Conservancies: Double-portion Dividends or Capitalism?
In the fight against the protracted woes of cattle rustling and insecurity, profit-making conservancies appear to be a godsend. They can provide a sustainable solution for pastoralist communities and one can’t help but wish that the huge potential from the rangelands could be turned into a resourceful venture to benefit affected communities in Eastern Africa.
Augusta Muchai, Programme Head, Mifugo Project, ISS Nairobi Office and Daudi Ekuam, Consultant
In the fight against the protracted woes of cattle rustling and insecurity, profit-making conservancies appear to be a godsend. They can provide a sustainable solution for pastoralist communities and one can’t help but wish that the huge potential from the rangelands could be turned into a resourceful venture to benefit affected communities in Eastern Africa.
Conservancies are community wildlife sanctuaries that are run and managed by the respective communities through their representatives. A group of locals with professional support and advice from the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and individual ranchers in the region donate a portion of their land for the establishment of a conservancy. Once registered, the conservancy applies for a grant or loans from specialised agencies to help in the establishment of basic tourism infrastructure and facilities.
Revenue accrued from the conservancies is partly applied to repaying the loan (if any) whilst the remainder is shared between the members and the development of the conservancy. For example, in northern Kenya, particularly Samburu and Isiolo, the members’ children, regardless of the parents’ economic status, receive full sponsorship for secondary school or college fees, sometimes to the tune of Ksh.10 million (USD 125,000). This total amount is shared out amongst the students who strive to excel and appear before the respective committees for consideration.
Are wildlife conservancies the way to go in the arid and cattle-rustling prone northern rangelands of Kenya and similar zones in Eastern Africa? According to political leaders, development agencies and government departments, the answer to this question is yes. The popular view is that wildlife sanctuaries or ‘conservancies’ herald a new thinking and approach to the development of arid and semi-arid areas of northern Kenya. They argue that if well-managed, wildlife conservancies are capable of reducing incidences of insecurity considerably, particularly those related to cattle rustling.
Pasturelands previously unutilised due to insecurity have been turned into prime revenue earners as organised wildlife sanctuaries or conservancies. Armed local game rangers employed by the management of the conservancies have been a deterrent to cattle rustlers who used to freely roam the land – crisscrossing it with stolen stock. Due to stringent by-laws governing and restricting access to these areas, except for tourists and a limited number of livestock, the new wildlife units are almost no-go areas for criminals.
As a popular saying in Kenya suggests, there are always two or three sides of a story and the conservancies are not without their negative side. For instance, most locals interviewed in a recent field research session expressed doubts about the level of integrity of most of the management committees of the conservancies. They cited lack of transparency and accountability in the manner in which these institutions are managed; the sources of grants and how these grants are managed; and the general financial management.
Similarly, some respondents were of the view that livestock keeping, which is central to the livelihoods and social-cultural being of the communities in the region, is being relegated and made a peripheral activity. The cash economy, which is little-understood by pastoralist, is gradually taking centre stage. Some also questioned the sustainability of conservancies as their earnings depend on outsiders whom the locals have little control over, especially regulating the frequency of their visits to the conservancies.
It is clear that the income from the conservancies is quite attractive. As a result, there is almost a scramble for communities (or clans) to establish their own conservancies. In due course, this is likely to present a number of scenarios. First, it may end up confining hitherto free-ranging livestock to demarcated ranch boundaries similar to the failed Group Ranches of the early 70’s in Kenya, exacerbating inter-clan conflicts. Secondly, some communities may try to confine animals that normally migrate freely across the borders to their own zones through fencing. Such an act would definitely lead to conflicts. Animal rights activists are likely to be up in arms in due course challenging the rationale of confining wildlife.
Apparently, the areas that have been earmarked for conservancies are the prime dry season grazing for pastoralists. Although members of the conservancies are allowed to use them for grazing, the proliferation of wildlife in the conservancies poses a major disease challenge to livestock and the ability of the communities to respond to such crisis.
The new approach however, seems to work perfectly with commercial ranches. A number of commercial ranches in Laikipia that were tottering on the brink of collapse have been handed a new lease of life by the establishment of wildlife conservancies that go together with livestock ranching. A case in point is Mutara Agricultural Development Corporation (ADC) Ranch.
Mutara Ranch is a national Stud Ranch for Boran breed of cattle that was established in 1979 under the ADC. It measures 63,000 acres and currently holds an estimated 3,000 home bred Boran livestock. According to the management, there were plans to sub-divide the ranch into smallholder plots and allocate them to the ‘landless’ for crop growing.
Unfortunately, livestock thefts staged by neighbouring communities were rampant – sometimes to the level of 10 animals per month. Consequently in 2007, the neighbouring Ol-Pejeta Conservancy partnered with Mutara Ranch and started rehabilitation work under an agreement with African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) to establish a conservation and ecotourism venture. At least 20,000 acres of the ranch were set aside for wildlife conservation and ecotourism.
Currently Mutara Ranch prides itself as home to a significant population of wildlife including lions, elephants, buffaloes, and the endangered Jackson’s hartebeest in addition to earning ten times the revenue from livestock keeping. This has also helped the partner, Ol-Pejeta Conservancy to operate beyond its borders. Encouraged by earnings from this new venture, Mutara Ranch has gone ahead to establish a research institute for scientists interested in wildlife research.
The extent to which the conservancies and the ranches will continue accruing benefits to the pastoralist communities greatly depends on how well the common good will be protected from capitalistic tendencies that characterize most economies. It can only be hoped that the government of Kenya will fulfill its obligations by defending the rights of pastoralists and ensure that self-seekers do not hijack this sustainable solution, which could be replicated in the Eastern Africa region.
