. Some very large

protected or managed areas account for the great bulk of the population.

Most of the remainder are scattered in small isolated parks, and those

populations may not be large enough to be genetically viable in the long

term (Frank & Packer, 2003). Recently, loss of habitat, shrinking prey

populations, and direct persecution have resulted in dramatic contraction

of their range and lions now exist in a small fraction of the area they

occupied just a century ago (Kingdon, 1997). The African lion is

categorized as vulnerable by World Conservation Union (IUCN) in the red

list of threatened species of the world (IUCN SSC, 2000). It is also listed

in appendix II of Convention of International Trade of Endangered Wild

Flora and Fauna Species (CITES). This allows for continued international

trade in the species under the export permit system. Lion populations can

recover quickly if accorded adequate space and protection (Hunter, 1998;

Stuart-Hill and Grossman, 1993), but this is seldom possible near human

settlements because of the continual threat that lions pose to rural

communities and their livestock (Frank, 1998). Protected areas (PAs) offer

a potential solution to lion conservation but may fall short if they are too

small or are surrounded by human populations (Woodroffe and Ginsberg,

1998).

Martin Emanuel

2

1.1 Lion population in Arusha National Park

Based on available literature for the park, there are no evidences of a

viable population of lions ever existing in the park. Nevertheless, in

September 1972 a pride of four to five lions which came from Ngasurai

area was spotted in the park and inhabited Ngongongare area while one

was seen near Lake Kusare (Anapa GMP, 2003). The most recent reports

of lions’ sightings in the park were recorded in the period between 1996

and 1998 in different parts of the park (Anapa GMP, 2003). Since then, no

more sightings of lions in the area have been made or recorded.

1.2 Habitat requirement of African lion in Africa

Lions habitats varies from desert to some tropical forest, with all types in

between including woodland, dry forest, savannah, steppe etc (Bauer et

al, 2005) and where there is stable prey population (Ikanda, 2008). These

habitats are exhibited almost extensively throughout sub-Saharan Africa

with the exception of the Congo region (Rudnai, 1973). Records show

that lions used to inhabit any suitable area in Africa south of the Sahara

desert. Increased interactions with humans and poachers have severely

diminished their numbers elsewhere (Viljoen, 2003).

1.3 Distribution of African lion in Africa

According to Chardonnet, 2002, East Africa comprises nearly 40% of lion’s

distribution area on the continent while Southern Africa has 35%, with the

continental range estimated at approximately 3 million km². About half of

the lion range is gazetted as protected, while the other half has no official

conservation status (Bauer et al, 2005).

Martin Emanuel

3

Protected surfaces Distribution of the lion

(Km² & % *) Total National

parks Reserves

Zones of hunting

Not classified surfaces

km² 121 980 43 190 14 690 18 400 45 700 West Africa

% 4 35 12 15 37 km² 651 970 67 555 24 860 247 860 311 695

Central Africa % 22 10 4 38 48

km² 1 137 205 149 347 139 594 116 730 731 534 East Africa

% 39 13 12 10 64 km² 1 039 212 289 139 405 404 27 472 317 197 Southern Africa

** % 35 28 39 3 31 km² 2 950 367 549 231 584 548 410 462 1 406 126 Sub-Saharan

Africa % 19 20 14 48

Figure 1: Shows extent and status of lion distribution areas in Sub-Saharan Africa. * % of the existing lion range in the sub-region, except for the last line, which is relative to the continent ** excluding fenced protected areas.

Adopted from: Chardonnet, 2002

1.4 Study significance

African lions are known as one of the top predators in the savannah

ecosystem. Due to the big influence they have in any given ecosystem,

these animals have been referred to as keystone species (Ikanda, 2008).

In ANAPA which forms part of the large regional ecosystem of Mount

Meru-Kilimanjaro and Amboseli in northern Tanzania and southern Kenya

respectively, lion sightings have been very rare with most having

happened in 1972 and 1997-8 since its formation (Anapa GMP, 2003). In

a situation whereby top predators such as lion are absent or rarely

present in a park with sizeable numbers of most of the savannah species

such as spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta), buffalo (Cyncerus caffer), zebra

(Equus burchelli) and giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) just to name a few,

suggests that something should be wrong. Despite this observation there

has never been any research or published report explaining the situation.

It is therefore the intention of this research to find out “what could be

wrong” or possible factors responsible for the absence of lion in the park

and come up with recommendations that could help mitigate or rectify the

situation.

Martin Emanuel

4

1.5 Objectives of the study

The general objective of the study is to understand the factors responsible

for the rareness or absence of the lions in ANAPA. To meet this general

objective, specific objectives are as follows:

1. To document the existing facts, figures and other indicators confirming

the absence of lions in the area. Periodic presence of the lions in the

park have only been reported in the ANAPA GMP of 2003 and other

park reports, but its impacts to the ecosystem has never been

documented, it is therefore the intention of this objective to document

all those missing facts and indicators confirming the absence of lions.

2. To identify both the natural and manmade features affecting the

population of lions in the area. The relevance of this objective is to find

out whether the absence of, or periodic presence of lions in the area is

mainly affected by anthropogenic factors such as poaching, human

settlements etc or natural factors such as diseases, competition or

unsuitable habitat.

3. To assess the condition of the existing migratory corridors and the

buffer zones around the park. The status of migratory corridors is so

important in determining the free movements of animals including lions

while the buffer zones act as transitional or “cushion” zone between

human settlements and strict conserved areas. It is therefore important

to determine whether these areas do exist and serve their purpose or

have been affected by human development activities.

4. To assess the habitat requirements for the lions within the park. The

importance of this objective is to understand whether the optimal

habitat requirements for the lions are found within the park. Lions are

known to prefer plain grasslands, open woodland and dry forest where

they can easily hunt.

Martin Emanuel

5

5. To determine whether the management of Tanzania National Parks

Authority (TANAPA) has specific objective of lions population

management in the area. ANAPA has a good number of large

herbivores such as buffalo, giraffe, waterbuck and zebra just to name a

few and lions are known to be the best (naturally) in regulating the

populations of these animals and assisting in balancing the ecosystem.

So it is so important to understand whether the management has any

specific intention of targeting a comeback of lions in the area.

6. To determine various measures needed to rectify the problem. The

intention of this objective is to come up with the suggestions or

measures against the problems associated with the absence of lions in

the area.

2. STUDY AREA

The main study area is ANAPA which also include the corridors linking it

with other ecosystems.

2.1 Brief description of ANAPA.

ANAPA is one of the 15 national parks in Tanzania managed by TANAPA

(TANAPA, 2008). It is classified under category II of PAs according to the

IUCN 2003 criteria. The park is located north east of the Arusha town in

northern Tanzania (region of Arusha, Arumeru District) and lies between

latitude 3°15´0 S and longitude 36°45´0 E (see figure 2). The country is

generally rugged resulting from past volcanic activity and the altitude

ranges from 1400 m above sea level, in the Momella Lakes and

Ngongongare section, to almost 4565 m at the summit of Mount Meru

which is Africa’s fifth highest mountain (Anapa GMP, 2003). Following the

annexation of the surrounding forest reserves in 2005, the size of the park

Martin Emanuel

6

has increased more than three times from 137km2 to 552km2

(Government Notice, 2005) (see figure 3). The climate of the park is

highly influenced by the altitude and has two rainy seasons; the short

rains which begin in November until December and the long rains which

begin mid March till late May (Anapa GMP, 2003). The hottest season is in

January and February with temperatures rising to about 27°C, while the

cold season is from June to August with temperatures at midday not

dropping just below 15°C (Beesley, 1972). The park contains remarkable

diversity of habitats in a small area, ranging from open glade to montane

forest, heath and moorland, primary and secondary vegetation, from

freshwater to strongly alkaline lakes and swamps (Vesey-fitzgerald,

1975). Currently the park is home to a good number of both the flora and

fauna species. At least 950 species of flowering plants and ferns are found

in the park. Whereas animals ranging from fish to amphibians (10

species), reptiles (24 species), birds (500 species) and mammals (40

species) have been recorded (Anapa GMP, 2003).

