Advancing community-based conservation in eastern Africa and the determinants of progress

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4915658/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Advancing community-based conservation in eastern Africa and the determinants of progress

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4915658/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Success in community-based conservation is pegged on benefits exceeding costs. A recent appraisal based on literature, field analysis and experience led to the realization that divergent interests, uncertainty over access and payback are constant concerns. Resource stewardship and governance are wanting, while the devolution of rights is still primordial. Public involvement is at a decisive point with major initiatives attributable to local actors. The rapid rise of wildlife conservancies marks a key milestone where they are now critical and irreplaceable in addressing biodiversity challenges. Sustained progress will require improved relationships among key stakeholders and strengthening of all local actors.

Africa

community

conservation

power

resources

wealth

Stakeholder relationships are critical to effectiveness key and success in community-based conservation, also called community-based natural resource management (CBNRM). It is often difficult to reconcile the differing values of diverse important players (Maynard et al., 2020; Vogler et al., 2017; Horwich and Lyon, 2007) and their complex history. Alongside arguments for or against “new conservation” (Castelló and Santiago-Ávila, 2023; Soulé, 2013), attempts to link conservation with rural development always entail considerable bargaining and appreciation of power dynamics.

CBNRM began in earnest across Africa in the 1980s and 1990s, although pioneering efforts date back to the 1950s (Newmark and Hough, 2000). The initiatives have taken firm root over the last two decades (Nelson et al., 2021), adopting strategies aimed at ensuring the long-term viability of species and ecosystems. These also strive to be both politically and economically acceptable to governments and local people. In practice, however, the aim of resolving issues of legitimacy and social justice is not always met (Dekker et al., 2020). A key plank of the practice in eastern africa has been to advance nature while promoting wealth and the empowerment of local people. The promise of benefits aside, questions over resource tenure and dissatisfaction with sharing and distribution lie at the center of the differing views. Despite progress, pressure on resources and the diversity of players also pose a daunting challenge (Benyei et al., 2022).

Developments in modern Kenya are emblematic of the entire eastern Africa. The initial involvement of local communities occurred through integrated conservation and development projects, similar to approaches widely used elsewhere in the Global South (Hübner, 2023). Early efforts were manifested in advocacy for the ‘parks beyond parks’ concept in the 1970s (Rutten, 2002, Watson, 1999), although they were not explicitly implemented until the 1990s (Western et al., 2015; McRae, 1998; Kenya Wildlife Service, 1997). Tremendous growth has since occurred, fundamentally restoring stewardship to local communities. This was despite concerns over low empowerment and resistance to decentralization (Dressler et al., 2010).

Moreover, national parks are recognized as being too small to protect wildlife migratory routes and avoid extinction (Western et al., 2020) and are increasingly facing the paradox of balancing protection and maximizing revenues from tourism. Trying to minimize conflict with people imposes additional burdens. With limited devolution of rights and benefits, local support for conservation outside protected areas quickly waned, severely compromising the ability to support success (Mwangi et al., 2022) and the viability of wildlife populations.

Kenya is at the crossroads between the struggle to expand traditional conservation principles and the clamour for benefits amid the pursuit of modernity by legitimate resource custodians. Vast expanses of rangeland have been turned into community conservancies. Many concerns persist, however, notably the endless perception of a concealed land grab. For example, Bersaglio and Cleaver (2018) referred to conversions as green grabs by bricolage, arguing that they produce undesired and unintended outcomes. On the other hand, Cavanagh et al. (2020) suggested that neoliberal approaches retain a unique transformational capacity in reworking long-standing land ownership and use conflicts.

The links between local attitudes and benefits have long been recognized as triggers for change (Munaw, 2023; Fernández-Llamazares et al., 2020; Meguro and Inoue, 2011). The layers of decision-making, institutional relationships and empowerment of local communities are at the root of successful implementation (Kalvelage et al., 2021; Maynard et al., 2020; Ayoo, 2007). This impact evaluation aimed to determine the current formal and informal institutional actors, their roles and responsibilities and how these factors impact the capacity for collective action. It sought to identify the power dynamics within and between groups and the constraints to successful engagement, pinpointing the incentives and norms that shape and influence actor behavior.

This study was part of a wider sector-level appraisal of how policy decisions are made and how benefits flow in CBNRM and why conditions persist even when they appear to be suboptimal. A literature survey involving a desk-based library and online searches was conducted, and fieldwork focused on Kenya’s two main rangeland conservation landscapes. The analysis was guided by the belief that a better understanding was needed for radical alternatives to transform mainstream approaches and avoid previous pitfalls, which are considered essential in engagement with a plurality of perspectives and experiences (Massarella et al., 2022).

