Il Ngwesib MSc Dissertation - Kilimanyika · 2013-05-30 · Title: Il Ngwesib MSc Dissertation Author: Paul Harrison Created Date: 12/8/2003 9:55:45 AM

Good Pasture and Paying Guests:

Prospects for Symbiosis of Pastoralism and Wildlife

Tourism at Il Ngwesi II Group Ranch, Kenya

Paul Harrison

This dissertation is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MSc. Tourism Environment and Development of the School of Oriental and African Studies (University of London). September 2001

Supervisor: Dr. Tanya Bowyer-Bower Declaration: I undertake that all material presented for examination is my own work and has not been written for me, in whole or in part, by any other person(s). I also undertake that any quotation or paraphrase from the published or unpublished work of another person has been

duly acknowledged in the work which I present for examination. Word Count: c.10,950

Abstract Paul Harrison MSc. Tourism, Environment & Development, SOAS

Abstract The focus of this paper is on the pastoral Maasai community of Il Ngwesi II Group Ranch, Laikipia

District, Kenya. Since 1996 this community has began to engage in and encourage wildlife tourism

for the purposes of improving their social development, while maintaining pastoral livelihoods.

The aim of this research is to evaluate the perceived usefulness of wildlife tourism as a way of

diversifying livelihoods. It will analyse the different views within the community towards

pastoralism and tourism in terms of costs, benefits, areas of conflict and cohesion, related issues and

possible implications.

The writer spent 4 ½ weeks carrying out baseline data over 15 locations, covering 350 respondents

(45% women and 55% men), through 28 discussion groups and 10 interviews, in and around Il

Ngwesi, incorporating 4 external control areas.

Key findings indicate that the Il Ngwesi community are gradually accepting global economic change,

and environmental limitations by diversifying their livelihoods. The utilisation of wildlife through a

community-based wildlife tourism enterprise is able to co-exist alongside the utilisation of livestock

typical to pastoral livelihoods. Livestock and as a consequence of tourism, now wildlife, are both

considered forms of natural capital for utilisation by the Il Ngwesi community. A diversification of

livelihoods and capital of this kind provides greater opportunities for development on different levels,

and may reduce some, but certainly not all, of the risks present in the sole dependence on pastoralism.

Key benefits from tourism are largely channelled into improved social infrastructure and security and

are therefore apparent on a broader community level.

However, the introduction of wildlife tourism into a pastoral area is not simply a panacea and does

have limitations, largely linked to the small-scale of tourism, its youth in this area, ever-present risks

and socio-political issues that are beyond its scope. For most individuals, tourism cannot offer an

alternative income. The majority of community members will have to remain largely dependent on

pastoralism. Plans for land purchases outside of the Group Ranch using tourism profits may mean

increased opportunities, in the long run, for people to migrate and diversify their livelihood base

through small business and agriculture. Migration of a proportion of Group Ranch members will

mean the conservancy area set aside for wildlife and tourism can be extended and new tourist facilities

can be built.

Copyright © Paul Harrison 2001. All rights reserved.

2

Contents Paul Harrison MSc. Tourism, Environment & Development, SOAS

Contents

Good Pasture and Paying Guests: Prospects for Symbiosis of Pastoralism and Wildlife Tourism at Il Ngwesi II Group Ranch, Kenya................................................................................................... 1

1. Abstract ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 2. Contents..................................................................................................................................................... 3 3. Tables and Figures.................................................................................................................................... 4 4. Abbreviations and Acronyms .................................................................................................................. 5 5. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 6

5.1 Aim.................................................................................................................................................................................................6 5.2 Hypothesis......................................................................................................................................................................................6 5.3 Focus ..............................................................................................................................................................................................6 5.4 Geographical and Ecological Context ...........................................................................................................................................7 5.5 Social and Historical Context ........................................................................................................................................................9 5.6 Wildlife and Tourism in Laikipia ..................................................................................................................................................9 5.7 Structure of the Research .............................................................................................................................................................12

6. Literature Review ................................................................................................................................... 13 6.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................13 6.2 Environment with Development? ................................................................................................................................................13 6.3 Pastoralism: Ecological and Socio-Economic Debates...............................................................................................................15 6.4 ‘Alternative’ Tourism ..................................................................................................................................................................17 6.5 Tourism in Kenya.........................................................................................................................................................................19 6.6 Previous Research on Il Ngwesi II Group Ranch........................................................................................................................19

7. ethodology............................................................................................................................................ 21 M7.1 Background ..................................................................................................................................................................................21 7.2 Approach ......................................................................................................................................................................................21 7.3 Data Collection ............................................................................................................................................................................23 7.4 Further Limitations ......................................................................................................................................................................27

8. Results and Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 29 8.1 Pastoralism: Central to Livelihoods.............................................................................................................................................29 8.2 Grazing Areas: Risk Management by Rotation...........................................................................................................................32 8.3 Grazing: Restrictions of Tourism and Private Ranches ..............................................................................................................34 8.4 Wild Animals: Nuisance or Natural Capital? ..............................................................................................................................36 8.5 Tourism: Opportunities and Limitations .....................................................................................................................................39 8.6 LWC and Borana Partnerships ....................................................................................................................................................40

9. Implications............................................................................................................................................. 42 9.1 Changing Attitudes: Diversification of Livelihoods ...................................................................................................................42 9.2 Balancing Capital: Wildlife Tourism and Pastoralism................................................................................................................42 9.3 Wider Political Issues and Implications ......................................................................................................................................44 9.4 Implications of the Increase of Tourism......................................................................................................................................45

10. Conclusions.......................................................................................................................................... 48 11. Bibliography........................................................................................................................................ 50

11.1 Cited References ..........................................................................................................................................................................50 11.2 Additional Reading ......................................................................................................................................................................54

12. Appendix 1: RRA Framework Questions......................................................................................... 55 13. Appendix 2: Timetable of Field Research......................................................................................... 57 14. Appendix 3: Participants.................................................................................................................... 58 15. Appendix 4: Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... 65


3

Tables and Figures Paul Harrison MSc. Tourism, Environment & Development, SOAS

Tables and Figures

List of Tables Page

No.

1 Definitions of Community 15

2 Total Discussion Groups by Location, with Membership Information 25

3 Main locations of GR Members not in private settlement areas 26

4 Commonly Cited Livestock Diseases 33

5 Dry Season Grazing Patterns 34

6 Restricted Areas for Pastoralism 37

List of Figures Page

No.

