CHAPTER ONE

1.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION.

Earth`s wildlife species support human life and society through maintaining ecological balance
of nature, food chain, providing gene-pool for scientists, carrying breeding programme in
agriculture, animal husbandry and fishery (Tisdell,2007), such a significance leads to the reasons
as to why wildlife species should be protected.

According to IUCN (1998) more than of 60% of biodiversity in Africa represented by central
Africa with several taxonomic groups; including over 400 species of mammals, 1086 species of
birds, 216 species of reptiles and over 10000 vascular plant species in which these diverse
biological resources are of importance and are shared by several countries in the region.

The wildlife in Tanzania is composed of its flora and fauna. Broadly, a country has 364 species
of mammals and 1108 species of birds, these wildlife heritage generate a billion of shillings in
much needed foreign exchange (Vincent and Laura,1999). In spite those, the wildlife context is
threatened with population growth, poverty, subsistence agriculture extraction, fuel wood
collection and climate change in the future ( Trevor and Tim,2009). Tropical conservation
science (2010) argue that, the wildlife conservation needed to be approached as co-management
involving sharing of power, responsibilities, rights and duties, reactivation of traditional
institutions between government and local resource users.

As to take Wildlife Management Areas as pilot project JUKUMU Society is one example which
emphasize that, local people would have the right to manage wildlife and earn revenue from
activities such as tourism and hunting, then community would have incentive to conserve
wildlife on their communal land (conservation,2008). JUKUMU Society in Dutumi village
started up a scout camp site for training its members of the same community so that to take a key
role into conserving and managing the selous game reserve of that village, however, society
hindered with shortage of; personnels for training the members, enough bullets to ensure
guarding at reserve and unfaithfulness among the community members at that village
(Mwenegoha,2008). Rural community Development (undated) reveals out some reasons for poor
management that such as; lack of accessibility, lack of staff equipments and training, hostility

1
from neighboring community and low morale. The earlier model of wildlife conservation largely
relied on a beat patrol system, intelligence gathering and efficiency handling prosecution, all of
which ensured that wildlife species got a reprieve and expanded in numbers. However,
governance is ridden with various problems including corruption and poor understanding of the
ecological needs among managers which lead to unsustainable use of natural resources,
degrading habitats and makes way for projects that fragment or denude wildlife habitats.

Previously, governance on wildlife resources envisaged with prime objective of conserving

through different approaches consisting of traditional execution by the community then shifted to
professionalism, protectionalism and gazettement which transferring management from the local
domain into state (Kowero,2003a,b). Exclusion of local community from wildlife management
had introduced many conflicts between community themselves and departments, on other hand,
inadequate budgets as among of central problem that associated with centralized administration
structure of wildlife management (Kajembe, 1999). Both of the management system has led to
intensive extraction of resources to keep on progress. In essence, governance is about a process
of decision making and how these decisions are implemented. A good governance is guided with
preceding indicators, namely; participatory, accountability, transparency, consensus oriented,
observing the rule of law, effectiveness efficiency, responsibility and equitability
(Higman,2005).Therefore, following the descriptions the study indicates that poor governance
could be the reasons for the wildlife deterioration throught the continents.

1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT

The Dutumi villagers involves into wildlife conservation strategy following the official wildlife
policy that declares the Community Based Conservation as a country wide approach
(URT,1998). Despite overwhelming potential initiatives of Operational Uhai under fences and
fines approach which conducted throughout the reserves so as to halt the activities of illegal
hunting, timber exploitation among the others together with replacing Wildlife Management
Areas strategy purposely to make community from conducting distortive activities in wildlife
areas, still the incidents are keeping up. Therefore, a study views such phenomenon probably

2
being caused by a weakness of local leadership in conserving and managing the wildlife areas,
hence, it arises to seek remedies that restrengthen the local leadership.