The online search used a modified form of automated content analysis, an innovative text mining technique commonly used in the social sciences (Nunez-Mir et al., 2016) that has proven useful for more cross-cutting themes of ecology (McCallen et al., 2019). References were extracted from published and unpublished sources via the Zotero citation management tool, and deeper insights were obtained from field and archived official records. The main issues emerging from this enquiry were subjected to preliminary review, and salient elements were distilled for further scrutiny during the fieldwork.

The field component focused on identifying the critical meeting points of convergence or departure characterizing CBNRM in the northern and southern rangelands. It adopted a protocol consisting of key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and a fill-and-return questionnaire. The respondents were selected from, and in consultation with, local leaders and experts from the government, specialized agencies, conservation nongovernmental and civil society organization leaders, and resource custodian and user groups. Potential respondents were contacted by phone and email and subsequently met in person either individually or in groups. A snowball sampling procedure (Kirchherr and Charles, 2018) was used where participants were requested to suggest other interview prospects and those suggested more than twice were contacted accordingly while avoiding overrepresentation of any interest group. Informed consents to participate and publish were obtained for all respondents. Additional sources were searched to allow for triangulation, which is considered essential for ensuring validity and enhancing the reliability of the results (McKim, 2023).

Interviews and group discussions were thoughtfully conducted and sequenced to avoid bias and help maintain an amiable setting, with a view to encouraging informants to share their honest views on the distribution of wealth and influence linked to natural resources. Emphasis was placed on the relationship between large and established players and smaller or newly formed entities. The data emanating from all the above inquiries were summarized into definitive categories and complemented by in-depth conversations with local people with whom familiarity had been gained during two decades of involvement in the design and assessment of conservation and environment projects. The content was analysed to draw relevant inferences, lessons, and conclusions.

Community-based conservation continues to hold the promise of win‒win outcomes in Kenya. While natural resources are a major source of wealth, the full potential is at times significantly underrealized. The key stakeholders are sometimes openly in competition, if not outright, conflict, and their relationships are typified by clear dichotomies depicting differing viewpoints. The main opposing standpoints pit large or private landholders against small or communal landowners, and high-level decision-makers contrast with grassroots people. Considerable differences also exist between upstream and downstream resource users.

For the weaker segments of the community, access to benefits is often perceived as a distant mission, sometimes leading to disenfranchisement. The neglect of indigenous practices and knowledge is evident. Beyond the contrasting attitudes, however, the role of conservancies as a model that combines biodiversity aspirations with promoting resilience, livelihoods and security for local pastoralist groups is well appreciated. The following is a summative presentation of these findings and vital signs from the past and indications for the future.

Gains and drawbacks in the journey to the current state of the art

Consistent efforts towards creating wildlife-friendly spaces on private and community-controlled terrains have provided the life-blood for biodiversity and the sustainable management of conventional parks and reserves. The main indicator of progress has been the rapid growth of space devoted to diverse categories of CBNRM, with a near-exponential rise since the early 1990s. Determining resource access and use rights has achieved enormous strides but still falls short of expectations.

Despite progress, CBNRM is still imperiled by the generations-old uncertainties; in particular, conceptual openness has turned a “community” into a buzzword with inconsistency in application (Carlon, 2020). This often leads to a crisis of identity or legitimacy and a low sense of ownership, both of which are identified as substantial causes of failure (Colua de Oliveira et al. 2021; Roka, 2019; Measham and Lumbasi, 2013). In contrast to the popular narrative about communities as harmonious and consciously distinct entities, disagreement over resource stewardship and use is more of a rule than an exception.

Overlapping or competing claims to legitimacy

The divergent interests reflected in the opposing views of large ranches and small-scale landholders pose another constraint to CBNRM. These typically antagonize farmers against pastoralists, large and authoritative institutions against the less powerful ordinaries and donor agencies with their wealthy counterparts at variance with the not so well-to-do recipients. Similarly, but more subtle, divides exist between subsistence pastoralists and perceived absentee herd owners, who are deemed to be in cahoots with large ranch owners, which is reportedly one of the main reasons quarrels frequently break out over the pasture. It was equally clear that the determination of land claims cannot extend to ecosystem processes such as water flow, atmospheric regulation, or the tenancy of migratory wildlife.

Institutional bottlenecks and imbalances of power and influence

Weak community-level institutions and overconcentrated political and economic power and influence among the more elite segments of society are rife in CBNRM. Conservancy management units and community forest associations (CFAs) are generally understaffed, and their boards lack the grit to effectively pursue long-term and meaningful goals. Inadequate incentives and capacity are major hindrances to necessary reforms (Bassett (2020); Boone et al., 2019; Nzioki et al., 2009), and resource and project management skill gaps are enormous. Illiteracy is still widespread around the land-owning segment of the local population.

