Wildlife crime promoted by weak governance
Juma Salum1, Abraham Eustace2* , Pius F. Malata3 and Obeid F. Mbangwa3
1
Independent Researcher, P.O. Box 115 Mafia, Pwani, Tanzania, 2Tanzania Wildlife Management Authority (TAWA), Zonal Anti-Poaching Unit of
Serengeti, P.O. Box 454, Bunda, Mara, Tanzania and 3College of African Wildlife Management, Mweka, P.O. Box 3031, Moshi, Kilimanjaro,
Tanzania
Abstract
Wildlife crime such as illegal hunting of elephants and
rhinos is currently one of the major issues in conservation.
In order to combat poaching, law enforcement is essential.
Here, we reviewed wildlife cases from the Northern Zone
Anti-Poaching Unit, Arusha, Tanzania (APU-Arusha),
focusing on the types of wildlife offence committed,
prosecution outcomes and the sentences awarded to the
offenders who were found guilty by the courts. Eighty-two
registered cases were thoroughly reviewed. The majority of
wildlife offences committed were unlawful possession of,
and failure to report, government trophies. It was found
that only 16% of the accused were found guilty, 6% were
acquitted, 30% of the charges were withdrawn, and 48%
of the cases were discharged by the director of public
prosecution (DPP) or magistrate. The poor conviction rate
was attributed to weak evidence, failure of the prosecution
to prove cases beyond reasonable doubt, lack of coopera-
tion between the zonal game office and the DPP, and in
some cases, the accused jumped their bails. Understanding
the factors which allow individuals to continue to engage
in poaching and the factors that promote the practice of
good governance is vital in trying to stop wildlife crimes.
Key words: Arusha -Poaching Unit, governance, poaching,
prosecution, wildlife cases, wildlife crime
R
esum
e
La criminalit
e contre la nature, comme la chasse ill
egale
d’
el
ephants et de rhinos, est aujourd’hui un des principaux
problemes de la conservation. Pour combattre le bracon-
nage, l’application des lois est essentielle. Nous avons pass
e
en revue des cas concernant la faune rapport
es par l’Unit
e
anti-braconnage de la zone nord a  Arusha, en Tanzanie
(APU-Arusha) en nous concentrant sur les types
*Correspondence: E-mail: abrah15@gmail.com
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Afr. J. Ecol., 56, 101–108
d’infractions commis contre la faune, les r
esultats des
poursuites et les sentences prononc
ees contre ceux qui ont

et
e jug
es coupables par les tribunaux. Nous avons analys
e
en d
etail 82 cas. La majorit
e des infractions concernaient
la possession ill
egale et la non-d
eclaration de troph
ees
appartenant a  l’
etat. Nous avons d
ecouvert que 16%
seulement des accus
es avaient
et
e d
eclar
es coupables, 6%
avaient
et
e acquitt
es, 30% des charges ont
et
e retir
ees et
48% de cas ont
et
e relax
es par le directeur du Ministere
public ou par le magistrat. Ce faible taux de condamnation
a
et
e attribu
e au manque de preuves ou au fait que le
parquet n’avait pas r
eussi a  prouver le d
elit au-dela du
doute raisonnable, au manque de coop
eration entre le
bureau de la faune local et le directeur du Ministere public;
dans certains cas, les accus
es n’ont pas comparu. Pour
mettre fin  a la criminalit
e contre la faune sauvage, il est
vital de bien comprendre les facteurs qui permettent  a des
individus de continuer a  pratiquer le braconnage et ceux
qui encouragent la pratique de la bonne gouvernance.
Introduction
Wildlife crime refers to any ‘environmental related crime
that involves the illegal trade, smuggling, poaching,
capture or collection of endangered species, protected
wildlife (including animal and plants that are subject to
harvest quotas and regulated permits) derivatives or
products thereof’ (World Wildlife Fund (WWF), 2012).
