670049493
Kenya’s Cultural Diversity poses both challenges and opportunities for the conservation of its wildlife How is the transformation of the pastoralist way of life impacting on conservation efforts in Kenya? new avenues to economic freedom, however money from tourism rarely trickles down to the locals and many remain impoverished [7]. Post-colonial politics continued the colonial doctrine of separating wildlife and people and continuing land ownership in the hands of the wealthy few [7].
Introduction Traditional pastoralism is typically a subsistence system of farming with patriarchal families reliant on milk over meat for nutrition, selling animals to get cash for other economic needs and building herds for social status, wealth and buffering against risk [1]. During Kenya’s colonial era, large tracts of the land traditionally used by pastoralists were expropriated and many ethnic groups were moved into less productive areas and lost the lands they relied on in harder seasons [2].
Conflict amongst Pastoralists Analysis of the original development initiatives for community conservation in the north of Kenya, show that plans were not enacted properly with full consultation with the pastoralist communities and intra ethnic conflict has been a historical issue hampering conservation efforts [8].
The areas that many of these groups were moved to include a large region of Central Northern Kenya including the counties of Samburu and Laikipia – the focus areas of this review. Various scholars, [3] and [4], point to the apparent successes for wildlife conservation in these counties, where private conservation enterprises, as opposed to Government run national parks and reserves that are elsewhere in the country, have achieved greater biodiversity and greater numbers of large animals. This success is largely attributable to the owners of private ranches in these areas utilising tourism as important sources of revenue [3]. However, pastoralists from many ethnic groups [5] who must also scrape a living from these areas are undergoing transitions [6] in their culture, leading to societal change and the drive for economic modernization [1]. Some Pastoralists are looking to the tourism industry which is often based on Kenya’s wildlife for
Kaye-Zwiebel and King [1] contend that the process of creating conservation areas is ‘participatory ‘ in all their study areas in Laikipia. However, Greiner [9] during her investigation of the creation of the Ltungai Community Based Conservancy by the Northern Rangelands Trust (NRT) found that conflict was inadvertently caused between the neighbouring Samburu and Pokot (who had previously shared resources) during the process which although participatory by some, was not inclusive to all. The Samburu were not supposed to make the area exclusive but effectively made a land grab against their neighbours. The research did not explain why the NRT had not as an umbrella organisation brought the Pokot along to meetings when they knew this was a shared area, and although 1 of 7
670049493 the researcher explains that Pokot perspectives formed most of the research, none are considered within the dialogue on the formation of this reserve. However, different villages were found to have different perceptions of benefits in conservation in KayZweibel and Kings study [1].
to the researchers by the government officials. Most land deals are done secretively and do not involve community members and are often too technical and legalistic to be understood by illiterate pastoralists [15]. During drought, pastoralists may divide livestock according to whether they are productive or not and use two areas to ensure maximum access to rangeland grazing [16]. Despite data being lacking in relation to droughts contemporaneous with the study, it is foreseeable that this could bring the herders into conflict with other users of the lands, exacerbated by hard times. Additionally, private ranchers limit this option, as many claim to have exclusive control over where and when pastoralists can graze, even limiting their own employees’ grazing [5].
In a parallel decision making process by the Laikipia Wildlife Forum to install fences to protect smallholder cultivation from crop raiding elephants [10] the grazing needs of pastoralists were not addressed. Although the discussion of the findings reveals here say about what the pastoralists perceptions of the fence were and the method states that pastoralists were consulted for their views, its impacts on their livelihoods were not mentioned. Fencing in these areas limits the migratory routes of livestock and wildlife [11].
The search for water and grazing has also caused international conflict as pastoralists cross and re-cross international borders with Kenyan neighbours, [17]. Kenya’s northern neighbours are largely unstable, and this has led to a proliferation of small arms amongst Kenyan pastoralists [18]. The high value attached to cattle, has played an important role in the cultural practice of cattle rustling, which is now often undertaken using small arms [19] and has become organised crime [2].
Conflict is arising amongst pastoralists as some turn to more sedentary lifestyles [12], with accompanying land subdivision, but at different timings. In German’s study [12] on how subdivision was carried out, it was perceived that the best plots were allocated to the richer members of the group and the management committee were favouring some group members over others. Although, corruption amongst management committees is often rife [2] and it is feasible that members of the management committee were selecting the best plots for family and friends, the research does not explore this possibility.
