Search

Tanzania, arguably mainland Africa's most important nation for conservation, is losing habitat and natural resources rapidly. Moving away from a charcoal energy base and developing sustainable finance mechanisms for natural forests are critical to slowing persistent deforestation. Addressing governance and capacity deficits, including law enforcement, technical skills, and funding, across parts of the wildlife sector are key to effective wildlife protection. These changes could occur in tandem with bringing new models of natural resource management into play that include capacity building, corporate payment for ecosystem services, empowering nongovernmental organizations in law enforcement, greater private-sector involvement, and novel community conservation strategies. The future of Tanzania's wildlife looks uncertain-as epitomized by the current elephant crisis-unless the country confronts issues of governance, embraces innovation, and fosters greater collaboration with the international community.

IT HAS BECOME COMMONPLACE to remark that humans are now the dominant environmental force on the Earth. The indications are strong and diverse. They range from paleontologists reaching a consensus that humans contributed to megafaunal extinctions on at least two continents, North America and Australia;1 recognition that formerly intact marine ecosystems have changed enormously;2 suggestions that climate has changed sufficiently that no ecosystem is immune from alterations in species composition;3 remarks that pollution is widespread even in Antarctica;4 and arguments that human predation on mammals is pernicious and the principal driver of changes in phenotypic traits of exploited species in many areas.5 Some scientists use geographic data to show that human activities affect almost every terrestrial system (e.g., the human footprint6). Indeed, the current epoch is now being referred to as “the Anthropocene,”7 which has led geologists to formally debate stratigraphic evidence for this new phenomenon and to argue over not if but when it began.8 With the catchword Anthropocene in ascendancy, one might easily come away with the impression that nowhere on Earth is natural, in one of the word’s specific meanings of ecosystems being untouched by humans,9 and indeed it is common to hear the phrase “humans have altered everything.”

Tanzania holds most of the remaining large populations of African lions (Panthera leo) and has extensive areas of leopard habitat (Panthera pardus), and both species are subjected to sizable harvests by sport hunters. As a first step toward establishing sustainable management strategies, we analyzed harvest trends for lions and leopards across Tanzania's 300,000 km(2) of hunting blocks. We summarize lion population trends in protected areas where lion abundance has been directly measured and data on the frequency of lion attacks on humans in high-conflict agricultural areas. We place these findings in context of the rapidly growing human population in rural Tanzania and the concomitant effects of habitat loss, human-wildlife conflict, and cultural practices. Lion harvests declined by 50% across Tanzania between 1996 and 2008, and hunting areas with the highest initial harvests suffered the steepest declines. Although each part of the country is subject to some form of anthropogenic impact from local people, the intensity of trophy hunting was the only significant factor in a statistical analysis of lion harvest trends. Although leopard harvests were more stable, regions outside the Selous Game Reserve with the highest initial leopard harvests again showed the steepest declines. Our quantitative analyses suggest that annual hunting quotas be limited to 0.5 lions and 1.0 leopard/1000 km(2) of hunting area, except hunting blocks in the Selous Game Reserve, where harvests should be limited to 1.0 lion and 3.0 leopards/1000 km(2) .

Considerable controversy surrounds the effectiveness of strictly protected areas that prohibit consumptive resource use. For Tanzania we compared temporal changes in densities of large herbivores among heavily protected national parks and game reserves, partially protected game-controlled areas, and areas with little or no protection. Comparisons based on surveys conducted in the late 1980s and early 1990s versus the late 1990s and early 2000s showed three consistent patterns across the country. First, significant declines in the densities of large herbivores between these two snapshots in time overwhelmingly outnumbered significant increases in all protection categories. Second, more species fared well (increased significantly or showed no significant change) in strictly protected national parks than in areas with partial or no protection and in heavily protected game reserves relative to areas with no protection. Third, significantly more species fared poorly (densities declined or were too low to detect a decline) than fared well in areas with partial or no protection. Our results show that although heavy protection was generally more effective in maintaining large herbivore populations than partial or no protection, continued long-term monitoring is needed in Tanzania to inform managers whether large herbivores are experiencing declining population trends even within heavily protected areas.

In conservation biology, researchers often want to study the reasons why an endangered population is faring poorly but are unable to study it directly for logistical or political reasons. Instead they study a species that substitutes for the one of concern in the hope that it will cast light on the conservation problem. Here we outline the assumptions underlying this approach. Substitutes can be different populations or species and may be chosen because they are similar biologically to the target or representatives of a constellation of species of which the target is one. They also may be used to develop a predictive model to which the conservation target can be related. For substitutes to be appropriate, they should share the same key ecological or behavioral traits that make the target sensitive to environmental disturbance and the relationship between population vital rates and level of disturbance should match that of the target. These conditions are unlikely to pertain in most circumstances and the use of substitute species to predict endangered populations' responses to disturbance is questionable.

Conservation biologists have used surrogate species as a shortcut to monitor or solve conservation problems. Indicator species have been used to assess the magnitude of anthropogenic disturbance, to monitor population trends in other species, and to locate areas of high regional biodiversity. Umbrella species have been used to delineate the type of habitat or size of area for protection, and flagship species have been em- ployed to attract public attention. Unfortunately, there has been considerable confusion over these terms, and several have been applied loosely and interchangeably. We attempt to provide some clarification and guide- lines for the application of these different terms. For each type of surrogate, we briefly describe the way it has been used in conservation biology and then examine the criteria that managers and researchers use in select- ing appropriate surrogate species. By juxtaposing these concepts, it becomes clear that both the goals and se- lection criteria of different surrogate classes differ substantially, indicating that they should not be conflated. This can be facilitated by first outlining the goals of a conservation study, explicitly stating the criteria in- volved in selecting a surrogate species, identifying a species according to these criteria, and then performing a pilot study to check whether the choice of species was appropriate before addressing the conservation prob- lem itself. Surrogate species need to be used with greater care if they are to remain useful in conservation biology.

Despite wide agreement that strictly protected areas (World Conservation Union categories I-III) are the best strategy for conserving biodiversity, they are limited in extent and exclude many species of key conservation importance. In contrast, multiple-use management areas (categories IV-VI), comprising >60% of the world's protected-area network, are often considered of little value to biodiversity conservation, particularly in Africa, where they typically contain few charismatic large mammals. We sampled small mammals, amphibians, birds, butterflies, and trees at 41 sites along a four-step gradient of increasing human activity and decreasing conservation protection, from a well-protected Tanzanian national park to nonintensive agricultural land. Although preliminary, our results indicate that species richness of these five taxa did not decline along this gradient, but different management areas, occupying areas of largely similar habitat, hosted distinct communities of each taxon. Differences in species composition in the absence of manifest differences in species richness highlight the importance of developing landscape-scale conservation strategies and the danger of using either a limited suite of indicator taxa or umbrella species as surrogates for biodiversity. Although strictly protected areas perform a unique and vital conservation service in East Africa by protecting large mammals, areas that allow varied resource extraction activities still possess vital and complementary conservation value.