1.2 JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY

Significantly, following intensive wildlife extraction, the study emanates to restrengthen local
governance in terms of power and authority provision with assistance from central government
so that to reassure the effectiveness in enforcing policy institutions on wildlife management. This
study is conjucted with Millennium Development Goal particularly goal 7, which focuses on
ensuring environmental sustainability, which, divided into preceding targets; integrate the
principles of sustainable development into country`s policies and programmes, reverse loss of
environmental resources, as well as, reducing biodiversity loss. Together with National Strategy
for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (NSGRP) Cluster III providing emphasis on governance
and accountability in which the second goal is to ensure equitable allocation of public resources
with corruption effectively addressed.

However, the prime beneficiaries are; policy makers who will be provided with a clear picture on
enacting policies that coherent to particular situation and leadership structure on wildlife
conservation, more often, community as core stakeholders, will be ensured with effective
governance on wildlife management such that their livelihoods will gradually improve.

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY.

1.3.1 GENERAL OBJECTIVE.

To assess the effectiveness of local governance in wildlife management in JUKUMU Society

Organization.

1.3.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

3
(a) To examine the leadership structure of JUKUMU Society at village.

(b) To identify the roles played by leadership structure.

(c) To assess the indicators of good governance in Wildlife management.

1.3.3 HYPOTHESIS TESTING

1.3.4 Null hypothesis (HO)

There is ineffectiveness of local governance in wildlife management.

1.3.5 Alternative Hypothesis (Ha)

There is effectiveness of local governance in wildlife management

CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

4
2.1 Definition of concepts
2.1.1 Governance
The term governance denotes to a manner in which the power is exercised in the management of
country`s social and economic resources for development (McCawley, 2005).

Preceding wildlife deterioration, the governance dynamism was created by putting forward a
concept of sustainable development in environmental resource utilization. The concept adopted
and strengthened in Rio de Janeiro 1992 into sustainable livelihoods framework that refers to
protection of natural resources while deeming the improvements of the economies of local
communities (UN, 1992). An idea behind is to establish appropriate governance that would lead
to sustainable management of all resource types, in this, the argument is to have a decentralized
management of the resources under which local governments are responsible.

Scholarly works indicates that, governance of natural resources is about power relationships and
accountability, which all of them influence on the achievement of management objectives
(Ostrom, 1997; Borrini-feyerabend et al., 2004; Luoga et al., 2005). Experiences have
demonstrated that local communities, who live nearby natural resources, are the most appropriate
stakeholders whose their participation in management of the resources would lead to sustainable
achievement of the objectives of the resources management and local socio-economies (Kajembe
et al., 1999, 2003; Luoga et al., 2000). Besides, Singah (2006) stresses that, governance on
wildlife resources should be accounted from the eight components, namely; participatory,
accountability, transparency, responsibility, equitability, follow the rule of law, consensus and
effectiveness.

2.1.2 Wildlife Management.

The term wildlife management refers to an attempt that balance the needs of wildlife with the
need of the people using the best available science, for example game keeping, pest control and
wildlife conservation (Bailey,1984). Wildlife Management involves the application of scientific
knowledge and technical skills for protection, conserving and managing their habitats with an
assistance of preceding element, namely; public participation, public awareness, education and
coordination, where ,in coordination is categorized into local ,state, national and international
level, in which government agencies should plan policy for protecting, conserving and managing

5
wildlife. It is interdisciplinary subject since it includes biological, technological, social,
economical and legal aspects. More often, wildlife management encompasses conservation of
endangered, threatened and non-threatened species and their natural habitats, in fact wildlife
management tools are laws implemented to protect the existing natural habitats with the use of
ecological knowledge in order to bring a balance between the need of population and people.