Taken as a whole, the findings of these studies, are all supported by Bond, [20], who brings these issues together in Fig 1; that fundamental aspects of governance over land tenure, and other conflicts within the pastoralist communities over weapons proliferation and the commercialisation of cattle ranching require transparent leadership, policing and effective state leadership. Her work, supports the earlier ideas of Berger [21] that new institutions which synergise traditional practice for managing natural resources and local conflict is part of the solution, which will be a long-term process.
Often land tenure disputes if not resolved quickly and effectively can become violent [13]. The examples developed by Greiner [14] where land tenure was not resolved efficiently by customary or government institutions resulted in significant and dangerous consequences for those on the ‘wrong’ side. However, the researcher does not explore why the elders were so contradictory in their decision making or the contradictory attitudes between elders wanting to make titles to land and government officials not, nor the motivations for ‘lip service’ text book answers 2 of 7
670049493
Source: [20]
Indeed, the National Rangeland Trust, in its more recent reports than Griener [9] prides itself on its peacekeeping work [22]. However, with ranch land largely owned by the few, it is in the interests of these few to minimise conflict to minimise its impact on their tourism businesses and as Griener’s work [14] shows, institutions are complicating this process through their lack of consistency and support. Conflict in northern Kenya is an impediment to the development of sustainable tourism [23].
However, research has shown that this can be an oversimplification and although Kinnaird and O’Brien [3] noted that management types with high stocking levels had detrimental effects on wildlife, other research has found that wildlife and livestock can co-exist where community grazing committees successfully enforce spatial-temporal separations [26]. As they point out themselves, there is a significant gap in Kinnaird and O’Brien’s research [3] where they could not study the mosaic of pastoralists grazing in areas that were insecure and under contested ownership. It is likely that this is the cause of a limited research base in this particular area as noted by Groom and Western [25].
Impacts of Sedentarization on Wildlife Sedentarization has converted woodlands and grasslands into crop agriculture which has led to upstream water abstraction making downstream water users reliant on rainfall and boreholes [24]. The adverse impacts of sedentarization, in addition to habitat fragmentation caused by the partitioning of land [3] include a reduction in abundance of wildlife due to grassland grazing competition when grazing is poorly managed [25].
Shirley et al, [27], conducted a detailed investigation of the expansion of the invasive Prickly Pear, Opuntia stricta, and found a serious deleterious effect of sedentarization to be the increase in the species. Land degradation caused by over grazing, making the habitat suitable for the species is at the heart of the issue [28]. 3 of 7
670049493 The researchers suggest that eliminating grazing by wildlife and livestock completely can aid recovery of the habitat to native vegetation. However, this would be detrimental to the livelihood of pastoralists reliant on grazing areas [29] and wildlife. However, bio-control methods, although not quantitatively assessed, are killing large swathes of O. stricta across Laikipia [28].
are managed for grazing they remain unfenced, but often due to overgrazing have little ground cover for wildlife [15]. All other forms of land tenure currently separate wildlife and people, reinforcing cultural divisions along colonial lines [32]. Conservation successes and the freedom for pastoralists to diversify within community rangelands are benefiting upwards of 300,000 people in Laikipia [4]. It is recognised that the different group rangelands are having different levels of success [4] however, policies should support them in restoring their grazing areas for the benefit of wildlife and their pastoral incomes [33].
Implications The trend of pastoralists moving to paid work as herdsmen for private ranchers [30] has far reaching implications on this and future generations as highlighted by Yurco [5]. Her interviews reveal that pastoralists own herding skills are not appreciated or utilised and there is no mechanism for them to pass these on to their children. The future effects of this dilution of culture is not considered by the researchers on either the pastoralists or the ranch owners.
In well run community conservancies, the income from tourism is benefiting community members through the dissemination of ‘conservation fees’ from tour operators and wildlife populations are seeing increases [4]. This is in contrast to some national parks where empirical research is revealing that wildlife is not doing well [34].
This loss of culture is likely to be beneficial to the private ranchers in the medium term as it may well make small scale herding a less attractive option to future generations, and thereby reduce the numbers of livestock. However, the cultural link to cattle and wealth amongst pastoralists drives many to continue to purchase more cattle with their earnings [29]. This loss of skills will also arise when pastoralists move to working directly in the tourism sector, and historically their pay has been very low in comparison to the revenue accrued from that tourism [31]. However, many individual households receive income from multiple sources, but off-farm strategies were pursued by younger household heads and linked to those with more formal years of education [6].
