Please note - this is a temporary window. id21 is joining forces with Eldis and therefore the id21 website has been suspended. Soon all id21 content will be available on the Eldis website.

Tourists, wildlife and the Maasai: is co-existence possible?

The African elephant does not make a good neighbour. In the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem, it is simultaneously an endangered species and a pest. How can conservationists work with other stakeholders to lessen the conflict between wildlife and people and to reduce the impact of safari tourism? Can there be a win-win situation for animals, locals and tourists?

A report from the University of Kent’s Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (DICE), reports on the proceedings of workshops bringing together ecologists, wildlife managers, civil servants, politicians and local community representatives to discuss the factors affecting the recovery of the black rhino, the impact of tourism and the conflict between humans and elephants.

The Serengeti-Mara ecosystem is an area of some 25 000 km2 spanning the border between Kenya and Tanzania. A quarter of the Kenyan area of the ecosystem lies within the money-spinning jewel in Kenya’s wildlife crown – the Masai Mara National Reserve (MMNR). The remaining 75 per cent is unprotected land inhabited by Maasai and other agro-pastoral communities. MMNR is home to a range of mammal, bird and reptile species and is known for its concentration of migratory herbivores. All of Africa’s ‘big five’ mammals – cape buffalo, elephant, lion, leopard and black rhinoceros – are found in the reserve.

The surrounding, unprotected areas of the ecosystem are a mixture of private and communally-owned land. Land once held in trust for the Maasai has been converted into group ranches with some subdivided into parcels of privately-owned land. The sale of land and inward migration by neighbouring agricultural groups have given rise to the spread of mechanised wheat production and intensive small-scale agriculture.

The report observes that:

While protection measures have ended the poaching that threatened the existence of the black rhinoceros, ecological changes in the MMNR and the encroachment of cattle are affecting its recovery and forcing rhinos to depend on unpalatable plant species.
Despite tourism management plans, visitor regulations and guidelines for safari tourism drivers (such as no off-road driving, speed limits, no following of animals and a limit of five vehicles per viewing), environmental impacts in the MMNR remain unchecked and rogue drivers generally go unpunished.
Farming is increasing because communities receive no other form of benefit from their land – if wildlife could be made to pay, residents would be willing to set aside land for conservation and tolerate the presence of wildlife.
Deaths from elephant attacks and crop raiding are on the rise: communities need simple and cost-effective ways of mitigating these conflicts.

Among the many recommendations emerging from the working groups are:

local education and awareness regarding conservation should be improved
greater trans-border co-operation with Tanzania to monitor the rhino population and crack down on intrusion of cattle
training for tourist drivers, enforcement of a code of conduct and explaining why regulations are in place
farms should be consolidated in cultivation zones away from elephant corridors and planting and harvesting seasons should be synchronised to limit individual risk of crop raiding
Kenya Wildlife Service should work in partnership with local communities to monitor and mitigate conflict problems
landowners should be given incentives not to convert land to agriculture.

Source(s):
‘Wildlife and people: conflict and conservation in Masai Mara, Kenya’, Wildlife and Development Series no 14, International Institute for Environment and Development, by Matt Walpole, Geoffrey Karanja, Noah Sitati and Nigel Leader-Williams, March 2003 Full document.
‘Population dynamics and future conservation of a free-ranging black rhinoceros population in Kenya’, Biological Conservation Vol. 99, pp.237-43, by Matt Walpole, Max Morgan-Davies, Simon Milledge, Phillip Bett and Nigel Leader-Williams, June 2001
‘Masai Mara tourism reveals partnership benefits’, Nature Vol. 413, pp771, by Matt Walpole and Nigel Leader-Williams, October 2001

Funded by: Darwin Institute for the Survival of the Species and UK Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

id21 Research Highlight: 17 November 2003

Further Information:
Matt Walpole
Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (DICE)
Department of Anthropology
University of Kent
Canterbury
Kent CT2 7NS
UK

Tel: +44 (0)1227 823455
Fax: +44 (0)1227 827289
Contact the contributor: M.J.Walpole@kent.ac.uk

Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology

Views expressed on these pages are not necessarily those of DfID, IDS, id21 or other contributing institutions. Articles featured on the id21 site may be copied or quoted without restriction provided id21 and originating author(s) and institution(s) are acknowledged. Copyright © 2009 IDS. All rights reserved.

id21 is funded by the UK Department for International Development. id21 is one of a family of knowledge services at the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex. id21 is a www.oneworld.net partner and an affiliate of www.mediachannel.org. IDS is a charitable company, No. 877338.