1 Men at Sanga 1

2 Elephants in Lewa Wildlife Conservancy 1

3 View of Il Ngwesi Lodge & Surroundings 1

4 Maasai Children & Donkey, Ngare Sergoi 1

5 Ol Doinyo Dorobo, Il Ngwesi II Group Ranch 7

6 Lewa Wildlife: Zebra and Rhino 10

7 Laikipia Wildlife Forum 10

8 Cultural Boma 12

9 Alternative Tourism: Numerous and Overlapping Approaches 17

10 RRA Discussions, Women and Men 22

11 Location of Study Areas 26

12 Distribution of Participants by Region (%) 27

13 Ngare Sergoi River, Loburua, July 2001 31

14 Conservancy in the Background, with Sanga in the Foreground 35

15 Goats Enter Enclosure Avoiding Predation, Ntalaban 37

16 Sanga Grazing Pasture 46


4

Abbreviations and Acronyms Paul Harrison MSc. Tourism, Environment & Development, SOAS

Abbreviations and Acronyms AWF African Wildlife Foundation

CAMPFIRE Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (Zimbabwe)

CBNRM Community Based Natural Resource Management

CBT Community Based Tourism

COBRA Conservation of Biodiversity Resource Areas (KWS/USAID)

CRT Centre for Responsible Tourism (UK)

DFID Department for International Development (UK)

EU European Union

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation

GR Group Ranch

GRMC Group Ranch Management Committee (Il Ngwesi)

GTZ German Agency for Technical Cooperation

ICTZ Intertropical Convergence Zone

IIED International Institute for Environment and Development (UK)

IUCN World Conservation Union (International Union for the Conservation of Nature)

KSh. Kenya Shilling (National Currency)1

KWS Kenya Wildlife Service

LWC Lewa Wildlife Conservancy

LWF Laikipia Wildlife Forum

MoD Ministry of Defence, UK Government

NGO Non-governmental Organisation

NRMC Natural Resource Management Committee (Il Ngwesi)

ODI Overseas Development Institute (UK)

PPT Pro-poor Tourism

PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal

RRA Rapid Rural Appraisal

SSI Semi-Structured Interview

UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

UNCHE United Nations Conference on the Human Environment

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

USAID United States Agency for International Development

WCED World Commission on Environment and Development

WCS World Conservation Strategy (IUCN)

WTO World Tourism Organisation

1 At the time of research, there were approximately 110 KSh. To the UK Pound.


5

Introduction Paul Harrison MSc. Tourism, Environment & Development, SOAS

Introduction

1 Aim There exists a received wisdom among many conservationists that wildlife conservation and animal

husbandry are opposing forms of land use, and require separate range management. This research

attempts to shed further light on a growing consensus in environment and development thinking that

such wisdom is neither practical nor appropriate, with the focus of this paper on the pastoral Maasai

community of Il Ngwesi II Group Ranch, Laikipia, Kenya. Since 1996 this community has began to

engage in and encourage wildlife tourism for the purposes of improving their social development,

while maintaining pastoral livelihoods.

The aim of this research is to evaluate the perceived usefulness of wildlife tourism as a way of

diversifying livelihoods. It will analyse the different views within the community towards

pastoralism and tourism in terms of costs, benefits, areas of conflict and cohesion, related issues and

possible implications.

2 Hypothesis The utilisation of wildlife through a community-based wildlife tourism enterprise can co-exist on

community land alongside the utilisation of livestock typical to pastoral livelihoods. A diversification

of livelihoods of this kind provides greater opportunities for development in the context of the

community of Il Ngwesi. However, the introduction of tourism into a pastoral area is not simply a

panacea and does have limitations.

3 Focus Due to its limited size, this paper is of restricted scope. The focus is socio-economic, based on

qualitative research on community perceptions. The focus is not exclusively economic, nor

commercial, nor is it written with any agenda in mind other than assessing the livelihood priorities of

the participants involved. Further, the research does not go into detail regarding ecological aspects of

pastoralism or tourism. Nor does it take an ecological approach in analysing its thesis. Quantitative

data such as employment records, financial income and outgoings, occupancy and profitability figures

is barely used, although these are available and would add value to further research of this kind on a

larger and more inclusive scale.

The reason for this approach is to be able to gather information that reflects the varying viewpoints of

the community in order to avoiding the likelihood of reporting on data that does not necessarily Copyright © Paul Harrison 2001. All rights reserved.

6


represent the views of the community as might occur in a solely ecological or economic study, or

research by an organisation with a prior agenda such as wildlife conservation. This approach has

practical implications on the development of Il Ngwesi and its surroundings as the community is

most likely to effect and be effected by change in the area.

4 Geographical and Ecological Context A map of Il Ngwesi II Group Ranch and its surroundings is shown in the Methodology.

4.1 Location Il Ngwesi II Group Ranch (GR) (known as Il Ngwesi) lies between 0º 16’ to 0º 25’ North and 37º 17’

to 37º 26’ East. It is located in Mukogodo Division, Laikipia District, Rift Valley Province of Kenya,

approximately 60 km north-east of Nanyuki and 30 km west of Isiolo. It borders other communally

owned Group Ranches; Lekurruki GR to the north, and Il Ngwesi I GR (known as Makurian) to the

west. The privately owned Borana Ranch and Lewa Wildlife Conservancy (LWC) border the south-

west and south-east respectively, although Borana shares a larger border area.

The western and southern borders of the GR lie on top of an escarpment which marks the north-

eastern outskirts of the Kenyan Highlands (Von Holdt 1999, c.f. Botha 1999), the majority, including

the lodge and conservancy area, lies on medium altitude savanna plains.

Figure 5: Ol Doinyo Dorobo, Il Ngwesi II Group Ranch

4.2 Land Tenure and Management The legal framework for the creation of Il Ngwesi II GR came into being with the Group

Representatives Land Act of 1968. The land is communal tenure, owned and managed by GR


7


members. Management is directed by the Group Ranch Management Committee (GRMC), a board of

just under 20 elder men. There are 448 registered members although this number is under review and

is likely to be updated to approximately 600 in the near future. There is usually one (male) member

per Manyatta2. The total population eligible for membership benefits is at least 6,000.3

4.3 Drainage There are two perennial rivers in Il Ngwesi, the Ngare Ndare and the Ngare Sergoi4.

4.4 Climate Rainfall is seasonal and highly variable in the region, with an approximate mean annual rainfall of

between 300 to 900mm (Gakahu et al, 1996:275). The exact rainfall data for Il Ngwesi GR is

unknown. Rainfall is bimodal, produced by the movements of the Intertropical Convergence Zone

(ICTZ). The ICTZ produces two wet and two dry seasons near the equator, with rainfall seasons

occurring from March to April and from October to December when the ICTZ moves overhead (ibid.:

273-4). The climate is semi-arid throughout (Atsedu et al, 1996: 246). The majority of the area is

prone to drought.

4.5 Flora The highlands to the west are largely occupied by the upland-dry forests of the Mukogodo Forest

Reserve and the grassland plains of Anadanguru (Sikoyo et al, 1999). The medium altitudes of the

plains are characterised by wooded grassland savanna (Atsedu et al, 1996: 247), a mixture of grasses,

dense thorn-shrub thickets, particularly Commiphora, and a variety of Acacia and other tree species

(Gakahu et al, 1996:276).