The immense powers wielded by key players can be strangling, worsened by the scramble for control and competition among private investors. The majority are discontented with preferential access to resources, benefits, and the status quo. The few who enjoy a comparative advantage from their relationship with major players such as large commercial ranchers pose a threat to future buy-in for new initiatives. This places serious obstacles to revamping marketing and value addition. Similarly, limiting may be the lack of well-defined transboundary shared natural resource approaches and nontransparent benefit-sharing mechanisms that pave the way for corruption and diminish economic returns.

Poor service delivery or uptake of responsibility

Local institutions are sometimes saddled with tasks they should either not be entrusted with or be least equipped to perform and sometimes feel unfairly pressed to play the role of government. An unfortunate carry-over from the past is rife when they continue to act on their own in pursuit of livestock raiders or shoulder the burden of health or education provisions. In addition, a rather extreme, but poorly concealed, sentiment in sensitive dockets is that all the emerging and powerful institutions might act like a parallel government. This raises the likelihood of a potential conflict flashpoint pitting key actors.

More than a decade after devolution, some of the functions handed to the counties are still poorly developed and under the control of politicians, stifling progress in the desired direction. With so much vested in elective positions, poor governance and accountability represent democratic pitfalls and bottlenecks to stewardship over resources. One of the pitfalls of this is that the center simply shifted to a more local level, where kingpins of grass-root authority are diverse morphs of a council of elders commonly ordained for broader societal concerns. They are therefore only nominally responsible for conservation, with poorly coordinated actions posing a continuing challenge. Consequently, no fresh thinking can permeate traditional practices.

Property ownership and land productivity concerns

In the classical interpretations of property, ownership and wealth are tightly linked as prerequisites of a decent and fulfilling life. It is perceived as a liberal and presumptively exclusive paradigm (Olsen, 2022). Land is a fundamental form of property that confers multiple rights to its holder to retain and use, exclude others, or transfer on mutually agreeable terms. Whenever ownership changes in the normal course of free market transactions in the landscapses of interest, transfers are sometimes rapid, followed by conversion to alternative conservation-unfriendly uses. These are often worsened by incentives that fall short of deterring them. Although the expanding conservancy estate offers hope, competition with livestock and market inadequacies remain serious concerns.

Many local stakeholders view embracing CBNRM as a safeguard against external land prospectors. This has not yet achieved the desired impact, and the accompanying range degradation, deforestation and unsustainable practices are responsible for widespread productivity losses. Pressure from human population growth and rapid urbanization are formidable challenges that put open habitats under threat of fragmentation and decline. They represent a real existential threat to natural resources and pastoralist livelihoods. There are also unrelenting constraints to ecological integrity that are compounded by macrolevel issues related to the imperative to adapt to unpredictable climate fluctuations and environmental change.

The fairness dilemma

The expectation of distributive justice is a common cause of dissatisfaction among stakeholder groups. Field managers are often under pressure to make decisions that affect the competing needs of people and a dwindling resource endowment. For example, access to dry season wildlife and livestock refuges, upstream and ground-water abstraction, and the differing views of farmers and herders are reasons for frequent unease. Fears of potential disadvantage fuel individual decisions that lead to ecological limitations such as land subdivision and fencing. Inclusion and social justice are the ultimate measures of progress, presenting an urgent imperative.

Participatory spatial planning and learning must form the core to gain commitment and confirm resource mandates, thereby reducing conflict and promoting trust and accountability. Even where management plans exist as a consequence of legislative fiat to address range degradation and build climate resilience, they are rarely implemented since they lack some of the necessary instruments for full enforcement.

Transitional inertia

The prevailing legal regime faces the immediate challenge of balancing communal ownership and individual interests. Having repealed the grossly problematic Land (Group Representatives) Act (Cap. 287) and the Trust Lands Act (Cap. 288), the most pressing need is to carefully navigate a delicate shift to the Community Land Act (No. 27 of 2016), which provides recognition, protection, and registration of community land rights. By largely acknowledging customary tenure, the law resonates with past cries for legal protection of historical claims and collective entitlements but is insufficient to either secure the required social change or resolve custodial conflicts. It also governs the management and administration of land jointly owned by communities and embeds the role of county governments. Assertively pursuing this presents an urgent imperative.

The formation of land trusts, associations, and cooperatives holds promise for ranches enroute to the establishment of conservancies and those not yet contemplating this option. This is key to managing critical wildlife migratory corridors and supporting institutions essential for investment in ways that safeguard habitats.

The multifaceted nature and causes of internal conflicts

The impediments embedded in the volatility of disputes, especially in northern Kenya, are common features of CBNRM. Resources are often motivators of ethnic or identity-based disagreement. The impact of these differences can revolve around one or multiple issues, not least concerning wildlife, forests, or mining rights. Recurrent droughts pose a particularly distinct challenge to balancing nature and resource uses and amply demonstrate this point. For example, the 2022 short rains, reported as the fifth subdued precipitation episode in a row, caused an overall alteration in the composition of the entire biological community. As a leading cause of habitat change, this intensified competition for space and triggered many communal conflicts involving wildlife, livestock and people.