Figure 2: A map of Tanzania (small map) showing location of ANAPA (large map) Adopted from GORP http://gorp.away.com

Martin Emanuel

7

2.2 History of ANAPA

The history of the ANAPA dates back to 1876, when Mr. Count Teleki the

first European from Hungary visited the Momella area and commented on

the vast numbers of hippos (Hippopotamus amphibius) and black rhinos

(Dicerus birconis) he saw there (GORP, 2008). Before the arrival of Mr.

Teleki, the area was occupied by Maasai pastoralists whose influence is

evident by many places in the park named after Maasai origins (Anapa

GMP, 2003; GORP, 2008). In 1907 the area was converted into a farm

with most areas of the park being used as a cattle ranch by the Trappe

family. Later on, the elder Mrs. Treppe, who was the first woman in East

Africa to become a professional hunter, voluntarily set aside a large part

of Momella estate for a game sanctuary. When the park was established in

1960, the farm was incorporated into it (Anapa GMP, 2003; GORP, 2008).

Due to human activities (agriculture, livestock, forestry) it was not

possible to gazette the whole area as National Park at the same time, but

only through successive Government Notices (1960, 1962, 1964 and

1967). Originally, the park was known as Ngurdoto Crater National Park

but in 1967 Mount Meru was included and the name changed to ANAPA

(Anapa GMP, 2003). Apart from hippo and rhino, other animals that were

originally found in the area and are now extinct or rarely seen in the park

due to escalating poaching activities in 1970s include eland (Taurotragus

oryx), Bohor reedbuck (Redunca redunca), bush duiker (Sylvicapra

grimmia), steinbuck (Raphicerus campestris) and zebra (Anapa GMP,

2003). However in 1974 there were only 15 zebra deriving from 3 or 4

zebra that had escaped from a trophy dealer’s farm in Usa River. By 2000,

the population of zebra in the park was 70. Following the collapse of

socialism paradigm in Tanzania in 1980s, to liberal market economy

(Croach, 1987), the park saw dramatic increase in the number of tourists

and TANAPA became more financially stable and was able to meet various

managerial needs including curbing poaching activities in the park.

Martin Emanuel

8

Through annexation of Meru Forest to the area of the park as announced

in the Government notice of 2005, the size of the park increased to 552

km2. The most common animals found in the park now include buffalo,

bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus), giraffe and the primates (baboon

(Pappio cynocephalus), blue monkey (Cercopithecus mitis), and white and

black colobus monkeys (Colobus guereza)). Currently ANAPA is almost a

completely isolated park, with very little possibilities of animals moving in

and out without being disturbed and chased by humans. The isolation of

ANAPA means isolation of populations of animals, with the risk of

inbreeding and loss of genetic flow (Anapa GMP, 2003).

Figure 3: Shows the area of ANAPA before and after annexation of Meru forest. Please

note the red line indicates the current border of the park and grey line before

annexation. Adopted from: TANAPA, GIS Department Tarangire (unknown year).

Martin Emanuel

9

2.3 Social economic situation

ANAPA is surrounded by communities with different ethnical backgrounds.

On the eastern side of the park, the dominating tribe is Wameru while on

the western side is inhabited mainly by Waarusha (Anapa GMP, 2003).

Other common tribes include Wamasai, Wachaga and Wapare. Being close

to the city, there are also immigrants from various parts of the country

who are working in the city and live next to the park. The main economic

activities for the communities surrounding ANAPA are agriculture and

livestock keeping. Important cash crops are maize, beans, vegetables as

well as commercial flower farming. The areas bordering the eastern and

southern side of the forest are intensively cultivated. Livestock keeping in

the villages surrounding the park is well developed; it includes cattle,

sheep, camel, donkey, goat and poultry farming. In the western area the

land is under intensive grazing and the shortage of land for grazing and

agriculture has led to the increased illegal activities such as encroachment

in the reserve, logging, collecting firewood and grazing livestock inside the

park (Malissa, pers. com.) There are two public earth roads passing

through the park which link villages on either sides of the park. One is Usa

River – Momella – Ngarenanyuki road and the other is Olmotonyi –

Nadingoro – Losinoni road. Locals are free to use these roads and are

required to adhere to the park’s rules and regulations. The existence of

the park in the area has remarkable impact to the locals. Most employees

from the park, tourist lodges and campsites do their shopping in the

nearby villages. In addition most youths do benefit from employment

either temporarily or permanently as porters for guests climbing Mount

Meru or working as casual laborers in various activities within the park

(Mbijima, pers. com.) Through Community Conservation Service (CCS)

department the park also helps to fund local communities’ self initiated

projects within the surrounding villages. Most funded projects include

building classrooms, dispensaries and boreholes. Ecologically, the locals

Martin Emanuel

10

also do benefit from the water catchment area inside the park which is the

main source of water used for irrigation downstream and domestic use for

city dwellers. Almost all villages have one to two primary schools.

Secondary schools are available at ward levels. Health services are mainly

provided in Arusha town as only few wards have health centers (Anapa

GMP, 2003).

3. METHODOLOGY

In order to gather the required data and the authenticity of the research,

various methods were applied starting from being cleared by relevant

authority in the country to the actual data collection exercise.

3.1 Research permit

A research permit from TAWIRI was first secured, this being a pre-

requisite for conducting a research inside a park.

3.2 Literature review

A review of available literature on the lions, their habitats and threats was

done to get familiar with and synthesize previous findings on the topic.

Secondary sources in form of management plan, research reports, annual

reports and related publications were reviewed in detail. Relevant

organizations were visited to obtain related information regarding lions in

Tanzania specifically for ANAPA and the surrounding ecosystem.

Martin Emanuel

11

3.3 Reconnaissance survey

The study area was explored in general at first to have an overview of its

status. Based on local consultations and information from the park staff,

all potential sites where lions used to inhabit and possible migratory

routes used by animals for gaining access to the park were pointed out

roughly on a topographic map.

3.4 Field observations

Direct field observations were done in the whole park and nine different

areas considered as migratory routes were visited mainly by vehicle and

on foot in areas not accessible by vehicle. Special considerations were

given to the sites inside the park where lions used to inhabit. Digital

pictures were taken to show the situation on what exist on the portions of

land. Six days were spent outside the park’s boundary assessing the

conditions of the migratory corridors linking the park and the surrounding

ecosystems. Local communities, village game scouts and experts from

Instituto Oikos in Arusha were consulted to get general overview of the

existing corridors and their current situation compared with the past.

Things like type of vegetation grown, habitat condition, prey availability

and potential human disturbances were thoroughly observed and notes

taken. Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates for the corridors were

also recorded.

3.5 Data collection

Actual data collection involved mainly interviewing villagers through

meetings and sending questionnaires to the experts who are

knowledgeable with the park ecosystem and lions for their opinions.

Martin Emanuel

12

3.5.1 Meeting with Villagers

With the help of the park’s CCS department and permission from village

leaders, one general meeting with the villagers from Uwiro and several

informal meetings with villagers living adjacent to the park were

successfully conducted. The meeting in Uwiro village had at least 150

attendants (both genders) and lasted for one day. The informal meetings

with people from the following villages; Ngarenanyuki, Ngaserai,

Ngongongare, and Ngaramtoni were conducted in a period of one and half

months with most of them lasting for one and half hours. The questions

administered during these meetings are attached in appendix i.

