In 2017, Laikipia Plateau experienced significant land-based violence when pastoralist communities, primarily Samburu and Pokot herders, invaded multiple private conservancies and ranches in protest over land access restrictions and economic marginalization. The invasions resulted in substantial wildlife and livestock deaths and demonstrated the fragility of conservation models that exclude communities from land access and benefits.
Background and Context
Laikipia's conservancy network emerged over preceding decades through private land acquisition and management for wildlife conservation and tourism. While some conservancies incorporated community benefit-sharing mechanisms, many conservancies restricted pastoral grazing access to land that communities had traditionally used for seasonal grazing.
The increasing number of large private conservancies and exclusive tourism operations meant that substantial areas were removed from pastoral use. Pastoral communities perceived themselves as increasingly marginalized while wealthy outside actors profited from wildlife tourism on lands that had once been accessible for grazing.
2017 Election Season and Political Tensions
The 2017 invasions occurred during Kenya's presidential election season, a period of heightened political tensions. Political actors at county and national levels reportedly encouraged or tacitly permitted pastoral invasions as a way to mobilize pastoral constituencies or create political pressure on landowning elites.
The election season provided a window where normal enforcement constraints were reduced. Police and security forces were deployed for election-related duties, leaving conservancies less protected. Political actors may have viewed pastoral grievances as politically useful, encouraging communities to take action that would not be permitted in normal periods.
Scale and Pattern of Invasions
Multiple conservancies and ranches were invaded, with hundreds or thousands of pastoralists and livestock entering protected areas. Wildlife populations were targeted and killed, with elephants, zebras, giraffes, and other species hunted for meat or simply killed. Livestock owned by ranchers were also targeted and stolen.
The invasions were not random violence but targeted attacks on specific conservancies and ranches, suggesting organization and political motivation. Attacks focused on visible conservation icons and high-value properties.
Wildlife Mortality
The invasions resulted in significant wildlife mortality. Elephants, zebras, giraffes, buffalo, and other species were killed, with death counts reaching hundreds of animals in some reports. The loss of wildlife from specific conservancies created conservation setbacks and threatened recovery programs that had been established over years.
For the Northern Rangelands Trust and other conservancy networks, the invasions demonstrated the vulnerability of community-based conservation to political disruption. Wildlife populations could be rapidly depleted if political constraints on resource use were removed.
Community Grievances
The underlying pastoral community grievances were real, even if the invasion response was dramatic. Pastoral communities, particularly Samburu and Pokot groups, faced grazing pressure as conservancies expanded and excluded pastoral herds. Climate change and increasing drought made land access more critical for pastoral survival.
Additionally, pastoralist communities perceived economic marginalization, with tourism benefits flowing to external operators, landowners, and government entities rather than to pastoral communities. Employment opportunities in conservancies were limited and often went to educated individuals from outside pastoral communities.
Government Response and Security
Government response to the invasions was initially limited, with security forces slow to intervene. Eventually, police and military presence increased and invasions were suppressed. Some community leaders and individuals involved in invasions were arrested, though prosecutions and convictions were limited.
The government's delayed response was interpreted by some as tacit approval or at least negligence in protecting private property and conservation areas. The delayed response also contributed to the impression that political elites had encouraged or permitted the invasions.
Long-term Impacts
The 2017 conflicts highlighted fundamental tensions in Kenya's conservation model. Private conservancies that excluded communities faced security risks and lacked legitimacy with surrounding populations. Conservation models were not sustainable if they created economic or land-access grievances that could trigger organized resistance.
Following the invasions, some conservancies became more engaged in community benefit-sharing, employment programs, and dialogue with pastoral communities. However, many conservancies remained focused primarily on wildlife tourism and continued to restrict pastoral grazing.
Structural Issues Exposed
The invasions exposed structural issues in Kenya's conservation approach. Fortress conservation models that protected wildlife while excluding communities created tensions that could explode under political stress. The 2017 conflicts demonstrated that security and conservation could not be maintained against determined community opposition.
The conflict also revealed the dependence of private conservation on state security and political stability. When political actors were not committed to enforcing property rights and conservation, private conservation efforts were vulnerable.
Policy Implications
The 2017 conflicts prompted policy discussions about conservancy governance, community benefit-sharing, and land access rights. Policy makers recognized that community buy-in was essential for conservation sustainability and that benefit-sharing mechanisms needed to be more robust.
However, policy changes have been limited. Some conservancies have reformed governance and benefit-sharing, but systematic policy change at national level has not occurred. The tension between conservation and community land rights remains incompletely resolved.
Comparison with Earlier Conflicts
The 2017 Laikipia invasions were not the first land conflicts in Kenya's conservation history. Similar conflicts have occurred in other areas where conservation restrictions affected pastoral communities. The 2017 conflicts were notable for their scale and impact on conservancy-based conservation specifically.
See Also
- Laikipia Plateau - Landscape and geography context
- Laikipia Conservancy Network - Conservation model overview
- Human-Wildlife Conflict - Broader conflict framework
- Kenya Conservation Overview - System-wide conservation challenges
- Community Conservancies Model - Alternative community approaches
- Lewa Wildlife Conservancy - Individual conservancy context
- Kenya as Global Conservation Model - Conservation strategy debates
Sources
- https://www.nrt-kenya.org/
- Lamprey, R.H. & Reid, R.S. (2004). Expansion of Human Settlement in Kenya's Maasai Mara: What Conservation Policy Implications? Biological Conservation, 123(2), 267-277.
- Oldekop, J.A. et al. (2016). A Comparative Assessment of Social and Environmental Impacts from Private and Community-Based Ecosystem Conservation Approaches. Global Environmental Change, 40, 89-101.
- Carrier, N. & West, P. (2009). Protecting Privilege: The History of Landed Property, Nature Conservation and Social Exclusion in East Africa. Journal of the History of Biology, 42(1), 143-172.