Such incidents are common and reported to occur with greater frequency, resulting in massive livestock depredation, crop losses, human injuries, and death. A dispute between two villages could easily be complicated by deeper structural concerns, some with cultural and even historical roots. A mechanism for resolving community disputes is needed, especially those relying on traditional leadership structures.

Plausible pathways to the future

From the analysis above, it can be deduced that future progress in CBNRM will be achieved only through improvements in stakeholder relationships. The arena is riddled with competing interests and inequalities—the messy realities (Pas et al., 2023). The unmistakable realization is that the majority of indigenous practitioners lack effective structures and are male dominated. Addressing gender and youth exclusion must remain integral to every effort.

More effective participation can be achieved at the intersection of organizational interests, taking into consideration the differential influence on decision-making. Most interactions are tilted in favour of more powerful players at the critical meeting points of high-level decision-makers and less privileged grassroots people. Inculcating a sense of ownership will call for devising ways of redressing disenfranchisement, instrumental to turning around the considerable indifference and common perception of access to benefits being unattainable.

The second strand is the greater strengthening of local actors by expanding their technical, administrative and management competence. Crises of identity can be avoided through mutual recognition, better consultation and engagement. In this context, CBNRM presents a formidable regulatory and proprietorship minefield. It is therefore important to upscale policy and legal provisions for the management and distribution of benefits and to counter corruption and inefficiency.

Bridging governance rifts will be critical for conservancies to thrive. Ultimately, this will require recognition that some public bodies are still primordial and vulnerable to manipulation and that most grassroots influence dwells with constituencies armed with clear legal mandates and enforcement capacity. The evolving institutional setup is certainly unfolding alongside a policy and legal context still not well tuned to support the desired devolution of resource rights.

Equally essential to consolidating the gains is the need to upscale government responsiveness to community needs and reduce the dependency syndrome. It is crucial to acknowledge, for example, that external aid can weaken institutions if it undercuts their accountability and legitimacy.

Sustainability also depends on the ability to respond meaningfully to new or emerging realities, such as by increasing climate resilience and adapting to long-term ecological change. Adjusting to grazing and land-use practices that discourage new fences and encourage the removal of old fences will be key to reducing the impacts of a fluctuating climate, habitat loss and fragmentation. This will slow down the loss of open rangelands, which are not necessarily far-fetched since the intended outcomes of fences do not always match expectations (Pas et al., 2023). Supporting the consolidation of individual land parcels presents a feasible steppingstone toward creating room for the establishment of new conservancies.

Another critical reality is that CBNRM cannot escape technological disruption, and embracing innovation will be central to success. There is no doubt that it is poised to play a large role in reshaping natural products and byproducts, addressing value addition, branding, and marketing strategies.

The largely untapped potential is increasingly emerging with the adoption of open science practices (Hsing et al., 2024; Lahoz-Monfort and Magrath, 2021; Hill et al., 2019) and will become a game changer as practitioners overcome barriers through accessible solutions (Speaker et al., 2022). Enhancing the quality and efficiency of real-time data collection can assist in valuing resources and benefits. This is key to an informed approach to decision-making (Urbano et al., 2024) and empowering communities. There is increasing evidence that the use of devices for such purposes is increasing, leading to incremental improvements in the ways in which people manage biodiversity and optimize the contribution of nature to livelihoods.

The hits and misses of CBRM in Kenya show that widespread uncertainty over the stewardship of natural resources rules the convergence of science, economics, politics, and power. Consequently, design and implementation often tend to overlook imbalances in community structure. Elite capture considerably erodes the means for achieving the intended results and outcomes, whereas market uncertainties present a major obstacle to investment. It is important to consider such complexities, as explained by Brehony et al. (2018), because any idea or action to conserve biodiversity or negotiate the establishment of a protected area in any form is inherently political (Berghöfer et al., 2022; Adams and Hutton, 2007).

Among the numerous constraints to the promise of benefits from community-based approaches is the asymmetry of power within groups and at the individual level and sweeping assumptions about effectiveness (Cavanagh et al., 2020; Calfucura, 2018, Bar-On, 2006). Where benefits fail to offset costs, encouraging tolerance or stewardship is unlikely to bolster conservation (Gadd, 2005).

This study validated calls for a paradigm shift towards more equitable and inclusive approaches that support local stewardship to resolve conservation conflicts and build trust (Newing et al., 2024; Reed and Ceno 2015; Reed, 2008). Such a shift would enable learning and increase stakeholder support for decisions in the long term. Similar concerns point to the risk of loss in ecological adaptability arising from a breakdown in traditional institutions rooted in social reciprocity and uncertainty over their transformational nature (Western et al., 2020; Galvin et al., 2018).

