conservation, livelihoods and privatised land: wildlife conservancies in the mara, kenya
Post on 05-Dec-2014
1.049 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
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
top related