These offences threaten the existence of many plants and
animal species and accelerate declines in wildlife popula-
tions (Lindsey et al., 2015; United Nation Office on Drugs
and Crime (UNODC), 2012) as well altering the composi-
tion and biomass of the ecosystem which ultimately affects
biodiversity and ecological integrity and sustainability of
the ecosystems (Swanson, 2003; Olupot, Mcnailage &
Plumptre, 2009). For example, loss of keystone species like
elephants impacts the integrity of ecosystems and their
101
102 Juma Salum et al.
services (Coppolillo et al., 2004). In addition to ecological
impacts, wildlife crimes pose huge negative economic
impacts including the loss of ecotourism-based livelihoods
(Lindsey et al., 2015). Loss of income from the illegal trade
in plants, wildlife and its associated products leads to the
loss of government revenues and hence threatens the
strength and economic aspiration of most developing
nations (UNODC, 2012). For example, the global value of
illegal trade of wildlife products is estimated to be around
US$ 30–70 billion per year (Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2012).
In many African countries, prosecution authorities and
courts function poorly due to a number of reasons that may
include inadequate resources, understaffing, lack of ade-
quately trained wildlife staff and heavy caseloads that
greatly stretch the financial and human capacities (OECD,
2012). Furthermore, Kaaria & Muchiri (2011) revealed that
prosecuting wildlife crime is not a priority for many decision
makers in most African countries. In Uganda and Kenya, the
majority of wildlife cases prosecuted failed to convict the
offenders due to huge financial incentives for noncompli-
ance which has led to a culture of impunity within the
government departments responsible for protecting wildlife
(Opyene & Eves, 2009; Kahumbu et al., 2013).
A growing concern across Tanzania is increased illegal
activities affecting wildlife resources, including illegal
killing of elephants, smuggling of ivory, bush meat trade
and logging (Hinju, 2013). In 2003, Tanzania was
considered to be among the top ten African nations
known for ivory trafficking (Piper, 2003). Tanzania’s
Selous–Mikumi ecosystem had around 110,000 elephants
in 1976, but the population dropped to 13,000 in 2013
due to poaching (Triple canopy, 2014). The Tanzania
government lost up to US$ 58 million per year in illegal
timber trade (OECD, 2012). Law enforcement authorities
do respond and arrest the accused of these wildlife offences,
and present them before the court of law. Effective wildlife
law enforcement requires well-functioning and efficient
prosecution outcomes to punish offenders for their actions
and to protect wildlife resources for the long-lasting
benefits through sustainable use of wildlife resources
(Opyene & Eves, 2009; UNODC, 2012; Lindsey et al.,
2015). However, there are insufficient studies that address
wildlife prosecution outcomes in Tanzania and how the
legislation is being implemented in combating wildlife
crime.
As wildlife offences cause significant impacts economi-
cally, socially and environmentally, the government of
Tanzania enacted wildlife and other similar laws to
manage and conserve wildlife in Tanzania. The Wildlife
Conservation Act (WCA) No. 5 of 2009 of Tanzania set out
the rules pertaining to the wildlife industry. This act
includes the designation of government agencies that
oversee and regulate wildlife, game reserve and hunting
areas where subsistence and commercial or leisure hunt-
ing is permitted as well as a licence system for hunting.
The licensing system includes conditions for granting and
cancelling hunting licences, import and export rules of
wildlife and offences related to the violations of wildlife
law. WCA No. 5 of 2009 prohibits hunting without
licences in game reserves, game controlled areas and
wetland reserves, and further restricts hunting of certain
animals and matters pertaining to trophies. WCA No. 5 of
2009 further outlines the penalties that are imposed on
offenders. These include punishment in the form of
forfeiture of any tools used in committing crime such as
weapons, items used for storing or processing an animal,
game meat, trophies and vehicles (United Republic of
Tanzania (URT), 2009).
Poor governance is often put forward as a contributing
factor to the increased wildlife crimes in Tanzania. As the
delivery of conservation and social outcomes depends in
part on effective governance (Kisingo, 2013), increased
poaching activities might be influenced by weak gover-
nance activities. Actions such as not arresting poachers,
lack of prosecution or leniency in the sentences given to
wildlife criminals are all related to governance.
Our study provides knowledge about the nature of
wildlife crime in Tanzania and judicial outcomes for these
crimes. This study is significant as it will act as a source of
baseline information for those who may want to continue
studying wildlife crime cases in Tanzania.