The context of wildlife management in Tanzania

During the colonial era and post independence, the conservation philosophy was relied on
ecological principles of making the protected wildlife areas as ecological entities or ecosystems
(Maganga, 1999). Because of the emphasis on the ecosystem dimension, wildlife management
and research activities were biased to acquire more knowledge on biology and ecology of
animals and protecting the wildlife areas from disturbance or interference (Maganga; IIED,
2000). Oftenly, the conventional system of wildlife management did not work as intended and
was ineffective, among of indicators of ineffectiveness was the extreme poaching which
commenced in the late 1970s up to mid 1980s especially in East African countries. Tanzania lost
about 290000 elephants because of poaching activity which was about 60 elephants per day
(Mboya etal., 1995). The rural community were not supportive and were against wildlife
conservation activity, as a result some individuals in rural community involve with commercial
poachers by being either agents or hosts of poachers (Maganga, 1999). In June 1989, the
government of Tanzania launched a National-wide special ant-poaching operation, named
Operation Uhai which applied fences and fines approach so that to halt the problem despite of
limited resources (Songorwa, 1999; Hahn and Kaggi, 2001). But later, it was realized that, the
issues faced by modern wildlife management were more human related, it has now recognized
that the challenge is to initiate a new strategy to cope with poaching and encroachment by
instigating sustainable wildlife utilization scheme and provide benefits from wildlife to rural
people (Leader-Williams et al. ,1996;IIED,2000b).

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Study area.

6
Dutumi was the village at Bwakila low-land ward in Morogoro region. According to (2002)
population census, the village had a population of 11601. Dutumi village was selected because of
the presence of the JUKUMU Society which was among of the pilot project that works on
conserving and managing the wildlife resources under Wildlife Management Areas.

3.2 Research Design

Orodho (2003), defines Research design as a scheme, outline or plan that is used to generate
answers to research problem. With that respect, a cross sectional research design was adopted in
this study, of which the collection of information was done at one point as recommended by
several studies.

3.3 Sampling procedures

3.3.1 Population sample and size

Community in Dutumi village was the prime focus of the population sample. The population
sample consisted of 90 local people (45 women and 45 men), 7 participants from JUKUMU
Society and 3 key informants from the village. The total sample size was 100 respondents, in
which its sampling unit comprised males and females aged from eighteen (18) years old and
above. As supported by Alreck and Settle (1985) , for the large population size, 100 respondents
should be the minimum practical sample size for the researches.

3.4 Sampling techniques

The study employed simple random sampling method so as to give equal chances to the
respondents to be included in the sample (Kothari, 2007).

3.5 Data collection and techniques.

Both quantitative and qualitative techniques were used to collect data from a sample of
population. Checklist of questions were also applied to collect in-depth information from both
JUKUMU participants and village-key informants while questionnaires were used to collect data
from respondents.

3.5.1 Primary Data

7
The primary data obtained from JUKUMU participants, village-key informants and respondents
through questionnaires and checklist of questions.

3.5.2 Secondary Data

Secondary data of this study encompassed both published and unpublished materials (books,
journals ), internet materials, SNAL and SMC-Library.

3.6 Data Management and Procedures

3.6.1 Data Processing

Data collected were edited, coded and summarized prior to analysis by the application of
Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) while qualitative information were analyzed
through content analysis.

3.6.2 Data Analysis

The research was utilized descriptive statistic such as mean, frequencies and percentages in data
analysis.

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Demographic characteristics of respondents in the study village

8
Demographic characteristics considered in this study were sex, age, education level and marital
status. These types of information were of importance as it determined capabilities and entire
understanding of wildlife resource management in a particular area.

4.1.1 Sex of Respondents

This study involved females and males, of which 50% were females and 50% were males
(Table1). This gave an impression that the selection of respondents was regarded women and
men. Sexes of individuals are very significant since it provides a clue on how women and men
associate into the wildlife resource management. Further, involving of women in the study
illustrated that, women were among of the resource users in the village for domestic purposes
however in gender perspectives, women relative to men were disadvantaged in accessing
resources and opportunity (Meinze-Dick, 1997).

4.1.2 Age

Four age categories were deemed for individuals who involved in this study, an average age of
the persons ranged from 21 to 54 years (Table1). From the findings, it has indicated that, 36%
were individuals between 37 and 47, 36% were individuals between 26 and 36, 19% were
individuals between 15 and 25 while 10% were individuals between 48 and 58 (Table). This
range was based on the fact that it was intended to analyze energetic individuals who were able
to participate effectively into conservation or determine people who had a capability of providing
valuable knowledge on wildlife conservation. Basing on that results, community had capable
individuals (ages of: 26-47) who were able to play an essential role into conservation as well as
few persons who were responsible to give their advices and valuable contributions on the
resource management at the village.

