Conservation, livelihoods and privatised land: Wildlife conservancies in the Mara, Kenya

Claire BedelianPhD student Anthropology

Supervisor: Katherine Homewood

16 August 2011

Conservation approaches

Protectionist approach community conservation – conservation and development goals

- poverty safety net - vulnerable to elite capture

‘back to barriers’ • ‘New conservation’ approaches: – Payments for ecosystem services– Public-private partnerships

• Reflects neoliberalisation of conservation efforts:– Role of markets– Private sector interest– Growth of global ecotourism

Study site - The Mara

• Land use: livestock, agriculture and tourism • Pastoral production central to Maasai livelihoods• Highest densities of wildlife in Kenya – but wildlife declines • Wildlife revenues benefit few Maasai

– Elite capture– Distributional problems

Wheat farming Resident and migratory wildlifeExtensive livestock farming

Privatisation of group ranches

- Security of tenure- Individual benefit- Corrupt process

• Land tenure and property rights• Governance and management• Partnership• Conservancy rules and norms (restrictions)

Question 1: What are the organisational and institutional arrangements of wildlife conservancies

• Relative to other livelihood activities• Conservancy participants vs non-participants• Integrate with livestock-based livelihoods• Livelihood trade-offs

Question 2: How do conservancies contribute to pastoral livelihoods?

Question 1: What are the organisational and institutional arrangements of wildlife conservancies

Olare Orok Wildlife Conservancy Ltd

Land committee

154 landowners

Conservancy Management

Committee

Land holding company

Management company

Shareholders

Olpurkel Ltd

TP TP TP TP

Olare Orok Conservancy Trust

Donor funding

Communication

Land lease payment

Community projects

Leases Communication

Management agreement

1. Conservancy participation• Half of households sampled were a member of at least one

conservancy (Table 1)• A few households members of 2 or 3 different conservancies

Household conservancy membership status

Number of households (n=240)

Percentage of households

Conservancy members 123 51% Conservancy non-members 117 49% Member of 1 conservancy 103 43% Member of 2 conservancies 18 8% Member of 3 conservancies 2 1%

Leadership position

Households with a conservancy member

Major 97% (n=21) Minor 57% (n=17) None 45% (n=85)

Table 1 Table 2

• Gender: <1% of females were members• Wealth: Livestock holdings significantly higher for member

households compared to non-member households (p<0.05)• Status: Those in a leadership position more commonly conservancy

members (Table 2)

Question 2: How do conservancies contribute to pastoral livelihoods?

Question 2: How do conservancies contribute to pastoral livelihoods?

Payment • Valuable incentive ($40 ha/yr) –

competitive land use option • Guaranteed rent - buffers

tourism shocks, droughts

Land use restrictions• On settlements - displacement• On livestock grazing - controlled

grazing plans, landowners only, grazing fines

• On other activities - cultivation, fencing, natural resource collection, walking

• Livelihood decisions – voluntary contract, strong monetary incentive, but forgo other livelihood/land use options for 15 years

• Participants vs. non-participants - Non-participants loose out on payment and suffer grazing restrictions.

• Increased land use pressure outside of conservancy boundaries

VS.

2. Livelihood trade-offs

Conclusion

• Opportunities for poverty reduction• Improved governance and management structure• Who benefits? Landowners vs. non-landowners• Strong financial incentive but comes with livelihood

trade-offs• Land lease – Land grab?• Implications for pastoral livelihoods and the wider

rangelands