3.5.2 Experts’ opinions

In order to have concrete and scientific information, experts’ opinions

were sought using Delphi method1. The experts were chosen based on two

main criteria namely; experience on working with African lions and

knowledge of ANAPA’s ecosystem. Identification of experts was done

through local consultations, meeting with the TANAPA’s ecologists in

Rubondo Island National Park who converged for 4 days on special task,

internet searching and visiting Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs),

academic and research institutions in the country such as TAWIRI, African

Wildlife Foundation (AWF) and Oikos Instituto East Africa in Arusha;

Mweka College of African Wildlife (CAWM) in Moshi; and Department of

Zoology and Wildlife Conservation, and Institute of Resource Assessment

(IRA) at the University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM) in Dar es Salaam. The

experts’ levels of education ranged from Diploma to PhD. Two sets of

questionnaires (see appendices ii and iii) were developed and sent to the

experts via email. Anonymity was maintained amongst the experts. 1 Delphi method is a collection of independent opinions without group discussion by the analysts providing the opinions; used for various sorts of evaluations.

Martin Emanuel

13

In the first round of questionnaires twenty one experts were targeted but

only 14 responded. Analysis of the experts’ opinions based on the first set

of questionnaires was done. The results were used to formulate the

second set of questionnaires. The second set was then sent to the 14

experts who had responded earlier for their final opinions and possible

recommendations.

3.5.3 Limitations of the study

The study was limited by number of factors which included, bureaucracy

of obtaining research permit from the relevant authorities in Tanzania

which delayed the research for two weeks, inadequate resources

especially vehicle to cover the whole study area, cancellations of the

proposed date to meet with the villagers, non response from some experts

issued with the questionnaires and high tension between the park and

some neighboring villages (by the time of the study). Nevertheless, the

research went on successfully and various measures to mitigate or

completely solve the problems were applied. These include, liaising with

the Park ecologist and CCS warden for transport assistance, conducting

extra small meetings with villagers mostly informally, using secondary

data and sending remainder emails or phoning back the experts.

3.6 Data analysis

Primary data obtained from the interviews and questionnaires responses

as well as secondary data from documents obtained from the authorities

managing the park were examined extensively. Field notes were

converted to write-ups to give them a flow of content and for analysis

purposes. Data were sorted out and coded with regard to contents.

Martin Emanuel

14

Coding involved labeling of data with codes, single words or short phrases

that reflected particular meaning based on the research objectives.

4. RESULTS

This chapter represents the findings obtained during the time of data

collection. The results are presented as directly taken from the field and

contain no added information in the form of discussion. They were

obtained through direct field observations, interviews with villagers and

sending questionnaires to the experts via emails.

4.1 Field observations

This section explains the field observations made in the park and along

the migratory corridors linking the park and the surrounding ecosystem.

4.1.1 General observation of the ANAPA

• The vegetation in the park is mainly dominated by thick forests and

tiny portions of open areas.

• A large part of the park is mountainous with Meru peak (4565 m)

being the highest point.

• The park is almost completely isolated from other ecosystems linking it

with Mount Kilimanjaro National Park (KINAPA) and Amboseli National

Park (ANP).

• There are a lot of human activities around the park such as farming,

livestock keeping, logging, small scale businesses, tourist lodges and

hotels.

• There is no designated buffer zone.

Martin Emanuel

15

• Sections of the park such as Kusare, Kinandia, areas around Big and

Small Momella lakes and Ngongongare section had signs of natural

vegetation disturbances.

• Animals such as buffalo, giraffe and common waterbuck (Kobus

ellipsiprymnus) looked so relaxed when approached to close proximity

even on foot.

• Predators such as leopard, spotted hyena and serval cat (Leptailurus

serval) were spotted on different occasions during data collection.

4.1.2 Condition of migratory corridors

The condition of nine migratory corridors visited during the time of study

are summarized and presented in table 1. The table include information

such as name of the corridor, the GPS coordinates, vegetation type, land

use and signs of and/or animals observed.

Table 1: Shows the condition of migratory corridors visited during the survey

Area (Name and

Coordinates)

Vegetation Land Use Animal observed

(direct or Signs)

National Ranching

Cooperation (NARCO)

(0279465/9658305)

Woodland

dominated by

Balanites species,

Acacia species,

and short dry

grasses

Livestock keeping

and large scale

farming of oil

producing plants

Zebra, Ostrich

(Struthio camelus),

Thomson gazelle

(Gazella thomsonii)

and grant gazelle

(Gazella granti)

Ndarakwai

(0277220/9667006)

Woodland

dominated by

Acacia species.

Livestock keeping

(large herds of cattle,

sheep and goats),

agriculture/horticultur

e, human settlements

Zebra, wildebeest

(Chonnochaetes

taurinus), elephant

(Loxodonta

africana), and eland

Kambi ya Tembo

(0282820/9682970)

Dry intact Acacia

species and

Livestock keeping Giraffe, elephant,

and dikdik (Madoqua

Martin Emanuel

16

grassland kirkii)

Tingatinga

(0272330/9670498)

Dry woodland

dominated by

Opuntia,

Balanites, Acacia,

Oldipai and

Mellifera species

Maasai settlements,

few agricultural plots,

livestock keeping

Grant and Thomson

gazelle

Oldipai

(0269893/9676002)

Dry woodland

dominated by

Opuntia,

Balanites, Acacia,

Oldipai and

Mellifera species

Livestock keeping

mainly by intruders

Elephant, gazelle,

dikdik, and giraffe

Ngasurai

(0266295/96818992)

Large open area

surrounded by

Acacia and

Balanites species

Livestock keeping

and Maasai

settlements around

the open area

Gazzelle, Zebra,

giraffe, hyena,

impala

Sinya

(0272360/9692550)

Woodland

dominated by

Acacia

xanthophloea,

Phoenix species,

shrubs and

grasses

Livestock keeping,

permanent and

temporary

settlements, tourist

campsite and mining

(abandoned Sinya

mine)

Elephant, Hippo,

giraffe, impala,

wildebeest, warthog

and waterfowl

Ngereyani

(0261471/9670294)

Intact woodland

vegetation

watered by

Ngarenanyuki

river, dominated

by Acacia and

Ficus species

along the river

Human settlements,

livestock keeping and

irrigated vegetable

farms

-

Ngabobo

(0267510/9658124)

Disturbed

woodland

Permanent human

sett-lements,

livestock keeping and

horticulture

-

Martin Emanuel

17

4.2 Experts’ opinions

This section explains the reflection of the 14 experts who responded back

and their opinions based on the questionnaires sent to them. It also

contains the results of the first and the second round of questionnaires.

4.2.1 First round of questionnaires

The results of the first round of questionnaires are presented in two

figures namely; figure 4 which show the relationship between the experts’

knowledge of the park’s ecosystem and experience on working with the

lions and figure 5 which show the average rankings by weights from the

experts regarding the factors responsible for the absence of lions in the

park.

Figure 4: shows experts’ parks knowledge versus lion’s experience

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3 3.5

4

Number of respondents

Not at all Average Above average Well knowlegeable

Parks´knowledge

Experts´Park knowledge and working with lions

Time (years)

0-4 5 -10 >10

Martin Emanuel

18

Figure 5: shows an average ranking from the experts regarding the factors responsible for the absence of lions in ANAPA.

Average experts' ranking

5.4

7.1

4.63.8

7.5 7.25.9

6.9

3.5 4

012345678

Den

sity

depe

nden

ce

Uns

uita

ble

habi

tat

Dis

ease

outb

reak

Clim

ate

vari.

& e

xtre

me

Hum

anpo

pula

tion

Blo

ckag

e of

mig

rato

ryco

rrido

rs

Poa

chin

g

Hum

an W

/Lco

nflic

t

Cul

ture

belie

fs

Oth

ers

Factors

Wei

ghts

4.2.2 Second round of questionnaires

The results from the second round of questionnaire are presented in four

tables which include: table 2 which shows the percentages of experts

agreeing or disagreeing with the average ranking of the factors; table 3

shows whether the experts agree or disagree regarding creation of specific

environment for lions reintroduction into the park; and table 4 and 5

shows experts’ reactions expressed in percentage on the proposed

solutions to the blockage of corridors and increased human populations

around the park respectively.