Specifically, our study identified types of wildlife crimes
committed in Tanzania, types of evidences tendered to the
court during the prosecution process, the outcome of court
cases and level of sentence imposed after conviction.
Materials and methods
Study area
We conducted our study at the Northern Zone Anti-
Poaching Unit, Arusha (APU-Arusha) where most of the
wildlife-related crimes in northern Tanzania are prose-
cuted. APU-Arusha is a paramilitary unit located in the
Arusha region and is responsible for the protection of
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Afr. J. Ecol., 56, 101–108

wildlife against unlawful utilization inside and outside of
protected areas in northern Tanzania. This unit has
rangers who conduct patrols and lawyers with delegated
power from the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) to
prosecute wildlife cases in the whole northern zone.
Operations of APU-Arusha cover the Tanga, Kilimanjaro,
Manyara and Arusha regions. APU-Arusha was selected
due to the fact that its operations are centred near
major biodiversity conservation areas. These include the
Kilimanjaro, Tarangire, Arusha, Manyara, Mkomazi
National Parks, the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, the
Mkungunero Game Reserve, the Simanjiro and Longido
Game Controlled Areas, the Burunge and Enduimet
Wildlife Management Areas and plenty of open areas.
Also the area borders Kenya and different entry points like
Namanga, Horohoro, Holili, Loitokitok and Vanga where
wildlife trafficking of various products is known to have
occurred.
Wildlife cases survey
This study involved reviewing completed wildlife cases
from APU-Arusha. Before data collection, we sent a letter
to APU-Arusha in May 2014 to ask for permission to
access the wildlife case files from 2006 to 2012. The office
replied by giving a visitation date and we were allowed to
review the available decided cases. After getting the case
files, we reviewed them thoroughly and recorded court
case number, charge(s), court dates, evidences tendered in
the court, number of lost and won cases by APU-Arusha,
sentences given to offenders after conviction and other
necessary remarks. All of this information from case files
was descriptively analysed, whereby percentages were
generated to provide comparisons and simple summaries
on the sample and the observations made. This method
was also used by Kahumbu et al. (2013) to study wildlife-
related crimes in Kenyan courts.
In addition to the wildlife case survey, key stakeholder
interviews were conducted. This was done in order to get
ideas and insights into the challenges facing the prosecu-
tion of wildlife crime cases and the way forward to mitigate
the challenges. A set of open-ended interview questions
were used to initiate discussions. Snowball sampling was
used to identify interviewees following suggestions from
APU-Arusha public prosecutors regarding key stakehold-
ers (Bryman, 2004; Noy, 2008). From our sampling
procedure, ten (10) rangers, two (2) public prosecutors,
two (2) magistrates and the zonal antipoaching
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Afr. J. Ecol., 56, 101–108
Wildlife crimes and weak governance 103
commander of APU-Arusha were interviewed. The infor-
mation collected from key stakeholder interviews was
more qualitative. Therefore, we summarized that informa-
tion and grouped together similar ideas. After that, we
interpreted those ideas and use them in our discussion.
Results
We obtained 82 files of court registered cases for this study.
These wildlife cases represent 151 accused from different
districts of Tanga, Arusha, Manyara and Kilimanjaro regions.
The majority of wildlife crime suspects were arrested from
Simanjiro and Longido districts 29% and 21%, respectively,
followed by Arusha town 15%, Monduli 14%, Kiteto and Siha
districts 4% each. The remaining 13% were from Handeni,
Korogwe, Lushoto, Ngorongoro, Loliondo and Hai. We
observed an increase in wildlife cases between 2006/07
and 2011/12 with 18 and 32 cases, respectively. The
numbers of wildlife cases in Tanzania have also increased
from 551 in 2006/2007 to 591 in 2011/2012 (Ministry of
Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT), 2013).
Wildlife crime suspects arrested before 2010 were
charged under the WCA Number 12 of 1974 whereas
those arrested after 2010 were charged under the new
WCA No. 5 of 2009 of Tanzania, together with the
Economic and Organised Crime Control Act CAP 200 of
1984 as revised in 2002.
