Human rights and conservation of biodiversity considerations associated with roads in the Serengeti: response to Hopcraft et al

Conservation benefit-sharing mechanisms and their effectiveness in the Greater Serengeti Ecosystem: local communities' perspectives

Benefit-sharing mechanisms have been instrumental in securing the support of local communities living on the edge of protected areas to implement protected area goals and enhance biodiversity conservation outcomes. Understanding the acceptability of the types of benefit provided among diverse communities is crucial for co-designing benefit-sharing approaches that accommodate local perspectives. Here, we used quasi-structured questionnaires and focus group discussions (FGD) to assess the acceptance of the types of benefit received by the communities in the Greater Serengeti Ecosystem (GSE) in Tanzania and the effectiveness of the benefits in securing community support for conservation reserves. We found that the categories of social service provision, livelihood support, and employment described all the benefits provided across conservation institutions operating in the GSE. However, the types of benefit within these categories varied significantly among conservation institutions, in terms of level and frequency of benefits received by communities. Overall, student scholarships were highly rated by respondents as the most satisfying benefit received. Respondents who were dissatisfied with the benefits received thought that the benefits did not compensate for the high costs arising from wildlife incursions onto their land. Communities' acceptance of the benefits received varied greatly among villages, but only a small proportion of pooled respondents (22%) were willing to support the existence of a protected area without benefit. This study suggests that local people are willing to support conservation outcomes but require conservation institutions to give greater consideration to the costs incurred by communities, their livelihood needs, and access to natural resources or other benefits. We recommend that benefit-sharing be tailored to the local circumstances and cultures of people living close to protected areas, particularly communities expressing more negative views, to ensure adequate and appropriate compensation is provided.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10531-023-02583-1.

Roads and livelihood activity choices in the Greater Serengeti Ecosystem, Tanzania

Road development is occurring at an unprecedented rate in important conservation areas in tropical countries with limited understanding of how local people will adjust their livelihood activities in response. We use a discrete choice experiment to explore the effect of road development on respondents ex-ante preferences for changes in livelihood activities-crop and livestock production, hunting and trading bushmeat, and business and wage employment-under different incentives-provision of loans, livestock and crop extension services-in scenarios with reduced travel time to nearest district town in the Greater Serengeti Ecosystem in Tanzania. We test four hypotheses about the effects of roads with opposing implication for conservation. Hypothesis 1 predicts that increased market access will lead to intensification of crop and livestock production activities (achieved through extension services and loans), and Hypothesis 2 that market access will facilitate the development of non-farm Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) providing new livelihood opportunities (e.g. business income and wage employment)-both reducing environmental pressure. Hypotheis 3 on the other hand predicts that improved market access will lead to extensification and expansion of crop and livestock production activities, while Hypotheis 4 suggests that it will encourage exploitation of environmental goods (here in the form of hunting and trading bushmeat and illegal grazing inside protected areas)-both increasing environmental pressure. We find increasing preferences for more cropland and more cattle as travel time to market is reduced but no preference for increased allocation of household members to hunting and trading bushmeat supporting hypothesis 3 while contradicting hypothesis 4. However, second-order effects might support hypothesis 4 as we find aversion towards decreasing effort invested in hunting and trading bushmeat. Preferences for increased cropland and livestock may furthermore interact to increase land use change and illegal grazing inside protected areas. Crop extension services had a negative modifying effect on preferences for more cropland (supporting hypothesis 1) while livestock extension services had a positive modifying effect on preferences for more cattle (contradicting hypothesis 1). Providing loans had a negative modifying effect on preferences for increasing cropland and number of cattle. Marginal rates of substitution suggest that 950,000 TSH borrowed at a 10% interest rate will reduce preferences for more cropland and cattle by 11.8 and 38.4% respectively. Crop extension services reduce preferences for more cropland by 27% whereas livestock extension services increase preferences for more cattle by 104%. Contradicting Hypothesis 2, we found no preference for increasing the number of households members engaged in business and wage employment in response to reduced travel time. Targeted efforts to increase the educational level as well as entrepreneurship skills in the GSE could promote engagement in the labour market and development of business enterprises diverting focus from traditional activities such as farming and livestock production and hence reducing pressure on the ecosystem.