Buying and selling wildlife conservation in Kenya

The importance of wildlife to Kenya cannot be underestimated. Wildlife tourism generates more than one third of foreign exchange revenue. The livelihoods of many rural Kenyans are connected to wildlife-related policies and businesses. Interest in Kenyan wildlife spreads far beyond the country’s borders, however. Representatives of businesses, conservation groups and non governmental organisations from all over the world claim a stake in wildlife policies. How can the competing demands on Kenya’s wildlife be met, while also protecting both livelihoods and habitats?

Research from James Madison University, USA, discusses community-based wildlife resource management programmes in the context of current debates on wildlife conservation in Kenya. Two important approaches to conservation have shaped wildlife management programmes in the last fifteen years. One approach establishes partnerships between government and communities to enable community management of wildlife, and includes sharing out wildlife-related revenue. A more common approach favours enforcing the boundaries of national reserves and parks. Certain experts argue that poor people cannot make the right judgements about the protection of biodiversity, and should not be involved with managing wildlife.

The research presents a case study of a conservation project in Maasailand, Maendeleo kwa Uhifadhi (MKU). Instead of taking one of the two main approaches, the MKU is a community-led project, directed in part by two Maasai elders. The organisation grew from a desire to provide economic incentives for local Maasai to manage their land in ways that support both wildlife and cattle. In exchange, landowners receive a share of benefits from visiting tourists. Originally a conservation programme on a single piece of land, MKU gradually expanded to include neighbouring landowners. Later, a landowners association was launched, which allowed members to become shareholders in the business of conservation. 

The case study has shown the following:

• The ‘community’ is a group of neighbouring landholders who have chosen to participate in a particular programme. This is an important contrast with other projects which are started by outsiders.
• Local people were initially suspicious of MKU. It was only after a boundary dispute between the directors of the project and local landowners that tensions were reduced.
• Before MKU, many Maasai lost land because they did not have the correct documentation to support their claims to that land. MKU’s existence relies on increasing recognition of the importance of paper documents, such as land surveys, contractual agreements and meeting minutes. These have become essential to the lives of the Maasai participating in the project.

MKU has succeeded in promoting community conservation by enabling people to stay where they are. Their lifestyles have changed, however, and so have relationships within the community. Some tourists in Kenya want to see ‘authenticity’ – in the form of so-called ‘traditional’ Maasai warriors, herders and cattle. If projects like MKU expand, this may no longer be possible. Attention must be given to changing the views of tourists to the multiple realities of the people whose lives they see. Tourists must be better educated about the social, ecological and economic consequences of their activities.

One outcome of community-led conservation is that pastoral people have come to rely much more on their landholdings than before. The emphasis on conservation means that they have had to become accountable for what they are not doing to their land.  People are being paid to abandon strategies – like mining, agriculture, charcoal production - that were formerly part of their livelihoods. For a project like MKU, this approach is working at present, but questions remain about the long-term sustainability of conservation as a means of economic development.

Source(s):
‘Buying (into) and selling conservation among Maasai in southern Kenya’ in 'African Environment and Development: Rhetoric, Programs and Realities' Kings SOAS Studies in Development Geography, edited by W. Moseley and B. Ikubolajeh Logan, Ashgate Publishing, 2004

Funded by: James Madison University Program of Grants for Faculty Assistance

id21 Research Highlight: 23 February 2005

Further Information:
Jennifer E. Coffman
Assistant Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology,
James Madison University,
USA

Tel: +1 540 568 6243
Fax: +1 540 568 6112
Contact the contributor: coffmaje@jmu.edu

James Madison University, Department of Sociology and Anthropology

Other related links:
'Resettlement in Central Africa: balancing conservation and people'

'Land reform or wildlife? Balancing the interests of people and wildlife'

'Protecting the environment across borders in southern Africa'

'Mainstreaming participation in global conservation'

'Securing the future of forests – lessons from Namibia'

IUCN - The World Conservation Union

The Wild Foundation