Martin Emanuel

19

Table 2: Experts’ position on whether agreeing or disagreeing with average rankings

No. Agree or disagree with average

experts’ opinions

Experts’ opinions in

%

1 Agree 93

2 Disagree 7

Table 3: Experts’ position regarding special consideration of lions in the park

No. Stand Experts’ opinions in %

1 Agree 42

2 Disagree 68

Table 4: Experts’ reactions regarding the proposed solutions to the blockage of key migratory corridors

No. Proposed solutions Experts’

opinions in

%

1 Legally recognize the corridors (as stated in 2008

wildlife bill), stop all destructive human activities

and relocate the people to different areas and

thereafter leave the area solely managed by

relevant Wildlife Authority

15

2 Legally recognize the corridors (as stated in 2008

wildlife bill), stop all human activities and relocate

the people to different areas and thereafter co-

manage the area by relevant Wildlife Authority and

the surrounding villages

35

3 Legally recognize the corridors (as stated in 2008 50

Martin Emanuel

20

wildlife bill) and allow human activities that have

less impact to the corridors under the scrutiny of

relevant wildlife and local authorities

4 None of the proposed solutions is appropriate 0

Table 5: Experts’ reactions regarding the proposed solutions to increasing human population outside the park

No. Proposed solutions Experts’

opinions in

%

1 Compensate and relocate people living immediate

to the park boundary and create buffer zone

14

2 Leave the people as they are and concentrate on

the corridors and other options

0

3 Leave the people and provide them with the

education on how to co-exist with the wildlife next

to their premises

14

4 Formulate land use plans outside the park which

are compatible with park requirements

64

5 None of the proposed solutions is appropriate 8

4.3 Meeting with villagers

One general meeting attended by at least 150 residents living adjacent to

the park (north east) was organized (see figures 6 & 7). Questions were

posed directly to the attendants and general overview from the meetings

were as follows:

• Lions alongside other animals were mostly seen in their areas towards

the end of 1960s and beginning of 1970s

Martin Emanuel

21

• Some of the animals such as rhinos and elands were residents in their

village whereas lions were coming from Ngasurai plains

• Until the time of research, villagers said they could still hear lion’s roar

behind Jamakhata hill which is next to their village

• Poaching, increasing human population, human activities and blockage

of migratory corridors were pointed out as the main reasons for rapid

disappearance of animals in their villages.

• The landscape in the area has been shaped mainly by increasing

human developmental infrastructures, livestock keeping, farming

practices and tourism development.

Figure 6 Figure 7

Figures 6 & 7: Shows cross section of villagers in Uwiro during the meeting (Photos by Emanuel Martin)

5. DISCUSSION

This chapter provides a discussion of the main findings of the study as

presented in the results chapter. The discussion is done with the aim of

meeting the research objectives set at the beginning of the study.

Information obtained from other sources has been cited in some places to

lay emphasis on certain points.

Martin Emanuel

22

5.1 Facts and figures confirming the situation of lions in the area

ANAPA is endowed with sizeable number of large herbivores which

naturally occur in this area such as buffalo (1600), giraffe (360), and

zebra (70) (Anapa GMP, 2003) and potentially constituted the main

dietary of lions (Packer & Pusey, 1990). However, lion sightings in the

area have been so rare and even absent completely. During field survey in

various parts of the park, several groups of animals such as buffalo,

giraffe and common waterbuck (see figure 8) were observed to be very

relaxed when feeding or resting suggesting that there were no potential

dangers or threats near them. This observation is contrary to many parks

with sizeable number of lions such as certain sections of Serengeti

National Park, and Tarangire National Park in which animals look very

alert and ready to fight or flee when approached within close proximity.

The security of herbivores is mainly determined by level of protection they

receive from the park authority and availability of potential predators

existing in the area. Poaching (mainly of wildlife) which could be the main

reason for animals behavior change in the park is at a minimal level

according to the park report of 2007.

The absence of lion, Africa’s largest predator in the park with no doubts

has effects on the other predators particularly the spotted hyena. The

effect is likely to be positive to the hyenas as Estes, 1991 describes that,

there seems to be a constant war between the two species mainly for food

and space. There are numerous reports of lions stealing hyena killings and

vice versa. In a situation where lions and the hyena co-exist, they will

always fight in defending their territory (Hofer, 2003). They will put up

territorial boundaries against each other as they would against members

of their own species, and threaten each other at the borders with snarls,

roars, urine, and paste (Kruuk, 1972). Spotted hyenas are known to be

opportunistic feeders, with 95% of their meals coming from own kills while

Martin Emanuel

23

the remaining 5% is from other sources including scavenging (Estes,

1993).

Various park’s reports indicated that, most buffalo carcasses spotted in

the park were results of hyena kills. This signifies that, the large herbivore

population in the park is now largely regulated by the hyenas. Further

field observations indicated that one adult giraffe had the tip of its tail

missing and this was believed to have been chopped off by hyena in an

attempt to immobilize its prey when still a juvenile (see figure 9).

Figure 8: Figure 9

Figure 8: A herd of buffaloes looking very relaxed even when approached closely

Figure 9: A female giraffe with the tip of its tail chopped off probably by hyena Pictures by: Emanuel Martin

5.2 Natural and manmade features affecting the population of lions

It appeared that the absence of lion population in the park is attributed by

several factors which act synergistically. The factors were more human

induced than natural. Based on the average experts’ opinions regarding

the leading factors that affect the lions in the area, increased human

population around the park was ranked as the leading factor. According to

demographic data of Arusha region, the three districts in which the park

Martin Emanuel

24

lies (Arusha, Arumeru and Monduli) have a human population increase

averaging at 4% per year (Tanzania Population & Housing Census, 2002).

As a result, human activities around the park have increased in the recent

past exerting more pressure to the park’s resources. Most human

activities around the park include livestock keeping, agriculture (maize,

banana, coffee plantation and beans), commercial flowering, logging,

tourism and small scale businesses. Encroachment and other illegal

activities inside the park have been reported to be on the increase due to

human population increase (Anti-poaching report 2007/2008). Unlike

other top predators found in the park such as spotted hyena which can

highly adapt to areas with human settlement and do not appear to be

afraid of human beings especially at night (Kolowski and Holekamp, 2006)

and leopard which seems to do better in human dominated areas (Nowell

and Jackson, 1996) and exhibits remarkable behavioral plasticity in terms

of habitat selection (Woodroffe, 2000; Marker and Dickman, 2005), lions

are known to be very sensitive to the presence of human activities. This is

due to their social behavior of living in prides and therefore easily seen by

human beings thus increasing chances of them being attacked. Roach,

2003 found out that increased agriculture in Masailand – Kenya has led to

more frequent encounters between livestock owners and lions. He further

pointed out this interaction has severely limited the lion’s habitat in Africa.

In Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA), Kissui and Packer, 2004 have

found out that following the massive deaths of lions in the periods of

1970s, 1980s and 1990s due to various reasons mainly diseases, the

population in the area had never returned to its carrying capacity of 100-

120 individuals for the past 20 years due to the increased human

population from the immediate area.