4.6 Fauna The GR supports a range of large vertebrate species, both migratory and permanently resident. These

include gerenuk (Litocranius walleri), reticulated giraffe (Giraffa camelopardis), reedbuck (Redunca

fulvorufula), bushpig (Potamochoerus porchus), lion, (Panthera leo), leopard (Panthera pardus),

spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta), olive baboon (Papio cynocephalus) and vervet monkey

(Ceropithecus aethiops). Elephants (Loxodonta africana) are seasonal visitors, and their numbers

vary temporally and spatially.

2 Household. A group of several huts of the same family, led by one man. 3 Discussion Group, (24/06/01). 4 Ngare means river in Maa, the Maasai language. These rivers pass through Kisima Farm, the Ngare Ndare Forest and LWC, before they drop altitude upon reaching Il Ngwesi.


8


5 Social and Historical Context

5.1 The Mukogodo Maasai The ethnological debate over what constitutes a Maasai is not one for consideration within the scope

of this thesis. Nevertheless, there are a number of historical and sociological aspects to be raised

relevant to this study. Berger (1996) outlines controversial treaties which took place between the

British and Olanana, the Maasai Loibon in 1904 and 1911 which effectively displaced the Maasai

from many of their northern territories. Consequently, the Maasai of Laikipia were separated from the

majority of the Maasai who live further south in southern Kenya and northern Tanzania.

Herren (1987) discusses the incorporation of several different ethnic groups within the region of

Mukogodo Division, Laikipia District, under the umbrella term ‘Mukogodo Maasai’, highlighting the

difficulty in defining ethnicity over a long history of overlapping boundaries. From the perspective of

the participants of this research (and of Herren) the people of Il Ngwesi are perhaps best considered as

Mukogodo Maasai than of other ethnic groups.

Furthermore, the debate raised by both Herren and Spear et al (1993) of whether or not being a

Maasai is defined as being a pastoralist, or whether being a Maasai is defined by those speaking the

Nilotic language ‘Maa,’ is also of interest to the issues of changing livelihoods. The degree to which

the people of this research identify themselves as pastoralists culturally will have implications for

their adaptability to alternative livelihoods, that is, agriculture and tourism.

6 Wildlife and Tourism in Laikipia

6.1 Laikipia Ranches Laikipia District is a plateau in central Kenya, approximately 2 million acres (LWF, 2000). It is

largely a combination of private commercial cattle ranches and group ranches, with one private

wildlife conservancy (LWC) and a number of forest reserves. Virtually all the private ranches, and a

growing number of group ranches, run combined wildlife and livestock operations (Bourn & Blench,

1999:46). Wildlife tourism enterprises are being set up throughout Laikipia; there are currently 29

tourist properties in the district. (LWF, 2001)

Bordering Il Ngwesi, Borana Ranch and LWC are examples of private ranches that have turned to

wildlife tourism. While Borana maintains a viable herd of cattle alongside an area for wildlife and

tourism, LWC is now almost entirely focussed on wildlife and tourism. It is a registered private

wildlife conservancy and provides a sanctuary to both black (Diceros bicornis) and white

(Ceratotherium simum) rhinoceros as well as to Grevy’s zebra (Equus grevyi).


9


Figure 6: Lewa Wildlife: Zebra and Rhino

6.2 The Laikipia Wildlife Forum The Laikipia Wildlife Forum (LWF) was set up in 1991 as a body to conserve Laikipia’s wildlife and

improve the livelihoods of its people through conflict management initiatives. It relies on donor

funding and membership fees. Education, training and support programmes are key objectives. The

ultimate aim is that the entire Laikipia region becomes a combined conservancy, with fluid borders

for wildlife migration. (LWF, March 2001) Its board is currently dominated by white ranchers but

the balance is steadily shifting to incorporate more Maasai representatives. Laikipia is one of the few

districts in Kenya where wildlife numbers have increased, not fallen (Bourne & Blench, 1999:14).

Figure 7: Laikipia Wildlife Forum

6.3 Kenya Wildlife Service KWS was formed as a parastatal in 1991, as previously wildlife had been under the contradictory

management of a number of government departments (Weaver, 1998). KWS acts as the guardian of

Kenya’s wildlife, ensuring its conservation, and its use as a form of economic development. It is


10


expected to protect people and property from injury by wildlife which in theory involves

compensation, but in practice has been limited by inadequacy of allocated funds and dishonesty in

claims submission (Parkipuny, 1991:13). KWS is working with organisations like the LWF and the Il

Ngwesi GR Natural Resources Management Committee (NRMC) in attempting to solve the issue of

compensation, aiming to gather funds at a district and Group Ranch level. The issue is of

considerable importance in this region, as is illustrated in the research findings.5

6.4 Background to Tourism at Il Ngwesi Tourism has a young history at Il Ngwesi, particularly with the Maasai. The community have only

recently come to appreciate the potential benefits of wildlife tourism, prior to that they say they did

not really understand what it meant.6 A relationship with a private company has recently ended,

leaving tourism activities at Il Ngwesi to the community7.

6.5 Il Ngwesi Lodge In part an outcome of a KWS/USAID Conservation of Biodiversity Resource Areas (COBRA)

project, aimed at better community understanding of the benefits of wildlife, and with the

encouragement and support of LWC and Borana Ranch, Il Ngwesi began the process of engaging in

wildlife tourism. In 1996, the GRMC began to discuss setting aside much of the GR as a

conservancy. In January 1996, the lodge started being built, and the doors were opened on the 19th

December of that year.8

The lodge is self-catering, has 8 beds split into 4 bandas9, and usually charges US$32510 per night for

use of the whole lodge11. The board of directors of the Il Ngwesi Company Ltd. oversee the

management.12 It was constructed almost entirely out of local materials; fallen timber, thatch and

soils, and uses compost toilets and a solar energy supply. It is built on a small hill, with long views

5 KWS supplies information on wildlife and wildlife tourism for community development and educational awareness. It also assists with the security of the Il Ngwesi II GR. SSI Kisio, (06/06/01) 6 Some said they used to believe that a camera could suck the energy out of the animal in the photograph so that it died shortly afterwards. Discussion Group (19/07/01) 7 Opportunistic hunters and tourists used to visit the area but apparently without the permission of the community. In the early 1980s, a private tourist company, Camel Trek Safaris, initially used the GR without consent. When the elders begin to realise the potential benefits of tourism, they asked for rent. At this the owner sold the company. The second owner entered into an informal agreement with the GRMC, where the community benefited from entrance fees and some employment, with figures that increased steadily until 2000, when Camel Trek Safaris ended their interests at Il Ngwesi, due to decreased profits. 8 SSI Kinyaga (27/06/01) 9 Thatched huts, built using Maasai architectural techniques. There is also a kitchen, 2 lounging and dining areas and a swimming pool, 10 Il Ngwesi Company Ltd., occupation figures. 11 An analysis of the profitability of the lodge is given by Sikoyo et al (1999) 12 SSI Kipkorir (23/07/01)


11


over the savanna. The focus is on the luxury tourist market, the emphasis socially and

environmentally conscious.