4.1.3 Marital status

The study illustrated that, 62% of individuals were married, while 22%, 8%, 7% and 1% of
individuals were single, divorced, widowed and separated (Table1). Marital status was very
important to an extent that it has showed that those who participated in the study were matured
and were likely to have been involved into conservation and management.

9
4.1.4 Education level

Majority of 41% of respondents had primary school, secondary education 26%, adult education
17% and no formal education 17% (Table 1). This showed that, education levels were pretty
crucial to entire activity of wildlife management because through knowledge in which
individuals possessed, they can make potential decisions on conservation of the resources at the
village. This supported by FAO (1997) with assertion that significant decisions on resources
utilization could be made from individuals who accessed to education.

From Table 1, the majority of respondents who were attended primary schools probably due to
social situations which hindered them. Although Maliyamkono (1997) pointed that the
imposition of cost sharing the number of students drops in schools. Therefore, this can be one of
the reasons for many individuals possessed primary education level in the study village.

Table 1: Demographic characteristics of the respondents in the study village

10
 Category Frequency Percent

Age
15-25 17 18.9

26-36 32 35.6

37-47 32 35.6

48-58 9 10.0

Total 90 100.0

Respondent sex Frequency Percent

Male 45 50.0

Female 45 50.0

Total 90 100.0

Marital status Frequency Percent

Single 20 22.2
Married 56 62.2

Divorced 7 7.8

Widow 6 6.7

Separated 1 1.1

Total 90 100.0

11
Education level Frequency Percent

No formal education 15 16.7

Primary education 37 41.1

Secondary education 23 25.6

Adult education 15 16.7

Total 90 100.0

Source: Data field 2011

4.2 Community awareness on Wildlife Management in Dutumi village

Respondents who participated in the study were showed that, 83% of individuals were agreed
that they were aware on wildlife management since of wildlife resource information which
accessed to them likewise 17% of individuals were disagreed that they were not aware on
wildlife management due to information limitations on wildlife conservation and its management
(Table 2). Information provision is an output of functional democratic that should be apparently
given (Gani 2004), therefore, this showed that individuals from Dutumi village were very
conscious towards wildlife resource management to adjacent Selous game reserve.

Table 2: Response to community awareness on wildlife management at Dutumi village

Information Frequency Percent

Yes 75 83.3

No 15 16.7

Total 90 100.0
Source: Data field 2011

4.3 Local Governance in Wildlife Management at Selous Game Reserve

Governance in wildlife conservation was the central focus in the study, since this dimension was
significant in management of the wildlife resources in Dutumi village. The governance
component which has considered was segmented into village governance and community based
governance.

12
4.3.1 Village Governance

The individuals who selected in the study indicated that, 58% of respondents rejected that, the
village government was inactive when misconduct happens in wildlife resource locations
because of corrupt leaders and irresponsibility, while, 42% of respondents accepted that the
village government was active when misconduct appears on wildlife reserves (Table3).

The village government was the prime functional unit for wildlife management. It has assumed
that the village government was the organizer of planning and implementation process (Wily,
1996). According to Kayambazinthu (2006) reported a good performance of village government,
however, in other cases, bad performance of village government is caused by corrupt leaders
(FAO, 2003) and domination of elites within wildlife resource users (Khatri-Chhetri, 2006).

Table 3: Response to local governance and other agencies taking measures when any
misconduct appears at wildlife reserve

Information Frequency Percent

Yes 38 42.2

No 52 57.8

Total 90 100.0

Source: Data field 2011

4.3.2 Community Based Governance

The individuals from the study evidenced that, the Community Based Organization provided
26% for training, 16% education provision, 9% for information provision and 7% for enhancing
community into decision making, in spite of 43% of individuals were not responded from that
situation since these individuals had not observed the contribution of community based
governance (Table 4).