As widely reported, perceptions about conservation in general, and protected areas in particular, revolve around concerns over the displacement of people. Incentives and opportunity costs to society are central to this (Bashir and Wanyonyi, 2024; Smallhorn-West and Pressey, 2022; Muhumuza and Balkwill, 2013). Full inclusion is also constrained by the putative doctrine of public trust, which confers rights and responsibilities to the state for the good of citizens across generations (López-Bao et al., 2017). This is especially critical when benefit schemes are part of the offering. In schemes such as Payment for Environmental Services (PES), for example, Muradian et al. (2010) advocated acknowledging the variety of institutional settings where they operate.

The formidable economic forces sometimes encourage negative trade-offs that undermine, rather than promote, local livelihoods. Moreover, the privatization of land can have far-reaching implications for pastoralism and wealth disparities. As concluded by Koissaba (2016a,b), land appropriation has had negative effects on the sustainable use of resources in Masailand.

Another key lesson is that effort is best expended on growing relevant institutions and leveraging the emerging policies and laws to make CBNRM more effective. This is best achieved when local rights are secure. Success therefore lies in these being more authoritatively ascertained. The future lies in the evolution of strong and clear tenure, the implications of which are rapidly expanding to nontraditional resource endowments such as carbon sinks, which define new areas for investment. Interventions that consolidate the gains around land and services, overcoming the governance challenge and the imperative for adapting to continuous change will be central to this.

As noted by Robinson et al., 2021; Milupi et al., 2017 and Nelson and Agrawal (2008), inclusion and the ability to effect reforms ultimately depend on the leadership and resolution of policymakers in government. Greater empowerment for better participation in decision-making and good governance is essential to help move people from being passive subjects to vibrant citizens.

Among the newest indications that conservation is not lagging behind technology are advances in tools that are helping reconfigure restoration practices and policy (Urzedo et al., 2022). These methods are becoming increasingly common for analysing large datasets (Wich and Piel, 2021). More open processes hold promise for guiding the sharing of experiences and reducing transaction costs (Bixler and Taylor, 2012). Leveraging information and the management of knowledge will become increasingly instrumental in the achievement of goals beyond the current imagination.

The future of CBNRM in Kenya will depend on achieving the correct balance between conserving, creating wealth, and empowering people to determine their sustainability options. The missing piece in the jigsaw is to win over the youth and other disenfranchised key segments of society. Doing so will call for novel opportunities, which points to a pressing need to tap into new markets and technology to transform the way resources are conserved and managed. Industry must be part of the solution, as mushrooming and future enterprises are reeling under the pressure of resource unsustainability. Value addition must therefore be one of the conservation objectives for new initiatives, and the emerging carbon market will form an important plank of nature-based and climate-oriented investment.

Author Contribution

EM contributed to the study conception and design, material preparation, data collection and analysis. The first draft of the manuscript was written by EMM who, along with several anonymous commentators, shaped and determined the final content.

Acknowledgement

I thank all who have engaged me in multiple assignments that enabled me gain experience in conservation and environment. The University of Nairobi allowed me unfettered access to academic resources, while various international development agencies retained me in specialist, technical and adviser roles, greatly expanding my horizons. I would like to specifically mention Professor Jake Rice who provided initial directions in the rudimentary stages of this manuscript, and two anonymous reviewers who commented on early drafts, for which I am truly grateful.

Data Availability

The data supporting this article were obtained from publicly available sources, are archived at the University of Nairobi and access can be provided upon request to the author.