Types of wildlife offences committed in Tanzania
The majority of the wildlife offences committed between
2006 and 2012 were unlawful possession of government
trophies followed by failure to report possession of
government trophies, unlawful dealing in government
trophies and unlawful hunting in wildlife, unlawful
hunting of specified animals with other offences being
minimal as shown in Table 1.
Wild animals affected by wildlife crimes
We found 24 wild animal species (22 mammals and two
birds) which were affected by poaching in the surveyed
area. Of these, four (16.7%) species were vulnerable (VU),
four (16.7%) were near threatened (NR), and sixteen
(66.6%) species were least concern (LC) as per IUCN
(2017) (Table 2). Plains zebra (Equus quagga), common
wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus), kirk’s dik-dik (Madoqua
kirkii) and great white pelicans (Pelecanus onocrotalus) were
104 Juma Salum et al.
Table 1 Wildlife offences committed by poachers arrested by APU-
Arusha in the period 2006–2012
S/N Offence Na
1 Unlawful possession of government trophies
2 Failure to report possession of
government trophies
3 Unlawful hunting of specified animal
4 Unlawful hunting of wildlife
5 Unlawful dealing in government trophies
6 Unlawful possession of weapon in
game-controlled area
7 Unlawful capture of wildlife animal
8 Unlawful possession of listed plant
9 Unlawful export of forest products
10 Unlawful possession of weapon in game reserve
11 Unlawful obstruction of authorized officer
12 Forgery
13 Failure to take care government trophies
14 Unlawful to report the records of
wildlife in holding ground
15 Unlawful wildlife keeping in holding ground
Total 159
a
One case file can have more than one offence.
recorded from the majority of cases, while buffalo (Syncerus
caffer), cape porcupine (Hystrix africaeaustralis), serval
(Leptailurus serval), ostrich (Struthio camelus) and common
duiker (Sylvicapra grimmia) were the least affected species
recorded (Table 2). Although elephant poaching seems to
be pronounced in Tanzania, they were only targeted in
2.7% of cases involving poachers arrested by game rangers
from APU-Arusha.
Types of evidence tendered before the court of law
The type of physical evidence tendered before the court of
law to support the prosecution of wildlife cases did vary.
Whole animal carcasses and wildlife meat were the most
frequently observed physical evidence types constituting
32% and 30% of total evidence, respectively. Wildlife body
parts such as animal tails, skins, elephant oil and ivory
made up 20%, while hunting gear (such as rifles, shotgun,
arrows, hunting torches, bicycles, motorcycles, vehicles
etc.) and live animals made up 12% and 6%, respectively.
The outcomes of wildlife crime cases
From the 151 accused persons recorded from the 82 case
files, only 24 were convicted from thirteen cases while 127
offenders from 69 cases were found not guilty. For those
who were convicted, 38.5% were sentenced to imprison-
ment that ranged from 6 months to 20 years while 61.5%
of convicted offenders were fined by the court. Of those
72
who were not convicted, 47.6% were discharged by the
31
DPP, 30.5% were withdrawn by the court and 6.1% were
15 not guilty due to prosecution failing to prove guilt beyond
13 reasonable doubt.
12
4
Discussion
4
Weak rule of law, absence of accountability, bureaucracy
1
1
and high levels of corruption are all attributed to weak
1 governance (Br€ autigam & Knack, 2004). Taking a long
1 time to prosecute wildlife crimes or giving lenient sen-
1 tences to wildlife offenders and poor collaboration between
1 institutions such as magistrates and conservation agencies
1 are likely to lead to a perception of poor governance. Weak
governance is responsible for underperformance of con-
1
servation (Dearden, Bennett & Johnston, 2005; Kisingo,
2013). This may include weak conservation agency
structures, administrative incompetency, corruption, lack
of accountability and transparency in policy-making, and
an absence of the rule of law (Smith, 2009; Kisingo,
2013). Therefore, to combat poaching and other wildlife-
related crimes good governance is essential.