6.6 Cultural Boma The Cultural Boma was formed in 1997 by a self-help group of GR members from Ntalaban and

Loburua, and is managed by these members as shareholders and the GRMC, separately to the lodge.

It is 4km from the lodge, and provides fee-paying tourists with a view of an especially made Maasai

boma13 and cultural performances14.

Figure 7: Cultural Boma

7 Structure of the Research The thesis is split into sections. The Abstract gives an overview of the research and findings. The

Literature Review introduces some of the key issues and theoretical arguments surrounding the

research topic found in existing literature, divided into separate research areas. The Methodology

illustrates the approach to the research; particular techniques that were chosen for the collection and

analysis of data and the limitations to the methods used. The Results and Analysis section focuses on

the qualitative data gathered, with specific analyses. The Implications section gives a more detailed

and broader analysis to ascertain the implications of the issues under study. Conclusions summarises

the research findings and offers some practical recommendations as well as highlighting key

limitations.

13 Maasai settlement: A number of huts, made of mud, sticks, thatch and cattle manure which surround an enclosure for goats made of branches. The settlement is in turn surrounded by tightly meshed thorny branches which serve to deter predators such as lions and leopards. The Cultural Boma is unlike other living areas in the GR, having been built especially for tourists. 14 An analysis of the profitability of the Cultural Boma is given by Sikoyo et al (1999).


12

Literature Review Paul Harrison MSc. Tourism, Environment & Development, SOAS

Literature Review

8 Introduction The Literature Review introduces some of the key issues and theoretical arguments surrounding the

research topic found in existing literature, divided into separate research areas. It is centred around the

issues of wildlife conservation, tourism and animal husbandry (pastoralism) through wider issues of

environment and development. It is intended as a contextual background to the research, and

therefore does not go into particular detail.

9 Environment with Development?

9.1 Environmentalism, Conservation and Sustainable Development Over the last four decades, there has been an increasing international interest in the use of the world’s

natural resources. In the view of many environmentalists, nature is increasingly regarded as under

considerable threat from mankind (Pepper, 1996, Nelissen et al, 1997).

Conservation15 thinking, which overlaps with environmentalism; is defined by moves to conserve or

preserve species and habitats, and since the early 1990s, biodiversity as a whole (Horta,2000:180). It

is not within the limited scope of this review to highlight the many arguments for and against

conservation. However, it is important to understand a gradual change in approach.

The environmental agenda has, particularly seen the late 1980s, began to realise the need for mankind

to be incorporated into the sustainable use of natural resources. Criticised for being in search for a

lost ‘Eden’, that have excluded and vilified human inhabitants (for example, Anderson & Grove,

1987), conservationists have begun to recognise people’s roles as users of their own natural resources.

Two fields, environment and development, have attempted to combine interests in the form of the

construct ‘Sustainable Development’. In promoting (and adapting) this approach, a number of

significant international conferences have taken place. (UNCHE 1972, WCS 1980, WCED 1987,

UNCED 1992 c.f. Adams,1990). Initially pro-environmental, the construct has notably become more

evenly balanced since the WCED, but there remains considerable ambiguity about what Sustainable

Development actually means in practical usage.

15 The Conservation agenda has a long history, its practical influence marked by events including the creation of National Parks and Game Reserves worldwide, the formation of the United Nations body UNESCO in the 1940s and the IUCN-initiated ‘Man and the Biosphere Programme in 1971 (Adams, 1990: 33).


13


9.2 Community Based Natural Resource Management In Africa, with many conservation initiatives steadily moving away from colonial-rooted concepts that

conservation cannot be practiced unless indigenous peoples are removed from natural resource areas,

comes the recognition that conservation cannot be guaranteed in the long term without the support of

local people (Cock & Koch, 1991; IIED, 1994).

There is a strong argument that wildlife conservation is integral to global biodiversity, and that its loss

can have as yet unknown consequences on ecological change. CBNRM treats conservation as

instrumental to community development- and vice versa.

Conservation practitioners have became aware that ‘problems faced by wildlife managers are more

sociological than biological’ (Kideghesho, 1999). Community Based Natural Resource Management

(CBNRM) seeks to give natural resources a meaningful use-value to rural communities who bear the

cost of wildlife and habitat conservation.

Firstly, community is defined as follows:

Table 1: Definitions of Community Definitions of Community

The IIED (1994) defines community in the following terms: ¯ As spatial (the groupings of people living in the same place). ¯ As socio-cultural (those people linked by ties of kinship, marriage, lineages, knowledge

and beliefs). ¯ As economic (major interest groups – this defines stakeholders)

Source: IIED (1994)

CBNRM is a recently-established approach, in which CAMPFIRE in Zimbabwe has led the field,

initiating projects on communal land which have led to the empowerment of local people in

management and the generation of income, often tourism related, that is redirected to community

committees (Bird, 1998). There are consistently cited problems with this approach. One problem is

that often stakeholders are not considered in the decision-making process, even in an established

CBNRM project. CAMPFIRE is criticised as being dominated by political elites, white land-owners

and safari operators (Metcalf, 1994; Patel, 1998:2, cited in Bourne & Blench, 1999:211) A second

common problem is insufficient compensation to communities evicted from conservation areas, for

example Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania (Brockington & Homewood, 1996, Kidegesho, 1999). A

third common problem is that most large-scale CBNRM projects are financially dependent on

bilateral donors, NGOs and corporations, considerably restricting the degree to which a community

can make managerial decisions. CAMPFIRE relies on support from USAID, Japan and many EU

countries (Bourn & Blench, 1999). The Selous Conservation Project and ‘MBOMIPA’ in Ruaha

National Park, Tanzania, are both heavily dependent on bilateral funding, by GTZ and DFID


14


respectively. Neither project has as yet been able to completely hand over natural resource control to

the communities involved (Nahongo, 1999), largely owing to delayed state legislation.

The degree of success of CBNRM programmes relies on a number of key factors, summarised here:

maintaining biological diversity and endangered species conservation; public sector support; private

tenure of land and wildlife resources; community consultation, participation and ultimately self-

management; that the benefits to involved local communities are greater than the cost of utilising

natural resources through less sustainable means; a long term potential of incoming revenue to avoid

reliance on donors and outsider tourist companies; capacity building; and the stability of community

institutions. (IIED,1994; Leader-Williams et al, 1996; Bourn & Blench, 1999)

10 Pastoralism: Ecological and Socio-Economic Debates

10.1 Pastoralism Livelihoods Pastoralism in East Africa goes back as far as 5000 years and has long adapted to the risk of living in

tropical rangelands. Pastoral life is now threatened by demographic pressures, environmental

variability and socio-economic transition (Atsedu et al, 1996; Leach & Mearns, 1996; Blench &

Marriage, 1999; Bourne & Blench 1999; Behnke & Scoones, 1993).