Despite these successes, poverty amongst those hosting wildlife, including pastoralists remains endemic [7] and much is to be done to continue to convince policy makers that pastoralism is a viable way of life [33]. Greater investment is needed in education and infrastructure and more attention to viable employment with above poverty line incomes in pastoral areas [35]. It is ironic that much current development aid has served to encourage more sedentary lifestyles [36]. The drylands supporting these communities are not homogenous, with differing levels of population, different ethnic groups and different climatic and environmental conditions [37] and different communities adapt to these conditions in different ways. However, policy must be enforceable, transparent, supportive of all of the ways of life and inconsistencies should be ironed out to enable pastoralism and wildlife to be sustained [33].
Policy Recommendations Group ranches offer some of the best hope for conservation and pastoralism to work together, however, they are often managed for wildlife in a less co-ordinated way than private pro-wildlife ranches [4], [15]. As they 4 of 7
670049493
References: 1. Kaye-Zwiebel, E., and King, E. (2014). Kenyan pastoralist societies in transition: varying perceptions of the value of ecosystem services. Ecology and Society 19. Available at: https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss3/art17/. 2. Omeje, K., and Hepner, T.R. eds. (2013). Conflict and Peacebuilding in the African Great Lakes Region (Indiana University Press) Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt16gzgdv. 3. Kinnaird, M.F., and O’brien, T.G. (2012). Effects of Private-Land Use, Livestock Management, and Human Tolerance on Diversity, Distribution, and Abundance of Large African Mammals. Conservation Biology 26, 1026–1039. 4. Siva R. Sundaresan, and Corinna Riginos (2010). LESSONS LEARNED FROM BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN THE PRIVATE LANDS OF LAIKIPIA, KENYA. Great Plains Research, 17. 5. Yurco, K. (2017). Herders and herdsmen: The remaking of pastoral livelihoods in Laikipia, Kenya. Pastoralism 7, 1–11. 6. Watete, P., Makau, W.-K., Njoka, J., AderoMacOpiyo, L., and Mureithi, S. (2016). Are there options outside livestock economy? Diversification among households of northern Kenya. Pastoralism 6, 1. 7. Kabiri, N. (2010). The Political Economy of Wildlife Conservation and Decline in Kenya. The Journal of Environment and Development 19, 424–445. 8. Haro, G.O., Doyo, G.J., and McPeak, J.G. (2005). Linkages Between Community, Environmental, and Conflict Management: Experiences from Northern Kenya. World Development 33, 285–299. 9. Greiner, C. (2012). Unexpected Consequences: Wildlife Conservation and Territorial Conflict in Northern Kenya. (Springer Science & Business Media B.V.) Available at: http://0search.ebscohost.com.lib.exeter.ac.uk/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eih&AN=76632708&site=edslive. 10. Thouless, C.R., and Sakwa, J. (1995). Shocking elephants: fences and crop raiders in Laikipia District, Kenya. Biological Conservation 72, 99. 11. Durant, S.M., Becker, M.S., Creel, S., Bashir, S., Dickman, A.J., Beudels-Jamar, R.C., Lichtenfeld, L., Hilborn, R., Wall, J., Wittemyer, G., et al. (2015). Developing fencing policies for dryland ecosystems. Journal of Applied Ecology 52, 544–551. 12. German, L., King, E., Unks, R., and Wachira, N.P. (2017). This side of subdivision: Individualization and collectivization dynamics in a pastoralist group ranch held under collective title. Journal of Arid Environments 144, 139–155. 13. Bollig, M., and Österle, M. (2008). Changing Communal Land Tenure in an East African Pastoral System: Institutions and Socio-Economic Transformations among the Pokot of NW Kenya. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 133, 301–322. 14. Greiner, C. (2017). Pastoralism and Land-Tenure Change in Kenya: The Failure of Customary Institutions. Development and Change 48, 78–97. 5 of 7
670049493 15. Hall, R., Scoones, I., and Tsikata, D. (2015). Africa’s Land Rush: Rural Livelihoods and Agrarian Change (Woodbridge Suffolk; Rochester, NY: Boydell & Brewer) Available at: http://0search.ebscohost.com.lib.exeter.ac.uk/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjbk&AN=edsjbk.j.ctt16vj22 2&site=eds-live. 16. Huho, J., Ngaira, J., and Ogindo, H. (2011). Living with drought: the case of the Maasai pastoralists of northern Kenya. 17. Kumssa, A., Jones, J.F., and Williams, J.H. (2009). Conflict and Human Security in the North Rift and North Eastern Kenya. International Journal of Social Economics 36, 1008–1020. 18. Mulugeta, M.F. (2017). Small arms and conflict among East African pastoralists: the Karamoja (in)security complex. Africa 87, 739–57. 19. Yakubu M. Azindow (2011). Guns and Governance in the Rift Valley: Pastoralist Conflict and Small Arms Kennedy Agade Mkutu. African Studies Review, 196. 20. Bond, J. (2014). Conflict, Development and Security at the Agro-pastoral-Wildlife Nexus: A Case of Laikipia County, Kenya. Journal of Development Studies 50, 991–1008. 21. Berger, R. (2003). Conflict over Natural Resources among Pastoralists in Northern Kenya: A Look at Recent Initiatives in Conflict Resolution. Journal of International Development 15, 245– 257. 22.