In this study, we found that the main offences charged
in the court by APU-Arusha involved unlawful possession
of government trophies, failure to report the possession of
government trophies and unlawful hunting of wildlife
(Table 1). These cases involved 24 different species and
368 individual animals, including ten African elephants,
nine carnivores, 77 plains zebra, but the majority were
ungulates such as dik-diks, wildebeests, giraffe, impala,
lesser kudu and grant gazelle (Table 2). These results
indicate that poaching activities in northern Tanzania are
mainly for bush meat and few poachers go for animal
trophies in order to earn substantial income. The reasons
for illegal hunting for wildlife animals tend to vary, and
the phenomena tend to fall somewhere on a continuum,
from subsistence hunting to chimerical trade in urban
areas (Lindsey et al., 2013). Poaching for bush meat in
Tanzania has increased as human population increases in
areas adjacent to protected areas (Wittemyer et al.,
2008). Many communities have a long tradition of
hunting and of consuming bush meat, and levels of off-
take have simply increased with increasing human
populations (Stiles, 2011). For rural areas, often close to
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Afr. J. Ecol., 56, 101–108
 Wildlife crimes and weak governance 105

Table 2 Wild animals affected by wildlife crimes from 2006 to 2012 recorded from APU-Arusha

S/N Common name Scientific name Number involved Percentage (%) IUCN statusb
1 Plains Zebra Equus quagga 77 20.9 NT
2 Common Wildebeest Connochaetes taurinus 69 18.8 LC
3 Kirk’s Dik-dik Madoqua kirkii 50 13.6 LC
4 Great White Pelican Pelecanus onocrotalus 40 10.9 LC
5 Impala Aepyceros melampus 24 6.5 LC
6 Grant’s Gazelle Nanger granti 19 5.2 LC
7 Giraffe Giraffa camelopardalis 17 4.6 VU A2acd
8 Lesser Kudu Tragelaphus imberbis 12 3.3 NT
9 African elephant Loxodonta africana 10 2.7 VU A2a
10 Hartebeest Alcelaphus buselaphus 10 2.7 LC
11 Thomson’s Gazelle Eudorcas thomsonii 8 2.2 NT
12 Common Eland Tragelaphus oryx 8 2.2 LC
13 Cheetah Acinonyx jubatus 5 1.4 VU A2acd; C1
14 Vervet monkey Chlorocebus pygerythrus 3 0.8 LC
15 Leopard Panthera pardus 3 0.8 VU A2cd
16 Gerenuk Litocranius walleri 2 0.5 NT
17 Steenbok Raphicerus campestris 2 0.5 LC
18 African Warthog Phacochoerus africanus 2 0.5 LC
19 Topi Damaliscus lunatus 2 0.5 LC
20 African Buffalo Syncerus caffer 1 0.3 LC
21 Cape Porcupine Hystrix africaeaustralis 1 0.3 LC
22 Serval Leptailurus serval 1 0.3 LC
23 Ostrich Struthio camelus 1 0.3 LC
24 Common Duiker Sylvicapra grimmia 1 0.3 LC
Total 368 100.0

LC, least concern; NT, near threatened; VU, vulnerable.

b
IUCN (2017).

wildlife source populations, bush meat is preferred
because it is normally cheaper than alternatives while
in urban areas; demand for bush meat is driven by a
preference for its taste and is commonly more expensive
than other types of protein (Wilfred & Maccoll, 2010).
Hence, it is clear that illegally sourced bush meat
contributes significantly to economies and to food security
in many countries.
Our results did not conform to the results found by
Kahumbu et al., (2013) in Kenya, which shows that 37%
of cases involved illegal killing of elephants and 35% of
cases involved the unlawful killing of different species of
ungulates. As previously mentioned, most of the poaching
activities prosecuted in northern Tanzania involved bush
meat contrary to Kenya, where the majority of cases
involved illegal killing of elephants/rhinos. In Kenya,
leniency in the majority of sentencing encourages the
poaching of elephants/rhinos as in most of wildlife cases
involving trafficking of ivory and rhino horns, the value of
trophies greatly exceeds the fines prescribed (Kahumbu
et al., 2013).