13
In the study village, local individuals were formulated their CBO under WMA S followed official
wildlife management policy of 1998 which demanded them to conserve and manage the adjacent
selous. This CBO intended to play a vital role in wildlife management, among of other duties, its
leadership structure had distributed its tasks within organization collaboratively with local
individuals so that to accomplish several obligations, these included; provision of community
based education, giving scout-training to some members of the community with intentions of
distributing a body of knowledge to individuals, intentionally, to make them patrolling the selous
from undesirable activities such as illegal poaching, timber exploitation and alike. On other hand,
the CBO gave information patterning wildlife resources, enhanced people into decision making
on wildlife utilization through participation process as well as supporting developmental
activities in the village. This participation process targets to propagate a sense of ownership and
a strong internal motivation on resource utilization likewise supporting in developmental
activities has a positive impact on community attitudes on wildlife conservation (IIED, 1994).

Table 4:Response to applicable ways of involving community into wildlife management

Information Frequency Percent

education provision 14 15.6

training provision 23 25.6

information provision 8 8.9

decision making 6 6.7

Total 51 56.7

Missing System 39 43.3

Total 90 100.0

Source: Data field 2011

4.4 Dimensions of Good Governance in Wildlife Management

Three dimensions of good governance in practicing wildlife management in Dutumi village were
considered, these included participatory, accountability and transparency. These dimensions were

14
revealed through the type of questions which were asked to individuals. During the study the
respondents agreed that, the local government and community based organization were in
line with wildlife policy that declared the Community Based Conservation as a country wide
approach (URT, 1998).

4.4.1 Participation level

The community participation level in wildlife management from local governance were indicated
that, 57% of respondents accepted with that the local governances involved individuals into
wildlife management and its conservation, while 43% of respondents rejected that the local
governances excluded local people towards wildlife conservation (Table 5).

Table 5: Response to local government and other agencies involve community into wildlife
management

Information Frequency Percent

Yes 51 56.7

No 39 43.3

Total 90 100.0

Source: Data field 2011

From the findings, it has showed that local individuals involve into activities patterning wildlife
conservation, especially in training, education and information provision as well as decision
making, as illustrated from (Table 4). Besides, Menzies (2004) asserted that, despite participatory
encourages among of other things community empowerment and promoting participatory
governance, many of the reserves have not reached at good governance. Furthermore, Pomeroy
(2001) argued that active and continuous participation of co-management partners in planning,
decision making, implementation and evaluation were significance in generating a sense of
ownership and commitment to the process of management.

4.4.2 Accountability level

15
An accountability from local governance in wildlife management indicated that, 63% of
respondents agreed that the local governances were unaccountable into wildlife management and
its conservation, while 37% of respondents disagreed that the local governances were
accountable towards wildlife conservation (Table 6).

Table 6: Response to local government and other agencies implement their rules, norms
and policy on wildlife management at the village.

Information Frequency Percent

Yes 33 36.7

No 57 63.3

Total 90 100.0

Source: Data field 2011

According to UNDP (1997) and Gani (2004), accountability is an obligation in which many third
world countries fail to achieve. Now from that, it provides no doubt even in this study, the local
governances might have a common problem.

4.4.3 Transparency level

Transparency level in wildlife management from local governance showed that 74% of
respondents disagreed that the local governances were not transparent to local people, while 26%
of respondents agreed to support the transparency from local governance (Table 7). The
individuals who agreed on transparency from the local governance were accessed to policy,
rules, regulations, revenues and appropriate resource utilization information which contrary to
individuals who disagreed because these individuals were not accessed to type of information
which were explained.

16
Table 7: Response for community getting adequate information concerning wildlife
management at Dutumi village.

Information Frequency Percent

Yes 23 25.6

No 67 74.4

Total 90 100.0

Source: Data field 2011

Duncan and Gani (2004) stated that, transparency is an output of a democratic function in which
different countries fail to meet. This study relied on the prevailing of wildlife information
provision between village governances and local communities, which showed that there were
inadequate wildlife information provisions to individuals at the village.