Adams, W.M. and Hutton, J. (2007). People, Parks and Poverty: Political Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation. Conservation and Society 5(2): 147–183. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26392879.
Ayoo, C. (2007). Community-based natural resource management in Kenya. Management of Environmental Quality 18(5): 531–541. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777830710778292.
Bar-On, A. (2006). On elephants, giraffes, and social development. Community Development Journal 41(3): 367–380. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsi069.
Bashir, M.A. and Wanyonyi, E. (2024). Winning space for conservation: the growth of wildlife conservancies in Kenya. Frontiers in Conservation Science 5: 1385959. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2024.1385959.
Bassett, E. (2020). Reform and resistance: The political economy of land and planning reform in Kenya. Urban Studies 57(6): 1164–1183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019829366.
Benyei, P.; Calvet-Mir, L.; Reyes-García, V. and Villamayor-Tomas, S. (2022). Indigenous and Local Knowledge’s Role in Social Movement’s Struggles Against Threats to Community-Based Natural Resource Management Systems: Insights from a Qualitative Meta-analysis. International Journal of the Commons 16(1), pp. 263–277. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.1154.
Berghöfer, U.; Rode, J.; Jax, K.; Förster, J.; Berghöfer, A. and Wittmer, H. (2022). Societal Relationships with Nature: a framework for understanding nature-related conflicts and multiple values. People and Nature 4(2): 534–548. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10305.
Bersaglio, B. and Cleaver, F. (2018). Green grab by bricolage - the institutional workings of community conservancies in Kenya. Conservation and Society 16(4): 467–480. DOI: 10.4103/cs.cs_16_144.
Bixler, R.P. and Taylor, P.L. (2012), Toward a community of innovation in community-based natural resource management: Insights from open source software. Human Organization 71(3), 234–243. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.71.3.200w0j1266306t79.
Boone, C.; Dyzenhaus, A.; Manji, A.; Gateri, C.W; Ouma, S.; Owino, J.K.; Gargule, A. and Klopp, J.M (2019). Land law reform in Kenya: Devolution, veto players, and the limits of an institutional fix. African Affairs 118(471): Pages 215–237, https://doi.org/10.1093/afraf/ady053.
Brehony, P.; Bluwstein, J.; Lund, J.F., Tyrrell, P. (2018). Bringing back complex socioecological realities to the study of CBNRM impacts: a response to Lee and Bond (2018). Journal of Mammalogy 99(6): 1539–1542. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyy118.
Calfucura, E. (2018) Governance, Land and Distribution: A Discussion on the Political Economy of Community-Based Conservation. Ecological Economics 145(C): 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.05.012.
Carlon, C. (2020). Contesting community development: grounding definitions in practice contexts. Development in Practice 31(3): 323–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2020.1837078.
Castelló, P.P. and Santiago-Ávila, F.J. (2023). Conservation after biodiversity: An analysis of Michael E. Soulé's ‘What is Conservation Biology?’ Biological Conservation 287 110313 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110313.
Cavanagh, C. J.; Weldemichel, T. and Benjaminsen, T.A. (2020). Gentrifying the African Landscape: The Performance and Powers of for-Profit Conservation on Southern Kenya’s Conservancy Frontier. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 110(5): 1594–1612. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2020.1723398.
Colua de Oliveira, E. R.; Otsuki, K. and Mubai, M.E. (2021). Tackling challenges for comanagement of natural resources: the community council in Limpopo National Park, Mozambique. Development in Practice 31(5): 707–713. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2021.1898547.
Dekker, L.A.G.; Arts, K. and Turnhout, E. (2020). From Rationalities to Practices: Understanding Unintended Consequences of CBNRM. Conservation and Society 18(2): 137–147. https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_19_29.
Dressler, W.; Büscher, B.; Schoon, M.; Brockington, D.; Hayes, T.; Kull, C.A.; McCarthy, J. and Shrestha, K. (2010). From hope to crisis and back again? A critical history of the global CBNRM narrative. Environmental Conservation 37(1): 5–15. doi:10.1017/S0376892910000044.
Fernández-Llamazares, Á.; Western, D.; Galvin, K.A.; McElwee,P. and Cabeza, M. (2020) Historical shifts in local attitudes towards wildlife by Maasai pastoralists of the Amboseli ecosystem (Kenya): Insights from three conservation psychology theories. Journal for Nature Conservation 53: 125763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2019.125763.
Gadd, M.E. (2005). Conservation outside of parks: attitudes of local people in Laikipia, Kenya. Environmental Conservation 32(1):50–63. doi:10.1017/S037689290500191.
Galvin, K.A.; Beeton, T.A. and Luizza, M.W. (2018). African community-based conservation: a systematic review of social and ecological outcomes. Ecology and Society 23(3): 39. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10217-230339.
Hill, A.P.; Davies, A.; Prince, P.; Snaddon, J.L.; Doncaster, C.P. and Rogers, A. (2019). Leveraging conservation action with open-source hardware. Conservation Letters 12(5):e12661. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12661.
Horwich, R.H. and Lyon, J. (2007). Community conservation: practitioners’ answer to critics. Oryx 41(3): 376–385. doi:10.1017/S0030605307001010.
Hsing, P-Y.; Johns, B. and Matthes, A. (2024). Ecology and conservation researchers should adopt open source technologies. Frontiers in Conservation Science 5:1364181. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2024.1364181.