Northern Rangelands Trust (2016). NRT State of Conservancies Report 2016.
23. Mayaka, M.A., and Prasad, H. (2012). Tourism in Kenya: An analysis of strategic issues and challenges. Tourism Management Perspectives 1, 48–56. 24. Silvestri, S., Zaibet, L., Said, M.Y., and Kifugo, S.C. (2013). Valuing ecosystem services for conservation and development purposes: A case study from Kenya. Environmental Science and Policy 31, 23–33. 25. Rosemary J. Groom, and David Western (2013). Impact of Land Subdivision and Sedentarization on Wildlife in Kenya’s Southern Rangelands. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 1. 26. Tyrrell, P., Russell, S., and Western, D. (2017). Original Research Article: Seasonal movements of wildlife and livestock in a heterogenous pastoral landscape: Implications for coexistence and community based conservation. Global Ecology and Conservation 12, 59–72. 27. Strum, S.C., Stirling, G., and Mutunga, S.K. (2015). The perfect storm: Land use change promotes Opuntia stricta’s invasion of pastoral rangelands in Kenya. Journal of Arid Environments 118, 37–47. 28. Kimiti, D.W., Hodge, A.-M.C., Herrick, J.E., Beh, A.W., and Abbott, L.E. (2017). Rehabilitation of community-owned, mixed-use rangelands: lessons from the Ewaso ecosystem in Kenya. Plant Ecology 218, 23–37. 29. Hogg, R. (1986). The new pastoralism: poverty and dependency in northern Kenya. Africa 56, 319–333.
6 of 7
670049493 30. McCabe, J., Smith, N., Leslie, P., and Telligman, A. (2014). Livelihood Diversification through Migration among a Pastoral People: Contrasting Case Studies of Maasai in Northern Tanzania. Human Organization 73, 389–400. 31. Michael Thompson, author, and Katherine Homewood, author (2002). Entrepreneurs, Elites, and Exclusion in Maasailand: Trends in Wildlife Conservation and Pastoralist Development. Human Ecology, 107. 32. Wambuguh, O. (2007). Interactions between Humans and Wildlife: Landowner Experiences Regarding Wildlife Damage, Ownership and Benefits in Laikipia District, Kenya. Conservation & Society 5, 408. 33. Notenbaert, A.M., Davies, J., De Leeuw, J., Said, M., Herrero, M., Manzano, P., Waithaka, M., Aboud, A., and Omondi, S. (2012). Policies in support of pastoralism and biodiversity in the heterogeneous drylands of East Africa. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice 2, 14. 34. Ogutu, J., Owen-Smith, N., Piepho, H.-P., Kuloba, B., and Edebe, J. (2012). Dynamics of ungulates in relation to climatic and land use changes in an insularized African savanna ecosystem. Biodiversity & Conservation 21, 1033. 35. Lesorogol, C.K. (2008). Land Privatization and Pastoralist Well-being in Kenya. Development & Change 39, 309–331. 36. Yongo, E.O., Abila, R.O., and Lwenya, C. (2010). Emerging resource use conflicts between Kenyan fishermen, pastoralists and tribesmen of Lake Turkana. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management 13, 28–34. 37. Opiyo, F., Wasonga, O., Nyangito, M., Schilling, J., and Munang, R. (2015). Drought Adaptation and Coping Strategies Among the Turkana Pastoralists of Northern Kenya. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 6, 295–309.
7 of 7