The second leading factor according to experts’ opinions was blockage of

key migratory corridors linking the park with other two national parks

namely KINAPA in Tanzania and ANP in Kenya. According to park officials

(pers. com.), animals in big numbers used to take refuge inside the park

Martin Emanuel

25

accompanied by their predators including lions during dry season of the

year. The same observation was confirmed in Serengeti by Schaller, 1972,

that lions are known to follow concentrations of migratory prey. However,

the migratory routes have been blocked by human development and

settlement which hinders free movement of animals. Ole Meing’ataki, a

former park ecologist and the Anapa GMP report of 2003 stress that the

park has become an island amidst high human population. Unsuitable

habitat of the park as the main natural factor inhibiting presence of lions

in the area was ranked third. This is because a large part of the park is

mountainous in nature coupled with some sections of rough terrains

making lions survival in the area difficult. Furthermore, the thick montane

forests covering a large section of the park does not suit the preferred

lion’s habitat which mainly include open areas, short bushes and savannah

plain grasslands where they can easily hide and spot potential prey from a

distance and make stalking possible. This can also be backed up by the

fact that, during the time when lions were seen in the park, areas which

are dominated by small bushes and are relatively open such as

Ngongongare, Kusare Lake and Kinindia, and open area such as Serengeti

Ndogo were most preferred by lions. Human-wildlife conflicts and

poaching were ranked in fourth and fifth positions respectively. During her

seven (7) year period of work within and around ANAPA, Ntalwila (PhD)

described that she only sighted two lions in 2007 and one of them was

killed by villagers when they were running towards the direction of the

park. The killing of this lion revealed the fear which members of the public

have especially when lions are seen next to their premises (see figures

10&11 for the examples). The main reasons of fear could be protecting

their lives and livestock from potential raids by lions. Ironically, most of

the villages especially on the north eastern corner of the park are situated

along the possible routes used by animals to access the park. In the

meeting with the villagers in Uwiro, two villagers pointed out that,

poaching was also responsible for disappearance of lions in the areas

Martin Emanuel

26

surrounding their village. Although experts did not attach more weights to

culture beliefs as one of the crucial factors responsible for the absence of

lions, Ikanda, 2008 described that ritual hunting is one of the most non-

natural mortality factors responsible for the decline of lion’s population in

Tanzania. This act is known as Ala-mayo in Maasai (Kissui, 2008; Ikanda

and Packer, 2008) and it is practiced mainly by young warriors from

pastoralist communities namely; Maasai in northern Tanzania and Bargaig

in central Tanzania (Ikanda, 2008). They kill lions with spears in display of

bravery and courage as a necessity for their ‘right of passage’ into

manhood.

Figure 10 Figure 11

Figure 10: A patient admitted at the hospital after being attacked by lion

Figure 11: A body of lion surrounded by people after being killed by locals. (the

incidences happened in Pwani region (Sept. 2008), Tanzania). Pictures by Mpoki Bukuku.

Nevertheless, the practice goes on unabated due to high secrecy behind

these communities; and even when detected by authorities, may easily be

framed and disguised as acts of retaliatory killings due to livestock theft

(depredation) (Ikanda, 2008).This information could be crucial to explain

what had happened to the last lions spotted in the park in years 1996-98

and disappeared “mysteriously” with no explanation.

Martin Emanuel

27

5.3 Condition of migratory corridors

This section explains the general condition of the key migratory corridors

linking ANAPA and the surrounding ecosystems. It also explains the

status, threats and animals using the corridors.

5.3.1 Identification of wildlife corridors

During the time of surveillance areas visited included NARCO, Ndarekwai,

Taliro, Lerai, Olmolog, Tingatinga, Oldipai, Kambi ya Tembo, Ngasurai,

Sinya, Ngereyani and Ngabobo. Animals’ signs of different wildlife such as

footprints, droppings, middens2, feathers, wallowing points3 and rubbing

posts as well as some animals were seen. Interviews with locals and

village game scouts at Ndarekwai campsite, revealed that wildlife such as

elephant, zebra, eland, gazelle, and ostrich tend to migrate from

Ndarekwai and take two routes, one goes through Lerai and Olmolog to

Lerangwa, from there they move either to ANP in Kenya through Kitilwa

corridor or KINAPA through Kitendeni corridor. The other route goes

through Tingatinga via Ngereyani to Mukuru, and from the latter, majority

tends to migrate to Longido Game Controlled Area (LGCA) and few

elephants migrate to ANAPA via Kisimiri valley.

5.3.2 Status of the corridors

According to the field observations, interviews with the Park Ecologist and

researcher from African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) -The Kilimanjaro

Elephant Research and Conservation Project and literature reviewed from

various sources, only three main wildlife corridors exist at present that

2 Middens means animals’ toilet 3 Wallowing points refer to areas with pools of mud used by animals to bath or scratching on the ground. Commonly preferred by warthog, buffalo and rhino

Martin Emanuel

28

connect Arusha, Kilimanjaro and Amboseli national parks. Kitendeni is the

only existing corridor used by elephant and other wildlife species while

migrating to KINAPA from ANP or Ngasurai. This corridor which is about

5km wide is situated between Kitendeni and Irkaswa villages North-west

Mount Kilimanjaro (Kessi, pers. com.). Currently, Kitendeni has been

gazetted as a village farm mainly for livestock keeping and wildlife use

and managed by these two villages. Findings from ongoing research by

AWF have recently revealed that elephants from Ngasurai, Sinya or

Longido are migrating (though in few numbers) to ANAPA through Mukuru

and Kisimiri. So, Kisimiri can be regarded as the only existing main

corridor (for large animals) that connects ANAPA and other parts of Meru–

Kili–Amboseli ecosystem. A story of a person killed by elephants,

observation of elephant footprints and elephant dung at Kisimiri altogether

provide evidence that elephants are still using Kisimiri (see figure 12).

Another corridor is the Kitilwa corridor which connects ANAPA with its

adjacent habitat within the ecosystem. The main reasons as to why the

three corridors still exist are due to less human activities, food availability

and still hold suitable habitats for the migrating wildlife.

Martin Emanuel

29

Figure 12: Photo of a map showing elephant migrating to ANAPA via Kisimiri valley,

elephants trying to migrate to Momela lakes via Gabobo and areas used by elephants (all

areas were used by same group of elephants and observed by a satellite through a

collared elephant). Source: AWF-Kilimanjaro Elephant Research Project.

5.3.3 Threats to migratory corridors

In my own observation during the survey and interviews with the village

game scouts and other village members, I managed to identify some of

the issues that are regarded as threats not only to the existing wildlife

corridors but also to other wildlife habitats within the ecosystem

considered vital for the viability of wildlife population at ANAPA. These

issues include the following:

Martin Emanuel

30

5.3.3.1 Poaching

Poaching appears to be common to these areas as they fall under

unprotected area. Poaching in these areas include both the use of firearm

for hunting and snares. With the newly proposed Wildlife Bill of 2008

which has provisions for recognition of wildlife corridors and wildlife

dispersal areas4, it is hoped that once these areas currently referred to as

communal lands are secured by Wildlife Authority and are protected the

escalating poaching activities will decrease.

5.3.3.2 Wildlife depletion

This is mainly through charcoal burning activities, expansion of

agricultural fields and human settlements and other infrastructural

development.

4 Dispersal area, means an area habitually used by wild animal species for feeding, laying, storing eggs, rearing or feeding their young, and include breeding places.

Martin Emanuel

31

Figure 13: Charcoal burning is one of the major problems in wildlife areas that are not

under protection (Picture by Bosco Kessi, 2007).

5.3.3.3 Resources competition

Currently these areas are occupied by pastoralists and agriculturalists, so

it appears livestock compete with wildlife over limited available water and

pastures resources.

5.3.4 Direct and signs of wildlife presence

During the survey of the corridors, several animals were directly observed

out in the field. They included; giraffe, ostrich, Grant’s gazelle, warthog,

Thomson’s gazelle, zebra, dikdik and eland. Signs such as fecal5 materials,

animal calls, footprints and middens were evident suggesting the presence

of animals such as spotted hyena, elephant and hippo. Meeting with some

5 Fecal means type of feaces or excrement produced by animals

Martin Emanuel

32

villagers revealed that, they could hear some lions’ roar at night

emanating from Ngasurai area and the areas near ANP in Kenya.

Predators such as lions are also known to move along with other animals

when migrating. Due to increasing human activities along the area,

contacts between lions and human beings have increased and therefore

restricting their free movements.

