Livelihood impacts and governance processes of community-based wildlife conservation in Maasai Mara ecosystem, Kenya

Abstract

Community-based wildlife conservation (CBWC) programmes have been a pervasive paradigm in the conservation circles since the 1970s. The key elements of such programmes are that local communities are given ownership rights or custodianship and management responsibilities over wildlife, and that they gain social and economic benefits from conservation of the resources. However, to date, there have been only a few studies that offer in-depth analyses of the interplay between governance processes and livelihood impacts of CBWC programmes. Here, I conducted key informant interviews and focus group discussions in five wildlife conservancies in the Maasai Mara ecosystem in Kenya to address the following questions: i) What are the perceived impacts of the wildlife conservancies on livelihoods of the local people? ii) To what extent are the wildlife conservancies governed in relation to the principles of environmental governance? I assessed impacts on livelihoods by applying the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework to explore perceived conservancy-related benefits and costs (i.e. perceived changes in social, financial, human, physical, and natural capitals). I assessed governance by asking the respondents whether the following eight principles of environmental governance were applied: legitimacy, transparency, accountability, inclusiveness, fairness, integration, capability, and adaptability. Perceived benefits of participating in wildlife co-management were identified as: enhanced income from gainful employment and new business opportunities, membership to cooperative societies and participation in community work (e.g. school bursary and feeding programmes), enhanced social relations, improved access to credit and health facilities, enhanced physical infrastructure (schools, roads and bridges), improved physical security and coordinated sharing of provisioning ecosystem services like pasture and water. The principles of legitimacy, inclusiveness, and integration had reportedly been well implemented in wildlife co-management. However, the institutional mechanisms for sharing resources within the conservancies lacked transparency, accountability, and fairness, and tended to favour those who were politically connected to the leadership of the conservancies. Moreover, most of the conservancies had weak systems and few resources to facilitate delivery on responsibilities (i.e. had low capability), and had some costs associated with human-wildlife conflicts. For an improved co-management of wildlife to be achieved in these conservancies, local institutions should be reconfigured to allow active participation by conservancy landowners in decision-making, information sharing, and equitable access to conservancy-related benefits.