In prosecuting offences, different evidence types were
presented before the court of law by the prosecution with
most of them being physical evidences. The main evidence
types tendered in the courts were animal carcasses, bush
meat and hunting gear used by poachers. In spite of the
different evidences which were presented before the courts,
the majority of cases failed to result in conviction. This was
due to the failure of prosecutors and public witnesses to
connect the suspects with crime scenes and evidence
presented before the courts of law.
We found that 16% of the cases that involved 24
offenders were convicted, while 84% of cases with 127
offenders were either discharged or withdrawn by magis-
trates or DPP. This was due to weak evidence, failure of the
prosecution to prove cases beyond reasonable doubt, and
in some cases, the accused jumped bail and failed to appear
before the court law. Also lack of cooperation between

© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Afr. J. Ecol., 56, 101–108
106 Juma Salum et al.
APU-Arusha and DPP is one of the reasons for poor
success of wildlife cases (Zonal antipoaching commander
of APU-Arusha pers. comm., 2014; Zonal DPP pers.
comm., 2014). In some instances, the DPP withdrew
certain cases due to lack of a certificate of identification
and valuation of trophies and inventory form of
unclaimed property which are necessary for prosecution,
although APU-Arusha claims to present those forms to
the DPP office for consent during prosecutions. This
indicates that at some point during prosecution, these
forms are removed.
According to the Meru district magistrate (pers. comm.,
2014), ‘most of game rangers lack knowledge regarding
what information or material should be collected or
recorded (the quality and weight of evidence) and how
they should be presented before the court of law to ensure
success in prosecution. Hence many wildlife cases fail to
hold suspects in spite of a variety of oral and physical
evidence (exhibits) presented before the courts of law
during prosecution’. Consequently, prosecutors fail to
prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt against
accused persons, which is why the majority of accused
persons were acquitted or had their cases withdrawn or
discharged by a magistrate or DPP (Meru district magis-
trate pers. comm., 2014).
Poor success of wildlife cases can be attributed to
inadequate training for rangers in evidence collection,
corruption, lack of accountability and integrity for both
magistrates and game rangers and poor/lack of forensic
and crime scene investigation during evidence gathering
from the crime scene and suspects (Watson, 2006; OECD,
2012; Zonal antipoaching commander of APU-Arusha
pers. comm., 2014). In many African countries, wildlife
prosecuting authorities and courts function poorly due to
various reasons including inadequate resources, staff
shortages, lack of wildlife training and caseloads that
greatly exceed their financial and human capacities
(OECD, 2012).
Tanzania WCA No 5 of 2009 and WCA No. 12 of 1974
describe a variety of penalties for wildlife crimes including
jail sentences and fines. We found that only 38.5% of
convicted offenders received prison sentences while 61.5%
of convicted offenders paid fines. Some of these sentences
were lenient in relation to the crime committed and did not
reflect the vulnerability of the particular species in ques-
tion. For example, the accused of illegal possession of three
(3) live cheetah [threatened with extinction according to
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species (CITES)] was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine
of 100,000 /= Tanzania shillings (50 USD1). For that
offence, WCA No. 5 of 2009 section 86 subsection 2(b)
states that the accused should pay a fine of not less than
ten times of the value of the species (Cheetah is in part I of
first schedule of this act, value USD 4900 (URT 2012)) or
imprisonment of a term not <20 years but not exceeding
30 years or to both, provided that the value of trophy
exceeds 100,000 Tanzanian shillings. This situation is
common in many African countries whereby punishments
for poachers provide inadequate deterrents and do not
reflect the value of the species (Barnett, 1998). In Kenya,
only 4% of wildlife-related offenders were convicted and
jailed while 75% of poachers were fined by the court but
the fines did not reflect the value of the animal (Kahumbu
et al., 2013).
We were unable to access case files from the Meru
district magistrate where prosecution is done by the police
force. Moreover, this study did not retrieve as many case
files as hoped due to poor file and case management of the
courts and APU-Arusha. Therefore, we recommend better
management of case files at APU-Arusha and in the courts.
Also wildlife prosecution officers should liaise effectively
with the DPP and magistrates so as to reduce bureaucracy
and increase accountability in managing wildlife cases and
providing required sentences.