In modern Kenya pastoralism can be seen in the context of subsistence pastoralism, not market

pastoralism; i.e. pastoralism with a survival orientation, not profit-driven (Atsedu et al, 1996:255).

This is in part because there is no available export market due to the high levels of disease in both

cattle and wild ungulates, which combined with trade protection laws and surpluses, make it almost

impossible to export to the EU and other trading blocs (after Raikes, 1981).

Based on the notion of carrying capacity (below), received wisdom has regarded pastoralist activities

as the cause of land degradation and reduced wildlife populations, with the view that wildlife and

livestock should be kept apart (Boyd et al, 1999; Brockington & Homewood, 1996:91). However,

recent research has illustrated two important challenges. Firstly, that wildlife and livestock may co-

habit the same area without significant losses to production or population (for example, Atsedu et al,

1996:263; Brockington & Homewood, 1996:101; Bourne & Blench,1999). Secondly, that recent

drought and subsequent loss of cattle in Kenya mean that where a carrying capacity can be shown to

exist, most livestock numbers are not in sufficient numbers to reach it. (Atsedu et al, 1996:255)

10.2 Equilibrium and Non-Equilibrium There has been much debate over whether ecological systems function in equilibrium, disequilibrium

or non-equilibrium. Concepts of equilibrium have a long history and can be found in the works of

Malthus, Haeckel, Clements and Hardin (Baker, 2000:11; Behnke et al, 1993). Ideas of climax in

plant succession, biotic determinism, density-dependence and carrying capacity are based on a Copyright © Paul Harrison 2001. All rights reserved.

15


representation of ecosystems tending towards equilibria (Fairhead & Leach, 1996:280).

Disequilibrium thinking suggests equilibrium will not always occur because of abiotic influences

(Behnke et al, 1993), but still recognises equilibrium is possible on a certain scale. Since the 1970s,

based on notions of Chaos (Gleick, 1987) and the dominance of abiotic, density independent factors

such as climatic variability and external shocks, a non-equilibrium approach has arisen to challenge

received environmental wisdom. (See, for example Baker, 2000; Fairhead & Leach, 1996; Moore et

al, 1996; Leach & Mearns, 1996; Stott & Sullivan, 2000; De Angelis & Waterhouse,1987).

In dryland tropical East Africa, particularly in the area of research, definitions are not easily applied,

depending on seasonality, location and scale. On a larger scale, abiotic factors such as variable rainfall

are most influential, however, on a smaller scale, biotic influences can dominate, such as high

consumption of fodder by cattle. Ellis et al (1993:41) argue that both equilibrial and non-equilibrial

dynamics occur in real world ecological environments. This approach, also found in Wiens (1984)

and favoured by the writer, suggests that in range management, grazing systems are ever-subject to

the dominance of variable abiotic factors and external shocks, but that on a smaller scale, over-grazing

may lead to localised land degradation.

10.3 Carrying Capacity The concept of carrying capacity rests on equilibrium ideas of Clementsian plant succession and

(Behnke & Scoones, 1993:2), and notably Hardin (1968). Carrying capacity, in the context of

rangeland management, is defined as the livestock and/or wildlife population that can be sustained by

the resources of a certain area (Bartels et al, 1993:90). The concept is based on the presumption that

exceeding carrying capacity will lead to reduced production levels and land degradation.

However, the concept is confusing and hard to determine, as any ‘given’ carrying capacity will

change according to non-equilibrium factors such as climatic variability, and to types of land use,

such as livestock or wildlife management, or a combination (ibid.:89-91). Carrying capacities can be

shown to exist on a small scale but they are difficult to gauge and highly subject to change. Behnke &

Scoones (1993:5) argue that an economic carrying capacity, a maximum sustained yield, is easier to

gauge than an ecological carrying capacity. They present the notion of a ‘camera carrying capacity’

(ibid.:6), where, as has potential relevance to the research area, a manager will stock as many wildlife

as possible to attract tourism benefits, while accepting the costs of thinning vegetation cover.

10.4 Risk Management The fields of environment and development are increasingly being analysed in respect to risk

management. Adams (1995) defines risk as the probability of an adverse event occurring in time.

Risk can be seen as partly economic in terms of cost-benefit analyses (Bowers, 1997). The risk

approach is directly relevant to livelihood decisions in the context of range management. Given the


16


influences of seasonality, climatic variability, socio-political factors and the risk of disease,

pastoralists may minimize risk by diversifying through tourism. They may also minimize risk through

adaptability; strategies of rotational grazing, grazing reserves, restocking, herd splitting and livestock

diversity (Atsedu et al, 1996:251-55).

11 ‘Alternative’ Tourism Tourism is the world’s fastest growing economic sector (Bourne & Blench, 1999:53), and can be

divided into two approaches. ‘Alternative’ tourism has come about in resistance to the negative

effects, both ecologically and in terms of equitable distribution of power and wealth, particularly for

people of developing countries of ‘mass’ tourism. (France et al, 1999; Mowforth & Munt, 1998). The

focus of different approaches to alternative tourism vary, some more focussed on ecological

sustainability, others on social development, or both. Definitions for each type are numerous,

contradictory and overlap with other approaches, summarised in the diagram below. (Sources: Ashley

et al, 2000; France et al, 1999; Mowforth & Munt, 1998; Fennell, 1999; Goodwin et al, 1998; Cater,

1996).

Figure 8: Alternative Tourism: Numerous and Overlapping Approaches

MASS TOURISM

ALTERNATIVE TOURISM

Adventure

Ecotourism

Nature

Sustainable

Community-Based

Pro-Poor

Responsible

Socio-Cultural

Wildlife


17


11.1 Wildlife Tourism Wildlife Tourism can generate significant profits (Emerton, 1997). Much of the wildlife in Kenya

rests on private or communal land and is increasingly being seen as a form of natural capital, for

utilisation by individuals and communities through tourism. In tourism literature, is regarded as an

aspect of both nature tourism and ecotourism (defined as two separate forms by Goodwin, 1996 c.f.

Fennell, 1999:35-6).

11.2 Community Based and Pro-Poor Tourism Community Based Tourism (CBT) is difficult to define. It may mean tourism that involves (through

employment or trade) the community resident within the locality of a natural or cultural resource that

attracts tourism, although managed and controlled by outside parties. (see for example Boyd et al,

2000; Ashley & Roe,1998).