4.5 Role of village game scout from community Based Organization in Dutumi village

During the study Key informants were traced that, Community Based leadership in collaboration
with village members recruit some individuals to enroll into village scout training in order to
make these individuals play a significant role into wildlife conservation at the adjacent selous.
Among of other duties, the village game scout accomplish the following; patrol the village
wildlife areas so that to control poaching, undertake the village wildlife hunting according to
village quotas, arrest, search and prosecute law breakers and work closely with anti-poaching
groups, district game scouts and management of adjacent selous. This job is on voluntary basis
though scout-members receive some allowances when they go out for patrolling despite the CBO
has inadequate technical and financial support. These scouts’ members supplied with uniforms
and boots but they lack enough firearms and bullets for ensuring the guarding activities.

17
Furthermore, some Key informants were managed to reveal some underlying reasons for local
community engaging in poaching. They stated that, sometimes the trained-scout members tend to
collaborate with villagers or hire firearms to villagers in order to diversify their earnings likewise
villagers aim to generate income for domestic needs because it has learned that local
communities prefer wildlife meat, therefore it has molded as a part of their traditional life to an
extent that the wildlife meat has became a source of income so that to make communities achieve
their demand. According to Baldus (2001) asserted that the wildlife meat originated from small
scale consumptive poaching is less destructive than commercial trophy poaching, then, he added
that meat poaching is widespread, uncontrolled and mostly at unsustainable levels. On other
hand, some respondents were complaints that, the declination of wildlife resources in the village
accelerated by individuals who provided with hunting warrants which were not officiated by the
village government to individuals who were not the residents of the village. Despite in few cases,
some poachers were apprehended to courts and pay fines due to poaching which they conducted
from the Selous.

18
 CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusion

In summing up, in spite of many nations fail to implement accountability and transparency per
se, the responsible countries should determine accurate strategies of ensuring these components
of good governance in wildlife management are considered throughout the processes in order to
encourage sustainable resource management.

5.2 Recommendations

Presence of Jukumu Society at village played significant roles into conservation and
management, for instance provision of community wildlife education, provision of training,
enhancing community into decision making, though the following should be deemed;

 Collaboration of communities into wildlife management should be expanded to an extent

that planning, evaluation and decision making invite a good number of individuals who
live at Selous adjacent so that to share knowledge among them.

 Local governance in concerns should ensure that policy, rules and regulations are
implemented purposely to promote accountability on the side of village leadership

 Adequate information on wildlife management for instance information on how to

conserve and manage the reserve, revenues, budgets, should be provided to local
communities aimly to keep on individuals updating.

19
 The wildlife conservation should be approached as co-management involving sharing of
power, responsibilities, rights and duties, reactivation of traditional institutions between
government and local resource users

 Besides, the central government should assist the village government and CBO in terms
of technical and financial support in order to strengthen the village leadership.

20
REFERENCES

Arua Rural Community Development (undated).

[http://arcod.interconnection.org/info_wildlife_resource.html] visited on December 28,
2010.
Clem T. (2007). Economics, Ecology and Environment.[http://espace.library.uq.ed.au/eserv/]
visited on January 2, 2011.
Chingonikaya E. (2009). Prospectus of community-based forest management in sustaining forest

resource base and socio-economies of local communities in Tanzania.

Donald K. and Delno L. (2006). Proposal and thesis writing, Pauline publication Africa, Kenya.

IUCN (1998) Community wildlife management in West Africa.

[http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/7804IIED.pdf] visited on January 14,2011.

id21 natural resource highlight6, conservation. [http://www.dfid.gov.uk/r4d/PDP] visited on

January 2, 2011.
Millennium Development Goals[http://www.undp.org/…/basics.shtml] visited on December
24,2010.
Nsita A. (2010) Search of forest governance reform in Uganda: Background paper for workshop

on forest.

Rolf D. (2001). Experience with Community Based wildlife conservation in Tanzania.

[http://www.tanzaniagateway.org/…./development-of-community/development-in-
Tanzania-Ruaha-ecology] visited on December 31,2010.

Trevor J. and Tim C. (2009) wildlife corridor in Tanzania.

[http://www.wildlife_baldus.com/download] visited on January 2,2011.