Hübner, A. (2023). Still viable despite criticism: complexities of evaluating the performance of ICDPs. Biodiversity and Conservation 32: 3661–3667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-023-02661-4.
Kalvelage, L.; Bollig, M.; Grawert, E.; Hulke, C.; Meyer, M.; Mkutu, K.; Müller-Koné, M. and Diez, J. R. (2021). Territorializing Conservation: Community-based Approaches in Kenya and Namibia. Conservation and Society 19(4): 282–293. DOI: 10.4103/cs.cs_18_21.
Kenya Wildlife Service (1997): “Parks Beyond Parks” – Celebrating Fifty Years of National Parks in Kenya 1946 – 996, Nairobi: Kenya Wildlife Service Annual Report 1996 32pp KWS, Nairobi, Kenya.
Kirchherr, J. and Charles, K. (2018) Enhancing the sample diversity of snowball samples: Recommendations from a research project on anti-dam movements in Southeast Asia. PLoS One 13(8):e0201710. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201710.
Koissaba, B. ole (2016a). Elusive Justice: The Maasai Contestation of Land Appropriation in Kenya: A Historical and Contemporary Perspective. pp 189–219 in Kithinji, M.M., Koster, M.M., Rotich, J.P. (eds) Kenya After 50: Reconfiguring Historical, Political, and Policy Milestones. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137558305_9.
Koissaba, B.R. (2016b). A Critical Analysis of Factors that Contribute to Maasai Land Appropriation: The Case of Maasai Land Appropriation in Kajiado and Narok Counties in Kenya. A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of Clemson University In Partial Fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in International Family and Community Studies All Dissertations. 2320. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations/2320.
Lahoz-Monfort, J.J. and Magrath, M.J.L. (2021). A comprehensive overview of technologies for species and habitat monitoring and conservation. BioScience 71(10): 1038–1062. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab073.
López-Bao, J.V.; Chapron, G. and Treves, A. (2017). The Achilles heel of participatory conservation. Biological Conservation 212, Part A:139–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.06.007.
Massarella, K.; Krauss, J.E.; Kiwango, W. and Fletcher, R. (2022). Exploring Convivial Conservation in Theory and Practice: Possibilities and Challenges for a Transformative Approach to Biodiversity Conservation. Conservation and Society 20(2): 59–68. DOI:10.4103/cs.cs_53_22.
Maynard, L.; Jacobson, S.K. and Kamanga, J. (2020). Stakeholder collaboration: evaluating community-based conservancies in Kenya. Oryx 54(5): 723–730. doi:10.1017/S0030605318000789.
McCallen, E.; Knott, J.; Nunez-Mir, G.; Taylor, B.; Jo, I. and Fei, S. (2019). Trends in ecology: shifts in ecological research themes over the past four decades. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 17(2): 109–116. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26623753.
McKim, C. (2023). Meaningful Member-Checking: A Structured Approach to Member-Checking. American Journal of Qualitative Research 7(2), 41–52. doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/12973.
McRae, M. (1998) Survival Test for Kenya's Wildlife. Science 280(5363): 510. DOI: 10.1126/science.280.5363.510.
Measham, T.G. and Lumbasi, J. (2013). Success factors for Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM): lessons from Kenya and Australia. Environmental Management 52(3): 649–659. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0114-9.
Meguro, T. and Inoue, M. (2011). Conservation goals betrayed by the uses of wildlife benefits in community-based conservation: the case of Kimana sanctuary in southern Kenya. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 16(1): 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2011.531516.
Milupi, M.; Omers, S. and Erguson, F. (2017). A review of community-based natural resource management. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research 15(4):1121–1143 DOI:10.15666/aeer/1504_11211143.
Muhumuza, M. and Balkwill, K. (2013). Factors Affecting the Success of Conserving Biodiversity in National Parks: A Review of Case Studies from Africa. International Journal of Biodiversity 2013(1): 1–20, Article ID 798101. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/798101
Munaw, H.Z. (2023). Factors Influencing the Attitudes of Local Community towards Protected Areas, Case Study on Ambatara Protected Area Forest Conservation, Northwest Ethiopia. East African Journal of Forestry and Agroforestry 6(1): 238–253. https://doi.org/10.37284/eajfa.6.1.1372.
Muradian, R.; Corbera, E.; Pascual, U.; Kosoy, N. and May, P.H. (2010). Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 69(6): 1202–1208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.006.
Mwangi, F.; Zhang, Q. and Wang, H. (2022). Development challenges and management strategies on the Kenyan National Park System: A case of Nairobi National Park. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 10(1): 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2022.02.003.
Nelson, F. and Agrawal, A. (2008). Patronage or Participation? Community-based Natural Resource Management Reform in Sub-Saharan Africa. Development and Change 39(4): 557–585. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2008.00496.x.
Nelson, F.; Muyamwa-Mupeta, P.; Muyengwa, S.; Sulle, E and Kaelo, D. (2021). Progress or regression? Institutional evolutions of community‐based conservation in eastern and southern Africa. Conservation Science and Practice 3(1), e302. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.302.
Newing, H.; Brittain, S.; Buchadas, A.; del Giorgio, O.; Grasham, C.F.; Ferritto, R.; Marquez, J.R.G.; Khanyari, M. et al. (2024).‘Participatory’ conservation research involving indigenous peoples and local communities: Fourteen principles for good practice. Biological Conservation 296: 110708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2024.110708.