Game officers are doing a very good job in arresting
wildlife criminals, but they should be adequately trained
and skilled in prosecution, evidence gathering and han-
dling, investigation techniques together with the use of
equipment, technology and forensics. These will improve
evidence gathering from the field and will help to link
suspects and crime scene, hence providing effective
sentences. Therefore, we call for wildlife training institu-
tions in Africa to incorporate this training in their
curricula.
Acknowledgements
This study was not funded by any organization; it was
conducted as independent study. We thank Michael
Msokwa and Prof. George Otiang’a-Owiti for their con-
structive comments and editing in developmental stages of
this project. We also thank Paschal Mrina from APU-
Arusha and the Meru district magistrate for their help in
getting data and other valuable information and we
1 USD  2000 Tanzania shillings.
1
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Afr. J. Ecol., 56, 101–108

appreciate the support from Mohamedi Ali. We thank Tim
Caro and Thomas Hesselberg (AuthorAid Mentor) for their
comments, suggestions and English editing which signif-
icantly improved the quality of this manuscript. Finally, we
appreciate the comments from the Editor reviewers which
improved also this manuscript.
References
Barnett, R. (1998) Food for Thought: The Utilisation of Wild Meat in
Eastern and Southern Africa. TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa,
Nairobi, Kenya.
Bra€utigam, D.A. & Knack, S. (2004) Foreign aid, institutions, and
governance in Sub-Saharan Africa. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 52,
255–285.
Bryman, A. (2004) Social Research Methods, 2nd edn. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Coppolillo, P., Gomez, H., Maisels, F. & Wallace, R. (2004)
Selection criteria for suites of landscape species as a basis for
site-based conservation. Biol. Conserv. 115, 419–430.
Dearden, P., Bennett, M. & Johnston, J. (2005) Trends in global
protected area governance, 1992-2002. Environ. Manage. 36,
89–100.
Hinju, G. (2013) Environmental crime on wildlife in Tanzania:
economic approach. PhD Thesis, University of Dar-es-Salaam,
Tanzania.
IUCN (2017) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version
2016-3. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org (Accessed on 28
January 2017).
Kaaria, B.I. & Muchiri, N.L. (2011) Enforcement challenges across
borders: Detecting and prosecuting illegal wildlife trafficking,
9th international conference on environmental compliance and
enforcement 2011. Available at: http://www.inece.org/confere
nce/9/Conference%20Papers%20for%20Proceedings/Final%
20Papers/Kaaria/Kaaria_Ndiga_Kenya_Final.pdf (Accessed on
2 August 2016).
Kahumbu, P., Byamukama, L., Mbuthia, J. & Drori, O. (2013)
Scoping study on the prosecution of wildlife related crime in
Kenyan courts: January 2008-June 2013. Wildlife Direct report.
Available at: http://www.thedswt.org.uk/wildlifecrimekenya.
pdf (Accessed on 2 August 2016)
Kisingo, A.W. (2013) Governance of Protected Areas in the Serengeti
Ecosystem, Tanzania. Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, University
of Victoria, Canada. Available at: https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/
bitstream/handle/1828/4931/Kisingo_Alex_PhD_%202013.
pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (Accessed on 5 August 2016).
Lindsey, P.A., Balme, G., Becker, M., Begg, C., Bento, C., Bocchino,
C. & Zisadza-Gandiwa, P. (2013) The bushmeat trade in African
savannas: impacts, drivers, and possible solutions. Biol. Conserv.
160, 80–96.
Lindsey, P., Balme, G., Becker, M., Begg, C., Bento, C., Bocchino, C.,
Dickman, A., Diggle, R., Eves, H., Henschel, P., Lewis, D.,
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Afr. J. Ecol., 56, 101–108
Wildlife crimes and weak governance 107
Marnewick, K., Mattheus, J., McNutt, J.W., McRobb, R.,
Midlane, N., Milanzi, J., Morley, R., Murphree, M., Nyoni, P.,
Opyene, V., Phadima, J., Purchase, N., Rentsch, D., Roche, C.,
Shaw, J., van der Westhuizen, H., van Vliet, N. & Zisadza, P.