However, CBT, from a different perspective, can mean a greater involvement of the community in the

enterprise. The term ‘Pro-poor Tourism’ (PPT), an approach based on recent research by the ODI,

promotes a more equitable and involved participation of the community, which could also be defined

as CBT. In this approach, tourism enterprises incorporate communities in a greater amount of

decision-making (Ashley et al, 2001). For example, Ashley’s (2000) research on the Torro

Conservancy in Namibia, has shown that the land-owning community take control over contractual

agreements with an external corporate enterprise. However, none of the examples given in PPT

literature show the communities as economically self-sufficient, with varying degrees of reliance on

NGO, corporate or bilateral agency funding.

CBT can also be defined on a different level as a tourism enterprise that is owned and managed by the

community. Although to many minds, this may be the most equitable form of tourism, as yet there are

very few examples of its existence in the literature. Il Ngwesi may be an early example of tourism of

this kind.

11.3 Ecotourism Il Ngwesi is also described, both in academic and promotional literature, and by community members

themselves, as ‘ecotourism’. In academic terms, ecotourism has been so regularly redefined it is now

indefinable. Ecotourism has been heavily praised for signifying a change in environmentally-

destructive ‘mass’ tourism and by actively involving local communities (for example Fennel, 1999;

Olindo,1999; Johnstone,1999). Commonly stated reasons for negative analyses (for example

Pleumarom, 1999; Dann,1997; Wheeller,1994a,b) include the view that the term has been hijacked by

corporate interests who use the term as an umbrella to attract socially or environmentally conscious

travellers, when in reality their business approach may hinder rather than develop local communities


18


and degrade rather than conserve the ecology of the area. See for example Munt regarding Belize

(France et al,1999).

Given that the academic view of ecotourism is generally not known among either the Il Ngwesi

community or the tourists who read the brochures, there are understandable reasons for its use. As a

trading term, it remains highly popular and is therefore applicable for use. However, in terms of this

study, the perhaps equally vague, but more applicable term of Community Based Tourism will be

used.

12 Tourism in Kenya Tourism in Kenya has been in a slump since the mid-1990s (Akama, 1999:17) following rising crime,

inflation levels and competition from southern African countries, although there are signs that it is

now picking up. It is unstable, (ibid.:7) but is heavily relied upon as Kenya’s biggest earner. In 1995

tourism brought US$ 500 million in receipts (WTO, 1996 c.f. Emerton, 1997:1). Wildlife tourism,

largely based in the protected areas, accounts for 40 per cent of tourism earnings (Western, 1992 c.f.

Berger, 1996:275).

Johnstone (1999) argues that Kenya is trying to reinvent itself as a tourist destination by appealing to

the socially and environmentally conscious market as practicing ethical and ecologically sustainable

tourism. “The Select Committee on Eco-rating” was set up in November 1999 to as a rating and

monitoring system for Kenyan tourist operators (ibid.:6). The committee is comprised of

representatives from the Kenya Association of Tour Operators, Kenya Wildlife Service and the

Ecotourism Society of Kenya. As a result of this changing focus, Berger comments that ‘Kenya’s

wildlife policies and programmes increasingly support tourism enterprise partnerships involving local

communities’ (1996:191)

13 Previous Research on Il Ngwesi II Group Ranch While there are a growing number of articles and papers written on Il Ngwesi, the GR has seen very

little actual field research.

The writer had difficulty in accessing any ecological data that was specific to Il Ngwesi. There is

however, data on specific ecological aspects of Lewa Wildlife Conservancy (LWC), for example, Von

Holdt (1999) and Muya (1998). Due to the different relief, climate and land uses it is inappropriate to

use data gathered at LWC for consideration of Il Ngwesi. There are however, a number of recent,

unpublished, research projects taking place at Il Ngwesi, largely on its fauna.

Socio-economic field research has also been limited. The African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) carried

out a Livelihood Impact Assessment of Il Ngwesi lodge in 1998 (see Sikoyo et al 2000), the


19


methodology of which is analysed by the UK ODI (Ashley & Hussein, 2000). The AWF report is

useful for gathering financial information on the workings of the lodge, including profitability

analyses, as well as an overview of impacts of the lodge on the community. However it has been

criticised locally for taking too limited a focus on Il Ngwesi’s project partners and coming to factually

subjective and unnecessarily negative conclusions.

Research by Neil Thomas (2000) at Il Ngwesi was focussed on the partnership between LWC and Il

Ngwesi. It incorporates useful qualitative data based on semi-structured interviews at the lodge and

LWC but is limited in that it relies heavily on the findings of the AWF report and does not incorporate

the viewpoints of the community at large.

On the writers’ arrival it was said at a meeting with the Il Ngwesi GRMC and other lodge

management (22/06/01) that there had not been any prior research which gave an objective analysis of

community perceptions and aspirations regarding their livelihoods on a broad and representative

scale.


20

Methodology Paul Harrison MSc. Tourism, Environment & Development, SOAS

Methodology

14 Background In carrying out academic research that is objective, thorough and representative, it is important to

keep in mind a range of factors which will influence results and limit the accuracy of the data

gathered. Specific socio-economic factors include political relationships and decision-making power,

wealth and status of individuals or groups and kinship ties. Ecological factors, where studied, include

seasonality and climatic variability.

Careful consideration was therefore taken in assuring that the viewpoints gathered where

representative of different groups within the study area, particularly given the likelihood that certain

groups and individuals may be less powerful than others; the ‘excluded voices’ (Foucault, 1990), such

as women and younger men with potentially diverse and conflicting resource priorities, values and

beliefs.

15 Approach

15.1 Rapid Rural Appraisal It was with the understanding that different groups would have a variety of perspectives on the

research topics, that following the work of Chambers (Chambers, 1983,1992), Rapid Rural Appraisal

(RRA) techniques were chosen as the most appropriate, practical and equitable form of gathering

representative qualitative data of the kind intended for this research given the context, the time scale

available, limited funds and a relatively large study area.

RRA was chosen as opposed to Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and other qualitative survey

techniques because it allows for a quick, flexible and sensitive approach. Its strengths are reported to

be greater evidential value, but its weaknesses that it is of less precision and fine detail than the longer

and more participant-centred process of PRA (ibid., 1992). RRA is essentially an extractive process

and the agenda remains largely with the researcher, more appropriate for a university study. The

emphasis is on the importance and relevance of situational local knowledge, regarding the subjects

that affect the livelihoods of the participants.

This research used the techniques of RRA only in the form of discussions. Visual aids, such as maps

or cards, or the technique of pair-wise ranking; tools which are common to RRA processes, were not

used. These may have enhanced the clarity of the data, but on balance, it was felt that verbal

discussions would suffice.


