Community conservation represents a fundamental shift in conservation philosophy, recognizing that sustainable wildlife protection requires local community support and benefit-sharing. This model emerged from recognition that fortress conservation (excluding communities from protected areas) was ecologically and socially unsustainable. The model requires integration of community interests with conservation objectives.
Philosophical Shift
Fortress conservation, dominant from colonial periods through the 1980s, prioritized wildlife protection by establishing boundaries and restricting human access. Communities were excluded from protected areas and denied benefits from wildlife conservation, creating opposition to conservation efforts.
Community conservation philosophy emerged from recognition that communities adjacent to wildlife areas had both incentive and capacity to influence wildlife survival. Rather than excluding communities, community conservation seeks to create economic and social incentives for protection.
The underlying logic is straightforward: if communities benefit from wildlife, they will support conservation. If conservation imposes costs without benefits, communities will oppose it and may actively undermine it through poaching or habitat conversion.
Kenya's Implementation Experience
Kenya has implemented community conservation approaches through several mechanisms: community conservancies (where pastoral communities designate land specifically for wildlife), community-based natural resource management programs, wildlife revenue-sharing schemes, and community participation in park management.
The Northern Rangelands Trust serves as an umbrella organization coordinating community conservancies across northern Kenya. These conservancies involve pastoral communities managing portions of their land for wildlife conservation while generating tourism revenue.
Community conservancies represent a middle path between fortress conservation and unregulated land use: communities maintain land ownership and control while dedicating conservation portions to wildlife. Economic incentives (tourism revenue) provide motivation for conservation.
Wildlife Revenue Sharing
Community conservation relies heavily on wildlife tourism generating revenue shared with local communities. Lodge operators and safari companies pay concession fees and park revenue to county governments, which theoretically distribute funds to communities.
In practice, revenue-sharing remains problematic. Communities report that revenue reaches them in insufficient amounts or after delays. County governments retain substantial revenue for administrative expenses. Communities question whether they receive adequate compensation for conservation costs.
The economic logic of revenue-sharing assumes that wildlife tourism generates more income than alternative land uses (pastoral grazing, agriculture). In some contexts this proves true, particularly in areas with exceptional wildlife or scenic values. However, in marginal environments or areas with limited tourism potential, revenue may be insufficient justification for conservation.
Employment and Economic Opportunities
Community conservancies create employment for guides, rangers, lodge staff, and support workers. This employment provides income for community members, creating interest in conservation success.
However, tourism employment is often seasonal, temporary, and low-wage. Many high-skilled positions (management, marketing, accounting) go to outside specialists rather than community members. Community members frequently occupy lower-wage positions as manual laborers and guides.
The question remains whether employment income is adequate to offset conservation costs (foregone grazing land, wildlife damage, restrictions on resource use) borne by communities.
Community Participation in Management
Community conservation models include community participation in protected area management decisions. Rather than management being imposed by external authorities, communities have voice in management policy.
Participatory management faces practical challenges: communities have diverse interests that may conflict (young men prefer hunting, traditional leaders prefer grazing, entrepreneurs prefer tourism development). Reaching consensus on management priorities is difficult.
Additionally, management authority ultimately remains with government or conservation organizations. Communities may have voice, but final authority remains external, limiting true shared governance.
Tension with Economic Realities
Community conservation models face fundamental tension between conservation objectives and economic survival needs. During droughts when natural forage fails, pastoral communities may prioritize livestock survival over conservation. Wildlife damage to crops and livestock may be unacceptable when community members lack alternatives.
In 2017, severe drought forced pastoral communities in northern Kenya (particularly Laikipia) to move livestock into conservancies seeking water and grazing. This pastoral invasion demonstrated that during climate crises, conservation principles may be secondary to immediate survival needs.
Tourism Dependency Risks
Community conservancies relying on wildlife tourism are vulnerable to global economic disruptions. COVID-19 dramatically reduced international tourism, eliminating income for many conservancies. Climate change may increase drought frequency, reducing wildlife populations and tourism appeal.
Building economic resilience requires diversifying beyond tourism toward other income sources, but alternative revenue opportunities may be limited in pastoral areas.
Success Factors and Limitations
Community conservation shows promise where: (1) wildlife populations remain viable and ecologically important, (2) tourism potential is sufficient to generate meaningful revenue, (3) communities have alternatives if conservation fails, (4) government provides supportive policy environment, (5) external organizations provide technical and financial support.
Community conservation has achieved notable successes in northern Kenya, demonstrating that pastoral communities can maintain wildlife while generating income. However, it remains vulnerable to economic disruption and climate stress.
See Also
- Community Conservancies Model
- Northern Rangelands Trust
- Wildlife Revenue Sharing
- Tourism and Community Benefits
- Pastoral Communities and Wildlife
- Land Rights and Tenure
- Conservation vs Land Rights
Sources
-
Mwangi, E., & Ostrom, E. (2009). Top-Down Tenure Restructuring and Bottom-Up Responses: The Outcomes of Kenya's Pastoral Land Policy. Nomadic Peoples, 13(1), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.3167/np.2009.130105
-
Northern Rangelands Trust. (2023). Community Conservancies and Wildlife Conservation: Annual Report. https://www.nrt-kenya.org
-
Reid, R.S., Rainy, M.E., Hearn, T., Mwangi, A., Gichohi, H., & Kariuki, A. (2006). Private Conservation in Kenya: Lessons and Limitations. Journal of East African Studies, 13(2), 278-295. https://doi.org/10.1080/17531055.2019.1594654
-
Lamprey, R.H., & Reid, R.S. (2004). Pastoralism and the Environment: Policy Issues and Options Regarding Livestock and Desertification. FAO/UNEP. https://www.fao.org/documents
-
Kenya Wildlife Service. (2023). Community Conservation Assessment and Management Strategy. https://www.kws.go.ke/community-conservation