21
URT (2005) The united republic of Tanzania: National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of
Poverty. [http://www.ms.dk/sw66206.asp] visited on December 24,2010.

Vincent and Laura (1999) wildlife corridors and buffer zones in Tanzania.

[http://www.wildlife_corridor.doc] visited on December 31, 2010.

22
 APPENDIX 1: THE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR RESEARCH.

SOKOINE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE

DEVELOPMENT STUDIES INSTITUTE

A questionnaire for research on:

LOCAL GOVERNANCE AND COMMUNITY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

A CASE STUDY OF DUTUMI VILLAGE

Introduction

Good morning/ afternoon

My name is…………………………………………………..from Sokoine University of

Agriculture, a 3rd year student studying Bachelor of Rural Development. I am carrying out the
study in this Dutumi village on local governance and community wildlife management. All
information will be treated confidentially and therefore you are requested to be free to give any
information.

Name of enumerator……………………………………

Date……………………………………………………………..

Village…………………………………………………………..

Ward…………………………………………………………….

Division…………………………………………………………

23
A: Background information.

1. Respondent sex…………………………

01. Male 02.Female

2. Age…………………years.

3. Marital status.

01. Single 02.married 03.divorced

04. Widow 05.widower 06.separated

4. Education level (+number of years in education)

01. No formal education 02.primary education 03.secondary education

04. Adult education 05.others (specify).

B: Community participation on wildlife.

5. Are you aware on wildlife management and its conservation? (Yes/No) (Circle one).

6. Are the wildlife resources accessible to communities? (Yes/No) (Circle one).

7. Do you play a role in management of wildlife resources in your area? (Yes/No) (circle one).

If yes what do you do…………………………………………………………………………….

8. Do local government and other agencies involve community into wildlife management in your
area? (Yes/No) (circle one).

If yes mention the applicable way………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

24
9. Which is the most popular method do local person apply into participation process?

01. Meeting 02.workshop 03.training 04.others (specify)

10. Do local community treated equally into entire activity of participation process? (Yes/No)

(circle one).

11. Do you think wildlife present in your area, are utilized at a sustainable level? (Yes/No)

If yes why do you think so? .....................................................................................................

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

If no why do you think so? ...............................................................................................................

……………………………………………………………………………………………………...

C: Local leadership on wildlife management.

12. Who is responsible for natural resource conservation in your area?

01. Village government 02.central government

03. Individual of the community 04.others (specify)

13. In which aspect do local people participate into wildlife management?

01. Consultation 02. Decision making

03. Information provision 04.others (specify)

14. Are the community getting adequate information concerning wildlife management in your
area? (Yes/No) (circle one).

If yes what kind of information………………………………………………………………...

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

25
15. Do local government and other agencies implement their institutions (rules, norms, policies)
on wildlife management? (Yes/No) (circle one).

16. Are the local government and other agencies taking a measure when any misconduct appears
at wildlife reserve in your area? (Yes/No) (circle one)

If yes how…………………………………………………………………………………………...

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

.If no why…………………………………………………………………………………………...

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

17.How often does the management organization meet with the village…………………………..

18.Are your views taken into consideration and worked upon on?..................................................

19.How does wildlife management appreciate the work done by the village on conservation?.......

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CO-OPERATION.

26
Appendix 2: Checklist for key informants.

1.How wildlife resources accessible to communities?................................................................

2.What are the benefits derived from wildlife resources?.............................................................

3.How do you deliver information patterning wildlife management to the community?.................

…………………………………………………………………………………………………….

4.Which role do you play into wildlife management and conservation?.......................................

……………………………………………………………………………………………………

5. In what ways do local government and other agencies involve local people into wildlife
management and its conservation?..........................................................................................

6. To what extent do local government and other agencies implementing their institutions( rules,
norms, policies) on wildlife management?................................................................................

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
7.What are the successful and constraints on wildlife management at the area?...........................

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
8. What are the threats of wildlife resources in the area and the strategies to counteract
them?...................................................................................................................................

9. What are your suggestions for improving peoples’ standard of living through sustainable use
of natural resources?..................................................................................................................

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

27