21


A list of question guidelines is given in Appendix 1. Not all the questions were used for each group,

particularly if a group was effectively answering the question through its own discussions, and also if

there were time limitations. Discussion was favoured over direct question-and-answer sessions;

therefore the questions were used as a guide. Questions were adapted in control areas, due to reduced

direct involvement in tourism at Il Ngwesi II Group Ranch, and at the Cultural Boma, due to their

relatively high involvement in tourism.

It was the intention to divide RRA groups by gender and age; i.e. men and women separately split into

those under 30 years old, and those over 30 years old, with the purpose of reducing social biases and

potential intimidation. There was not a problem in dividing men and women. To a large extent,

dividing by age was achievable with the men. The Moran16 do not tend to gather with the married,

elder men, who have the power within this society.

Discussions with women were more difficult to arrange for a number of reasons. Firstly, women do

not have a great deal of power in this patriarchal society; they were sometimes not told about the

meetings and often not informed the intention of splitting their numbers in two until they had all

gathered and it would have been inappropriate to ask one group to wait while the others were in

discussion. Secondly, the women are more likely to gather together in their activities. Third, women

tend to lead more active lives than the men.

Figure 9: RRA Discussions, Women and Men

Discussions took place at any time in the day, with the writer asking questions and James Lesckary

taking notes. While it might have made the women feel more at ease, it was not possible to use a

female instigator in the discussions as is common in participatory research.

16 Moran are unmarried men, traditionally warriors, usually between 20 and 30 years of age, and not normally involved in decision-making processes.


22


15.2 Semi-Structured Interviews A total of 9 semi-structured interviews (SSIs) were carried out for the research. These were aimed at

giving more specific and individual case studies of the issues surrounding the research. The interviews

were to ascertain personal opinions and specific experience, usually on a deeper level than in

discussions, and reduce the likelihood of responses being coloured by other people’s views. SSIs

tended to be focussed at elders, managers and employees directly involved in tourism at Il Ngwesi,

but also individuals interested in expressing personal views on their livelihoods. Visual aids and

formulated questionnaires, often used in SSI techniques (FAO, URL:

http://www.fao.org/docrep/x5307e/x5307e08.htm)were thought unnecessary.

15.3 Language Discussions and interviews usually took place in Swahili17. Where it became necessary to use Maa18,

James Lesckary was able to translate and reduce potential misinterpretation.

16 Data Collection

16.1 Timescale A timetable of the daily course of the research is given in Appendix 2. Research began on the 22nd

June 2001, and continued until the 24th July 2000. It was felt that this was enough time to carry out

sufficient research as to get a clear overview of the perceptions of the people of Il Ngwesi II GR in the

12 main settlement areas of the GR locality, and also gave some time to carry out research in areas

outside of the GR, including 3 settlements and a separate GR with no involvement in tourism, as are

listed below.

16.2 Distribution of Research areas, including controls RRA was carried out in a total of 28 groups, over 12 locations. These are listed below.

17 Swahili is spoken by the writer 18 The Maasai language


23


Table 2: Total Discussion Groups by Location, with Membership Information

Study location Participants’ Membership or not of Il Ngwesi II Group Ranch

RRA Discussion Group

Loburua Women Mixed Ages Moran

Predominantly19 Il Ngwesi II GR members

Elder Men Ol Doinyo Dorobo Men Mixed Ages

Predominantly Il Ngwesi II GR members Women Mixed Ages

Chumvi Women Mixed Ages

Private Settlements, both members and non-members Men Mixed Ages

Ngare Sergoi Men Mixed Ages


Ngare Ndare Men Mixed Ages

Private Settlements, both members and non-members Women Mixed Ages

Ethi Women Mixed Ages

Private Settlements, both members and non-members Men Mixed Ages

Sanga Men Mixed Ages


Ntalaban (Cultural Boma) Moran


Ntantarieni Moran


Arijijo Moran Elder Men

Members of Il Ngwesi I GR (Makurian), not Il Ngwesi II GR Women Mixed Ages

Lokusero/Loragai Elder Men

Predominantly Il Ngwesi II GR members Moran

Anadanguru20 Moran Elder men Elder Women

Predominantly Il Ngwesi II GR members

Younger Women

In collating this data it was necessary to gather information that was representative of the whole area

and therefore the whole GR membership. Discussions with members were held in eight locations,

which on the advice of the elders amounted to all the principal living areas of members of the GR who

had not resettled on private land, or who were not members of a neighbouring GR. The eight locations

are listed below.

19 ‘Predominantly’ is used to indicate that the large majority of participants in these locations were members of Il Ngwesi II Group Ranch, and further, that where membership was considered a benefit, the participants tended to agree that membership benefits were available to all the community, whether a member or not. 20 In Anadanguru, women of Lokusero, Lorogai and Anadanguru gathered together for two discussions, split into older and younger groups. The reason being that the meeting arranged for the women of Lokusero and Loragai did not take place as the women did not assemble at that time, therefore the meetings in Anadanguru were combined.


24


Table 3: Main locations of GR Members not in private settlement areas

Location Anadanguru Lokusero and Lorogai Loburua Ntalaban (Cultural Boma) Ngare Sergoi Ntantarieni Ol Doinyo Dorobo Sanga

Further to being able to compare and contrast findings from different locations within the

membership, this approach of collating data over representative areas incorporated two levels of

‘control’, i.e the opportunity to compare the Il Ngwesi II GR data with areas where tourism is not

occurring.

The first, split into discussion groups in three settlement areas, Ethi, Chumvi and Ngare Ndare, is

private land which members of the Il Ngwesi II GR have bought and settled on. This was considered

separately in the data as alongside members, these areas are also populated by people from a variety

of areas and ethnic groups, not solely those of Il Ngwesi II GR. Therefore some of those in the

discussion were members, others were not, and perceptions often differed.

The second control area was based on three discussion groups in Arijijo village. Arijijo is within Il

Ngwesi I GR (Makurian). Research here allowed more comparison with the other data than the

private settlements because none of its members have experience of tourism within the GR.

Three informal interviews took place at Borana Ranch. One interview (Jonathan Kipkorir) took place

at Lewa Wildlife Conservancy (LWC), and one (Morias Kisio) took place at the Il Ngwesi lodge. The

research overall was carried out in 15 locations, indicated by the map below.


25


Figure 10: Location of Study Areas

Key: Red Pointers: Study Locations Pink Area South: Laikipia Plateau Yellow Area North: Medium Altitudes

NORTH

10kmSource: Military Survey (U.K.), MoD

London (1998) (adapted)

16.3 Distribution of Respondents by location In total there were 350 participants, of which 193 were men and 157 were women, equating to 45%

women and 55% men. The mean estimated age of participants was 35. A complete listing of all the

participants is given in Appendix 3, listed by location, gender and age. Geographically divided,


26


participants are grouped by region in the chart below. Interviews carried out at Il Ngwesi lodge, LWC

and Borana Ranch are not shown, as they equate to approximately 1% of participants.