5.4 Habitat requirements for lions in ANAPA

Direct field observations of the park revealed that there is very limited

habitat for lions. The mountainous nature of the park, thick forest and

increased human population around the park makes it difficult for the lions

to exist. The typical altitude for lion ranges between 1 – 2,033 meters

above sea level (Anon.iii) while the altitude of the park ranges between

1400 - 4565 meters. Their optimum habitat is grassy plains, thick shrubs,

savannah and open woodland (Nowell & Jackson 1996; Ikanda, 2008).

Further, within the park there are few areas which meet habitat

requirements for lion such as Serengeti Ndogo and Ngongongare sections

but are too small compared to the average home range of lions. According

to Marchant, 2001 lions need a huge area to hunt between 20 and 200

km2 for a single male – so even a national park with several square

kilometers in size cannot support a large population, while lions that stray

over the borders come up against local people and livestock. Although the

size of the park has been extended from 137km2 to the current size of

552 km2, the area added was mainly forest which was managed by Forest

Authority and therefore does not have much influence regarding the

suitable home range of lions in the area.

The growth in human population is the primary reason for the great

reduction in lion population in the park. Poachers hunt lions for trophies,

Martin Emanuel

33

and also because they pose a threat to humans and livestock (Alderton,

1993). Lastly, expanding agricultural and grazing regions have greatly

reduced lion habitat, in turn increasing the risk of inbreeding and loss of

genetic viability (Nowak, Ronald ed., 1991).

5.5 Management intention towards lions

Regarding the issue whether the management of ANAPA should create

conducive environment for existence of lions in the park as a way to

control large herbivore populations and the same time adding another

attraction to the tourists, 68% of the experts disagreed while the

remaining 42% agreed with the idea. The main reasons cited for opposing

the idea included: the National Policy for Tanzania National Parks not

permitting the interference of natural ecosystem components in the park

as well as the fact that certain sections of the forest would have to be

cleared to create open woodland and grasslands in an effort to create

conducive environment for lions in the park. It would mean that such an

action would not only interfere with the natural growth of the vegetation

but also could affect water catchment areas in the park.

The other reason is high chance of potential increase in human-wildlife

conflicts in the area that would have been brought by existence of lions in

the area. Since local communities consider predators as a threat to both

their lives and livestock, they would not tolerate lions next to their

premises. There have been a number of reports in the country especially

in Mtwara, Lindi, Morogoro and Arusha whereby lions have been attacking

human beings or raiding their livestock (Tino, 2008). Ironically there are

also reports of lions being killed by villagers for a number of reasons

including self protection, poaching, retaliation and rituals.

On the issue of controlling large herbivores in the park, the experts had

the opinion that, presence of other predators such as hyena and leopard

Martin Emanuel

34

would play that role. Already reports indicated that hyena in the area

preying largely on buffaloes, a phenomenon which is not very common in

many parks in Tanzania with lions. Usually, the main predators for buffalo

are lion and human beings. Density dependence factors were also

mentioned as a way to regulate the population of herbivores in the park.

Although the populations of large herbivores were reported to be on

increase according to park’s wildlife census of 2003, still the carrying

capacity of the park has not reached its saturation point.

Regarding lions as additional value to the tourists, most experts had the

opinions that the park has other attractions which not only include wildlife

but also physical features such as Mount Meru, range of soda lakes, two

craters, waterfalls and escarpment. Existence of many opportunities of

seeing lions elsewhere in the country has also been considered as another

reason. The 42% of the remaining experts had their opinions mainly

centered on the key role played by lions as a top predator and keystone

species in regulating the population of wildlife especially buffalo and

giraffe which are highly available in the park. While acknowledging the

fact that, lion is top predator in balancing the ecosystem and the fact that

lion can sometimes exist in high altitude and montane forest habitat like

in Mt Kenya (Ikanda, 2008) which habours almost the same habitat as

ANAPA, creating a conducive environment or introducing lions in the area

would still be a costly exercise and fuel the already existing human-wildlife

conflict in the area.

6. CONCLUSION

Both practical and theoretical conclusions can be drawn from this study.

Practically the park has no buffer zone which acts as cushion between

strictly conserved areas and human settlements. The park is almost

completely isolated due increased human settlements around it. The

wildlife migratory corridors linking the park and the nearby ecosystems

Martin Emanuel

35

are threatened by increasing human activities such as livestock keeping,

farming, charcoal burning and human settlements. Currently there are

mainly three wildlife migratory corridors which still exists namely

Kitendeni, Kisimiri and Kitilwa. The last time lions were spotted within the

boundary of ANAPA was in 1998. There is no clear information on what

really had happened to them thereafter. Two lions were spotted in 2007 in

a nearby village heading to the park and one of them was killed by

villagers. Evidence of the presence of lions in Ngasurai plains near the

park has been reported. Absence of lions in the park is a result of

combination of factors though differs by weights according to the experts.

The leading factor is increased human population around the park which is

averaged at 4% per year followed by blockage of wildlife migratory

corridors. The third factor is unsuitable habitat of the park which is

mountainous in nature and largely dominated by thick forest. The fourth

and fifth factors are human-wildlife conflict and poaching respectively.

Apart from maintaining wildlife corridors there is no other specific

intention by the park management to create conducive environment for

the existence of lions or even introducing them.

Theoretically, the spotted hyenas have dominated the key role of top

predator in regulating the population of large herbivores especially

buffaloes due to the absence of lions. Lions are known to be the archrivals

of hyenas in competing for food and space. The docile behaviors of

resident animals inside the park such as giraffe, buffalo, and waterbuck

are likely to be clear signs of little or no potential enemies such as lions.

The absence of lion as a keystone species has potential impact on the

natural balancing mechanism of the ecosystem inside the park.

Martin Emanuel

36

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings from the study, several recommendations have

been made to rectify or mitigate the identified problems. The

recommendations are addressed to three groups, namely persons,

institutions and programs as described hereunder:

7.1 Persons

• In order to curb poaching or other illegal activities, it recommended

that, people should adhere to the laws governing the PA.

• Need of behavior change, especially among the Maasai community to

stop ritual killings of lions as a rite of passage to manhood stage

amongst young warriors. That act should be seen as old fashioned and

it continues to threaten lion population.

• People should stop undertaking activities such as charcoal burning,

unsustainable agriculture practices along the corridors as they threaten

the habitat of lion and other wildlife.

Martin Emanuel

37

7.2 Institutions

Problems Recommendations Institutions

Increased human

populations around the

park

• Provide public education on family planning

• Formulate spatial and land policies which are compatible with PA requirement

• Government of Tanzania, NGOs, International agencies

Blockage of Migratory corridors

• Securing and maintaining the lands which act as corridors by using the existing legal procedures

• Educate the local communities on the importance of conserving the corridors

• Monitor and regulate all human activities along the corridors

• TANAPA, MNR&T, Village Land Boards, Village Councils, relevant stakeholders

Human-wildlife conflict

• Build predator proof Kraals

• Strengthening Problem Animal Control Unit by providing all necessary facilities including hiring more staff

• Provide fair compensation to the individuals who lost their animals from lion kills

• MNR&T, NGOs

Poaching • Strengthening Anti-poaching Unit by equipping it with all necessary facilities

• Partnering with local communities in identifying potential poachers (proactive measures)

• Providing incentives to the members of public when reporting poaching incidences

• ANAPA, TANAPA, Village governments, MNR&T

Unsuitable habitat

• Leave nature to take its course while monitoring changes

• ANAPA

Martin Emanuel

38

7.3 Programs

7.3.1 Research and Monitoring

There are still a number of unanswered questions which requires more

research and monitoring and therefore recommended to be looked at.

These include: whether there are any long term effects in the ecosystem

of the park regarding the absence of lions; whether hyenas and other

available predators in the park such as leopards are sufficient enough to

regulate the number of large herbivores in the park; whether it is ideal to

fence a large section of the park to reduce human-wildlife conflicts.

