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 thecontext of current debates on wildlife conservation in Kenya. Two importantapproaches to conservation have shaped wildlife management programmes in thelast fifteen years. One approach establishes partnerships between governmentand communities to enable community management of wildlife, and includessharing out wildlife-related revenue. A more common approach favours enforcingthe boundaries of national reserves and parks. Certain experts argue that poorpeople 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 aconservation project in Maasailand, Maendeleo kwaUhifadhi (MKU). Instead of taking one of the twomain approaches, the MKU is a community-led project, directed in part by two Maasai elders. The organisation grew from a desire toprovide economic incentives for local Maasai tomanage their land in ways that support both wildlife and cattle. In exchange,landowners receive a share of benefits from visiting tourists. Originally aconservation programme on a single piece of land, MKU gradually expanded toinclude 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 toparticipate in a particular programme. This is an important contrast with otherprojects which are started by outsiders.
• Localpeople were initially suspicious of MKU. It was only after a boundary disputebetween the directors of the project and local landowners that tensions werereduced.
• BeforeMKU, many Maasai lost land because they did not havethe correct documentation to support their claims to that land. MKU’s existence relies on increasing recognition of the importanceof paper documents, such as land surveys, contractual agreements and meetingminutes. These have become essential to the lives of the Maasaiparticipating in the project.

MKUhas succeeded in promoting community conservation by enabling people to staywhere they are. Their lifestyles have changed, however, and so haverelationships within the community. Some tourists in Kenya want to see‘authenticity’ – in the form of so-called ‘traditional’ Maasaiwarriors, herders and cattle. If projects like MKU expand, this may no longerbe possible. Attention must be given to changing the views of tourists to themultiple realities of the people whose lives they see. Tourists must be bettereducated about the social, ecological and economic consequences of theiractivities.

One outcome of community-led conservation isthat pastoral people have come to rely much more on their landholdings thanbefore. The emphasis on conservation means that they have had to becomeaccountable for what they are notdoing to their land.  People are beingpaid to abandon strategies – like mining, agriculture, charcoal production -that were formerly part of their livelihoods. For a project like MKU, thisapproach is working at present, but questions remain about the long-termsustainability of conservation as a means of economic development.