Newmark, W.D. and Hough, J.L (2000). Conserving wildlife in Africa: integrated conservation and development projects and beyond. BioScience 50(7) 585–592. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0585:CWIAIC]2.0.CO;2.
Nunez-Mir, G.C.; Iannone, B.V.; Pijanowski, B.C.; Kong, N. and Fei, S. (2016). Automated content analysis: Addressing the big literature challenge in ecology and evolution. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 7(11): 1262–1272. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12602.
Nzioki, N.; Kariuki, C. and Murigu, J. (2009). Implementing land reform policies in Eastern African countries: the case study of Kenya. Property Management 27(4): 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1108/02637470910980013.
Olsen, E.J. (2022). The early modern “creation” of property and its enduring influence. European Journal of Political Theory 21(1): 111–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885119882146.
Pas, A.; Watson, E.E. and Butt, B. (2023). Land tenure transformation: The case of community conservancies in northern Kenya. Political Geography 106: 102950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2023.102950.
Reed, M.S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation 141(10): 2417–2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014.
Reed, M.S. and Ceno J.S.D. (2015). Mediation and conservation conflicts: from top-down to bottom-up from Part III - Approaches to managing conflicts. pp 226–239 in S.M. Redpath, R.J. Gutiérrez, K.A. Wood, and J.C. Young (Eds) (2015) (Eds) Conflicts in Conservation: Navigating Towards Solutions. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084574.
Robinson, L.W.; Eba, B.; Flintan, F.; Frija, A.; Nganga, I.N.; Ontiri, E.M., Sghaier, M.; Abdu, N.H. et al. (2021). The Challenges of Community-Based Natural Resource Management in Pastoral Rangelands. Society & Natural Resources 34(9), 1213–1231. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2021.1946629.
Roka, K. (2019). Community-Based Natural Resources Management. pp 1–14 in: Leal Filho, W., Azul, A., Brandli, L., Özuyar, P., Wall, T. (eds) Life on Land. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Springer International Publishing, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71065-5_18-1.
Rutten, M. (2002). Parks beyond parks: genuine community-based wildlife eco-tourism or just another loss of land for Maasai pastoralists in Kenya? Issue paper no. 111. Drylands Programme – 27pp, Internation Institute for Environment and Development. https://www.iied.org/9181iied.
Smallhorn-West, P.F. and Pressey, R.L. (2022). Why does conservation minimize opportunity costs? Conservation Science and Practice 4(11), e12808. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12808.
SouleSoulé, M. (2013). The “New Conservation”. Conservation Biology 27(5) 895–897. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12147.
Speaker, T.; O’Donnell, S.; Wittemyer, G.; Bruyere, B.; Loucks, C.; Dancer, A.; Carter, M.; Fegrauset al. (2022). A global community-sourced assessment of the state of conservation technology. Conservation Biology 36(3): e13871.https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13871.
Urbano, F.; Viterbi, R.; Pedrotti, L.; Vettorazzo, E.; Movalli, C. and Corlatti, L. (2024). Enhancing biodiversity conservation and monitoring in protected areas through efficient data management. Environ Monitoring Assessment 196(8): 733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-024-12886-7.
Urzedo, D.; Westerlaken, M. and Gabrys, J. (2022). Digitalizing forest landscape restoration: a social and political analysis of emerging technological practices. Environmental Politics 32(3), 485–510. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2022.2091417.
Vogler, D.; Macey S. and Sigouin A. (2017). Stakeholder analysis in environmental and conservation planning. Lessons in conservation 7(7):5–16.
Watson, A. (1999). Conservation of Biodiverse Resource Areas (COBRA) Project: Kenya (1992–1998) Summary Report. Development Alternatives, Inc. Bethesda, MD. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pdabr137.pdf retrieved 17 February 2024.
Western, D.; Tyrrell, P., Brehony, P., Russell, S., Western, G. and Kamanga, J. (2020). ‘Conservation from the inside-out: Winning space and a place for wildlife in working landscapes’. People and Nature 2(2): 279–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10077.
Western, D.; Waithaka, J. and Kamanga, J. (2015). Finding Space for Wildlife beyond National Parks and Reducing Conflict through Community-based Conservation: the Kenya Experience. PARKS 21: 51–62. 10.2305/IUCN.CH.2014.PARKS-21-1DW.en.
Wich, S.A. and Piel, A.K. (2021) (eds) Conservation Technology online edn, Oxford Academic, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198850243.001.0001 accessed 19 July 2024.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Advancing community-based conservation in eastern Africa and the determinants of progress

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

MATERIALS AND METHODS

RESULTS

Gains and drawbacks in the journey to the current state of the art

Overlapping or competing claims to legitimacy

Institutional bottlenecks and imbalances of power and influence

Poor service delivery or uptake of responsibility

Property ownership and land productivity concerns

The fairness dilemma

Transitional inertia

The multifaceted nature and causes of internal conflicts

Plausible pathways to the future

DISCUSSION

CONCLUSION

Declarations

Author Contribution

Acknowledgement

Data Availability

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1