7.3.2 Education and outreach program

As a rule of thumb, education is a key to success. In order to raise

awareness among the locals and public at large for them to recognize and

appreciate the importance of conservation (including lion) it is therefore

recommended to:

• The park through its CCS department should strengthened outreach

programs to villages and schools to sensitize the benefits associated

with conservation.

• Regular meetings between the park management and local

communities should be conducted in order to forge a good relationship

• Various events, exhibitions, gallery should be organized once or twice

in a year (depending on the available funds) between the park and the

local communities to showcase different activities, products and sharing

experiences and skills. All these activities will add values to the locals

in realizing the importance of conservation.

Martin Emanuel

39

• Education should also be given to the local communities on how co-

exist and live peacefully with wildlife including lions.

7.3.3 Training and funding

• In order to reduce human-wildlife conflict, there is a need to provide

training and funding certain programs. These programs should target

local communities especially livestock keepers to build more secured

kraals to deter potential predators such as lions. The current kraals

look dilapidated and not predator proof.

• More funding is needed especially for compensating when relocating

inhabitants who currently lives within the corridors

Martin Emanuel

40

8. REFERENCES

8.1 Literature

Alderton, David. 1993. Wild Cats of the World. Facts On File, Inc., New

York, NY. 192p.

Anton, M & Turner, A. 1997. The Big Cats and their fossil relatives. New

York: Columbia University Press.

Anapa GMP, .2003. Arusha National Park General Management Plan,

Department of Planning and Development Projects –

Tanzania National Parks Authority.

Bauer Hans et al. 2005. Status and distribution of lion (Panthera leo) in

East and Southern Africa. Background paper for East

and Southern Africa Lion Conservation Workshop,

January 2006, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Beesley, J.S. 1972. Birds of the Arusha National Park, Tanzania. The East

Africa Natural History Society and National Museum.

132 pp. Conservation, CSA

Chardonet, P. 2002. Conservation of African Lion: Contribution to a status

survey. International Foundation for the Conservation

of Wildlife, France and Conservation Force, USA.

Croach, S.C. 1987. Western Responses to Tanzania Socialism, 1967 –

1983, 194pp.

Estes, R.D. 1991. The Behaviour Guide to African Mammals. University of

California Press: Berkely.

Estes, R.D. 1993. The Safari Companion: A Guide to Watching African

Mammals. White River Junction: Chelsea Green

Publishing Company.

Martin Emanuel

41

Frank, L.G. 1998. Living with lions: carnivore conservation and livestock in

Laikipia District, Kenya. United States AID contract

number 623-0247-C-00-3002-00. Mpala Research

Center, Nanyuki, Kenya.

Frank, L. and Packer, C. 2003. Letter to the editor. New Scientist, October

23.

Hofer, H. 2003. Behavioral processes and costs of co-existence in female

spotted hyaenas: a life history perspective. Evo. Eco.

17: 315-331.

Hunter, L. 1998. Pride of Phinda. Bringing back lions to South Africa’s

coastal plain. BBC Wildlife 16:20.

Government Notice .2005. No 280 to the Gazette of the United Republic of

Tanzania, dated 16th September.

Ikanda, D.K. 2008. Non detriment report under CITES regarding the

export of African Lions Panthera leo from United

Republic of Tanzania. NDF Workshop Case Studies,

WG5 – Case study 1.

Ikanda, D. & Packer C. 2008. Rituals vs. Retaliatory killings of African lions

in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania.

Endangered Species Research 6, 67-74.

IUCN SSC. 2000. 2000 IUCN Red list of Threatened Species. The IUCN

Species Survival Commision. 61 pp.

Kingdon, J., 1997. The Kingdon Field to African Mammals. Academic Press,

San Diego, CA.

Kissui, B. & Packer, C. 2004. Top-down regulation of a top predator: lions

in the Ngorongoro Crater. Proc R Soc Lond. B Bio. Scie.

271: 1867-1874.

Martin Emanuel

42

Kissui, B. 2008. Livestock predation by lions, leopards, spotted hyenas,

and their vulnerability to retaliatory killing in the

Maaasai steppe, Tanzania. Ani. Conserv. 11, 422-432.

Kolowski, J.M. & Holekamp, K.E. 2006. Spatial, temporal, and physical

characteristics of livestock depredations by large

carnivores along a Kenyan reserve border. Bio.

Conserv. 128, 529-541.

Kruuk, H. 1972. The Spotted Hyena: A Study of Predation and Social

Behaviour. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kurten, B., Anderson, A., 1980. Pleistocene Mammals of North America.

Columbia University Press, New York.

Marchant, J. 2001. Lions face large extinctions in large parts of Africa. The

New Scientist, No.1/11/01.

Marker, L.L. & Dickman, A.J. 2005. Factors affecting leopard (Panthera

pardus) spatial ecology, with particular reference to

Namibian farmlands. S. Afr. J. Wildl. Res. 35, 105-115.

MNR&T, .1998. Tanzania Wildlife Policy, Ministry of Natural Resources and

Tourism, The United Republic of Tanzania, Government

Printers, Dar es Salaam 35pp.

Nowak, Rodald M. ed. 1991. Walker’s Mammals of the World. 5th Ed. The

John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.

1,629 p.

Nowell, K. and Jackson, P. 1996. Wild cats: Status Survey and

Conservation Action Plan. IUCN Gland, Switzerland.

Packer, S., & Pusey, 1990: Why Lions Form Groups: Food Is Not Enough.

The American Naturalist. 136(1): 1-19.

Roach, J. 2003. Lions Vs Farmers: Peace possible? National Geographic

News.

Martin Emanuel

43

Rudnai, J. 1973. The social life of the lion. Willingford: Washington Square

East.

Schaller, G.B. 1972. Serengeti lion; a study of predator-prey relations.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Stuart-Hill, G. & Grossman, G. 1993. Parks, profits and

professionalism:lion return to Pilanesberg. Afr. Wild.

47:267.

Tanzania Population & Housing Census. 2002. Population census, village

statistics. Vol.III. Dar es Salaam: National Bureau of

Statistics.

Tino, J. 2008. Beast on Fields. Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Nature-Culture

Borderlands. Academic Dissertation, Department of

Geography-Fuculty of Science, University of Helsinki,

Finland.

Vesey-fitzgerald, D.F. 1975. The vegetation of Arusha National Park (Meru

Mountain, Tanzania) East Afr. Wildl. Journal 12, 107–

134.

Wildlife Bill. 2008. Bill Supplement No.2 to the Gazette of the United

Republic of Tanzania No.1. Vol. 90 dated 2nd January

2009.

Woodroffe, R. 2000. Predators and people: using human densities to

interpret declines of large carnivores. Anim. Conserv. 3,

165–173.

Woodroffe, R. and Ginsberg, J.R.1998. Edge Effects and the Extinction of

populations Inside Protected Areas. Science 26 June.

Martin Emanuel

44

8.2 Internet resources

Anon. i http://www.zoo.org/factsheets/african_lion/africanLion.html

checked on the 28th April 2009.

Anon. iii http://zipcodezoo.com/Animals/P/Panthera_leo/ checked on the

29th April 2009.

CITES .2008. Animals listed in appendix II

http://www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices.shtml

checked on the 15th January 2009.

Delphi method http://www.iit.edu/~it/delphi.html checked on the 3rd

August 2008

Mpoki Bukoko. 2008. http://mpoki.blogspot.com/ checked on the 28th May

2009.

The official website for GORP 1999-2009

http://gorp.away.com/gorp/location/africa/tanzania/aru

_intr.htm checked 22nd April 2008.

The official website of AWF www.awf.org checked on the 4th October 2008.

The official website of CAWM www.mwekawildlife.org checked on the 4th

September 2008.

The official website of TANAPA www.tanzaniaparks.com checked on the

14th October 2008.