(2015) Illegal hunting and the bush-meat trade in Savanna
Africa: drivers, impacts and solutions to address the problem.
Panthera/Zoological Society of London/Wildlife Conservation
Society report, New York.
Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT) (2013)
Wildlife Sub-sector Statistical Bulletin, Second edition. Ministry of
Natural Resources and Tourism. Available at: http://www.wild
lifebaldus.com/download/WILDLIFE_SUBSECTOR__
STATISTICAL_BULLETIN.pdf (Accessed on 10 May 2014).
Noy, C. (2008) Sampling knowledge: the hermeneutics of
snowball sampling in qualitative research. Int. J. Soc.
Res. Methodol. 11, 327–344. doi:10.1080/
13645570701401305.
Olupot, W., Mcnailage, A. & Plumptre, A.J. (2009) Analysis of
social economic of bush meat hunting at major hunting sites
in Uganda. Working paper No 30, Wildlife Conservation
Society. Available at: http://www.bushmeatnetwork.org/
resources/Socio%20economics%20uganda.pdf (Accessed on 2
August 2016).
Opyene, V. & Eves, H.E. (2009) BEAN Bushmeat Fact Sheet:
Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya Governance and Legal Regime Field
Assessment. Bushmeat-free Eastern Africa Network.
Available at: www.bushmeatnetwork.org (Accessed on 2
August 2016).
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
(2012) Illegal Trade in Environmentally Sensitive Goods.
Available at: http//www.oecdbookshop.org (Accessed on 10
May 2014).
Piper, D. (2003) Empty Threats: Does the Law Combat Illegal Wildlife
Trade? A Ten- Countries Review of Legislation and Judicial
Approaches. Available at: https://www.dlapiper.com/~/media/
Files/News/2015/05/IllegalWildlifeTradeReport2015.pdf
(Accessed on 2 August 2016).
Smith, B.C. (2009) Good Governance and Development. Palgrave
MacMillan, New York.
Stiles, D. (2011) Elephant meat and ivory trade in Central Africa.
Pachyderm 50, 26–36.
Swanson, C.T. (2003) Criminal Investigation: Wildlife Crime, 8th
edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.
Triple Canopy (2014) East Africa Briefing: Tanzania Commercial and
Complicity. Available at: http://www.triplecanopy.com
(Accessed on 5th May 2014).
United Nation Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) (2012)
Wildlife and forest crime analytic toolkit: Revised edition.
Available at: https://www.unodc.org/documents/Wildlife/
Toolkit_e.pdf (Accessed on 5 May 2014).
United Republic of Tanzania (URT) (2009) Wildlife Conservation
Act No. 5 of 2009. Available at: http://polis.parliament.go.tz/
PAMS/docs/5-2009.pdf (Accessed on 5 May 2014).
108 Juma Salum et al.
URT (2012) Wildlife Conservation (Valuation of Trophies)
Regulations, 2012. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism,
United Republic of Tanzania.
Watson, A. (2006) The proposed New Zealand approach towards
addressing illegal logging and associated trade activities. MAF
Discussion Paper, No. 2006/01. Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry, Wellington. Available at: http://maxa.maf.govt.nz/fore
stry/illegal-logging/illegal-logging-discussion-paper/illegal-
logging.pdf (Accessed on 2 August 2016).
Wilfred, P. & Maccoll, A. (2010) Income sources and their
relation to wildlife poaching in Ugalla ecosystem, Western
Tanzania. Afr. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 4, 886–896.
Wittemyer, G., Elsen, P., Bean, W.T., Burton, A.C.O. & Brashares,
J.S. (2008) Accelerated human population growth at protected
area edges. Science 321, 123–126.
World Wildlife Fund (WWF) (2012) Fighting illicit wildlife
trafficking: a consultation with governments. Available at:
http://www.cites.org/common/news/2012/Dalberg-Report-on-
Fighting-Illicit-Wildlife-Trafficking.pdf (Accessed on 7 May
2014).
(Manuscript accepted 6 March 2017)
doi: 10.1111/aje.12424
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Afr. J. Ecol., 56, 101–108