The official website of TAWIRI www.tawiri.org checked on the 28th

September 2008.

Viljoen, P. 2003. African Lion Working Group http://www.african-

lion.org/lions_e.htm checked on the 20th February

2009.

Martin Emanuel

45

8.3 Others

Arusha National Park .2003. Wildlife census report

Arusha National Park .2007/2008. Anti-poaching report

Arusha National Park. 2008. Human economic activities around the park

report. Department of Community Conservation

Services.

AWF – Kilimanjaro Elephant Research Project Kessi, B. 2007. Condition of migratory corridors report for Arusha National

Park. Ecology Department.

Personal communication with Kessi Bosco, Arusha National Park Ecologist

Personal communication with Malissa Fredrick, Arusha National Park, Anti-

Poaching Unit Warden.

Personal communication with Mbijima Malima, Arusha National Park, Anti-

Tourism Warden.

Personal communication with Meing’ataki Godwellelias, former Park

Ecologist of Arusha National Park.

TANAPA .Unknown year. GIS Department, Tarangire.

Martin Emanuel

46

9. APPENDICES

9.1 Appendix i

1. a) When did you used to see a lot of lions in this area?

b) And in which direction were they coming from?

2 a) When was the last time you spotted a lion?

b) Is the lion still around? If yes where can we locate it? If no, how

did it disappear?

3. Why do you think that lions are rarely seen now days?

4. Do you know any relationship between the livestock keepers’

communities and lions? If yes, please explain

5. Are there any differences between the current environment of the

area and during the past years?

Martin Emanuel

47

9.2 Appendix ii

Part I – Introduction of the interviewer

Dear respondent,

My name is Emanuel H. Martin. I am a Tanzania national, currently doing

an Msc in Management of Protected Areas at University of Klagenfurt

Austria. I am now in Tanzania doing research on understanding the factors

responsible for the local extinction of lion population in Arusha National

Park. In order to gather information I have decided to use questionnaire

as one of the methods. Your responses will be treated as confidential and

used for academic purposes only. Your cooperation in this regard will

highly be appreciated.

Kindly regards

Emanuel H. Martin (+255785274469)

Part II – Personal information of a respondent

1. 6Name of the respondent:

2. Gender: Male □ Female □

3. Age: Less than 18 years □ , between 18 and 28 years □ , between 28

and 38 years □ , between 38 and 48 □ , and more than 48 years □.

4. 7Current place of residence:

6 Optional

Martin Emanuel

48

5. Occupation:

6. Level of education: Primary school □, Secondary school □ , Certificate

□, Diploma □, Bachelor degree □, Masters □ , PhD □ others □ (please

specify)

7. Experience of working with African lions: Not at all □, Less than 5 years

□, between 5 - 10 years □, and more than 10 years □.

8. Knowledge of Arusha National Park ecological system: Not at all □, a

little bit □ , average □ , above average □, well knowledgeable □

Part III – information on the factors

9. Hereunder is a general list of factors which are considered to be

responsible for the extinction of the local population of lions in various

parts in Africa. However there are factors which are so specific with a

particular area or ecosystem. Please rank the factors, starting with the

factor you think could be most responsible for ANAPA by numbering it

one (1) to the factor which is least responsible by numbering it ten

(10).

Natural factors

Density dependency

7 Optional

Martin Emanuel

49

Unsuitable habitat (e.g. thick forest)

Disease outbreak

Climate variability and extremes (e.g. floods, & persistent droughts)

Human induced factors

Increased human population around the park

Blockage of key migratory corridors

Poaching

Human – wildlife conflict

Cultural believes (E.g. Maasai tradition of youths killing lion)

Others (please specify)

10. Please provide a brief explanation, to support your ranking

After filling the questionnaire, kindly please send it back to this email:

emagingi@gmail.com

Martin Emanuel

50

9.3 Appendix iii

Second round of questionnaire

Research Title: Understanding the factors responsible for the

absence of African Lion Population in Arusha National Park

Dear respondent

Thank you so much for your insights regarding the first round of

questionnaires. Indeed your opinions were so important for this research

and at least now there is light at the end of the tunnel. This time around, I

would like to firstly present to you a quick overview of the average

experts’ opinions regarding the factors responsible for the absence of lions

in Arusha N.P. and the characteristics of the experts. Secondly I would

kindly request you for more information regarding the way forward of

finding potential solutions.

Part I: Overview of preliminary results

The group of experts contacted to give out their opinions had their

education levels ranging from Diploma to PhD. Majority of them had both

the experiences of working with African lions and good knowledge of

Arusha N.P. ecosystem while few had either of the two. The occupations of

the experts constituted of ecologists, field biologists, lecturers and

wardens. The average opinions from experts regarding the leading factors

responsible for the absence of lions in Arusha N.P. (see the graph below)

indicated increased human population around the park as the main

leading factor followed by blockage of migratory corridors as the second.

Martin Emanuel

51

Unsuitable habitat was ranked as the third factor whereas the fourth and

fifth factors were human-wildlife conflicts and poaching respectively.

Average experts' ranking

5.4

7.1

4.63.8

7.5 7.25.9

6.9

3.5 4

012345678

Den

sity

depe

nden

ce

Uns

uita

ble

habi

tat

Dis

ease

outb

reak

Clim

ate

vari.

& e

xtre

me

Hum

anpo

pula

tion

Blo

ckag

e of

mig

rato

ryco

rrido

rs

Poa

chin

g

Hum

an W

/Lco

nflic

t

Cul

ture

belie

fs

Oth

ers

Factors

Wei

ghts

Part II: Experts’ stand

1. Based on the average opinions from the experts as presented above,

do you agree with it or sticking to your previous ranking? Yes or

No (please tick the appropriate box) If No please explain why

N.B I have attached your previous response in case you would like to

double check

Part III: Way forward

Based on the interviews and various literature reviews, it has been

established that, no traces of viable population of lions ever existed in

Arusha N.P. Nevertheless in 1972 and 1996-1998 several lions were

Martin Emanuel

52

spotted in the Park. Considering the fact that, lions play very important

role in African ecosystem especially in regulating the populations of large

herbivores such as buffaloes, zebras and giraffes just to name a few which

are commonly found in Arusha NP, and its significance as one of the most

attractive animals that most tourists would like to see when visiting the

Park, what are your opinions regarding the following:

2. Do you think the management of Arusha N.P. should give special

attention on creating conducive environment for the existence of lions

in the Park? (Please tick the appropriate box)

Yes No

If No, please specify your reasons hereunder; if yes please go to question

number 3

3. What should be done to the blocked migratory corridors linking Arusha

N.P. and the surrounding ecosystems? (please tick the appropriate box)

Legally recognize the corridors (as stated in 2008 wildlife bill), stop

all destructive human activities and relocate the people to different

areas and thereafter leave the area solely managed by relevant

Wildlife Authority

Legally recognize the corridors (as stated in 2008 wildlife bill), stop

all human activities and relocate the people to different areas and

thereafter co-manage the area by relevant Wildlife Authority and the

surrounding villages

Martin Emanuel

53

Legally recognize the corridors (as stated in 2008 wildlife bill) and

allow human activities that have less impact to the corridors under

the scrutiny of relevant wildlife and local authorities

None of the proposed solutions is appropriate

4. What do you think should be a solution to the increasing human

population around the Park? (please tick)

Compensate and relocate people living immediate to the Park

boundary and create buffer zone

Leave the people as they are and concentrate on the corridors and

other options

Leave the people and provide them with the education on how to co-

exist with the wildlife next to their premises.

Formulate Land use plans outside the park which are compatible

with the park requirements

None of the proposed solutions is appropriate

5. In case none of the above options (questions 3&4) agrees with your

thinking or you have different views, please explain hereunder:

“Thank you for your time and considerations”

Martin Emanuel

54

After filling the questionnaire, kindly please send it back to this email:

emagingi@gmail.com