Figure 11: Distribution of Participants by Region (%)

Anadanguru, Lokusero &Loragai

26%

Loburua10%

Ngare Sergoi & Ol Doinyo Dorobo

16%

Ethi, Chumvi & Ngare Ndare22%

Arijijo11%

Ntalaban (Cultural Boma)

5%

Sanga & Ntantarieni10%

17 Further Limitations To a certain extent, when gathering qualitative socio-economic data in this environment it becomes

necessary to deliberately slow your individual pace from what one is used to in the UK. Arriving for

a discussion group at 9am, in terms of people who live without watching time and have a great

number of daily tasks to deal with, (and are offering their time) 9am simply means when everyone has

arrived.

The European and the African have an entirely different concept of time…Africans apprehend time differently... It is man who influences time, its shape, course and rhythm. Time is even something man can create for time is made manifest through events…In practical terms this means that if you go to the village where a meeting is scheduled for the afternoon but find no one at the appointed spot, asking “When will the meeting take place?” makes no sense, you know the answer: “It will take place when people come”. (Kapuscinkski, 2001)

Providing that one adjusts their methods and approach accordingly, there are fewer limitations to what

is achievable. In Il Ngwesi, as one RRA discussion group could take anything from two to six hours,

depending on when people arrived, only one or two groups took place per day.

Time and economic constraints meant that the writer was not able to gather as much data at each

location as might have been possible. This applies in particular to the control areas. For a more

representative control it would have been useful to carry out RRA in more than one village in


27


Makurian GR, i.e, not solely Arijijo. Further information from the perspective of people for whom

tourism is not yet a livelihood option would have given a clearer perspective of the research topic.

This paper is largely based on qualitative, not quantitative data, and as such attempts to present an

objective paper using essentially subjective information. Further, the writer is aware that his

background is different to that of the participants, and it is possible that some viewpoints may have

been ill-received, although it is hoped not.


28

Results and Analysis Paul Harrison MSc. Tourism, Environment & Development, SOAS

Results and Analysis

18 Pastoralism: Central to Livelihoods Without exception, in the 28 RRA discussion groups carried out for the research, all participants cited

pastoralism as their main development activity, central to their livelihoods. It is a daily activity,

subsistence pastoralism, which all groups stated as being essential to their survival. Participants

typically said each family own cattle, sheep and goats. Many keep donkeys. In the period of research,

following the severe drought of 2000, livestock numbers were said to be quite low. Family herds tend

to be a loose average of 5 – 10 cattle and a mixture of 10 to 30 sheep and goats. The price for these

vary according to the stock size, the market and the season but on average range from 5,000 to 10,000

KSh. for cattle and 1,000 to 2,500 KSh. for sheep and goats. Some families had no livestock and had

to rely on agriculture21, small businesses, support from their neighbours or government food aid.

18.1 Benefits of Pastoralism Cited benefits were consistent throughout the research, described below.

Natural Capital Fundamentally, livestock are seen as valuable and irreplaceable natural capital. Many participants

stated that they would rather keep their capital as livestock rather than selling them for cash.

Livestock are sold for cash to pay for essential goods, transport, medicines and education. The degree

to which pastoralism is relied upon to pay school fees and nursery school teachers’ salaries is

dependent on the financial influence or otherwise of tourism in the area22. Further, livestock were

praised for being capital that recreated itself as new stock were born.

Animal Products During their lives, or after they die, livestock can be utilised to gather a range of foods and other

products. Typically, participants cited meat, milk and blood as essential to their diets, supplied by

livestock. Meat is usually from small stock; goats and sheep. Blood and milk are taken from living

21 21 Agriculture is not a major livelihood activity in this area, with the exception of the private settlement areas. This is due to the semi-arid and unpredictable climate and only two perennial rivers in the region as a whole, and also that traditionally the Maasai neither practice cultivation nor eat food crops. Although not the focus of this research because of its minimal usage, it is important to recognise that in some areas, the growth of small-scale crops such as maize can mean livestock do not have to be sold to buy this crop. 22 Tourism pays school fees at Il Ngwesi, in the control areas it does not, with the exception for Il Ngwesi members in private settlement areas.


29


cattle.23 Yoghurt and butter are by products of the milk. Fats are used to make cooking oil. Skins are

taken from dead animals, and occasionally sold. Manure is used as a sealant when building houses.

Bridewealth Culturally, livestock are highly regarded by the majority of participants as integral to social customs

and tradition, although there was some feeling of a need change within the educated youth24.

When comparing pastoralism with either tourism or agriculture, results were variable by location,

gender and age. Pastoralism, although consistently seen as essential to livelihoods, is not seen as a

form of gathering financial income, whereas tourism is almost unanimously seen as a relatively fast

way to gather funds, both in Il Ngwesi II GR and the control areas.

18.2 Costs of Pastoralism Problems involving the reliance on pastoralism are centred on the high levels of risk in maintaining

pastoral livelihoods. Central to the problems raised were drought in an unpredictable climate,

livestock disease, and disturbances and livestock deaths caused by wild animals (analysed separately).

For many groups, these costs are seen as insurmountable, and people are looking for means to

diversify their incomes to reduce the risk of a pastoral lives. To a lesser degree ecozonal conflict

between different ethnic groups, particularly Somali pastoralists stealing Maasai cattle, was also cited

as a problem.

Drought Deaths and subsequent reduced numbers of livestock due to loss of pasture and availability through

drought are unanimously considered the greatest cost of pastoral life. Participants remarked that they

lose livestock, particularly cattle which are more valuable and harder to replace, to drought nearly

every year. All discussions brought up the detrimental effects of the drought of 2000. There were a

variety of responses to the discussion of this drought. Most participants said the drought caused much

of their livestock to die. Some lost of all of their livestock. The effect of the drought depended on the

location of participants.

Those living near the perennial rivers Ngare Ndare and Ngare Sergoi and the Mukogodo and Ngare

Ndare forests did not discuss as severe effects as Sanga, Ntantarieni, Ntalaban and Arijijo. Men in

Ntantarieni said fodder was exhausted, that many cattle died and ‘food was finished’; agricultural

crops dried out, and people had to rely on food aid from the government. Participants had to go onto

Borana Ranch and LWC to graze there. People in Women at Ntalaban said “there was nothing we

23 Blood is taken from living cattle using a mchele, an arrow shot into the jugular vein, after which the blood is tapped, but not too much to kill the animal. The wound is sutured with a poultice. The blood is either drunk straight or mixed with milk. 24 The subject of Bridewealth came up on at least five occasions. Cattle are given by a groom’s family to the family of the bride.


30


could do to improve the situation”. Participants indicated that this year would not be as severe,

although at the time of research (June to July) it was a little early to tell as the driest period is usually

from July to October.

Figure 12: Ngare Sergoi River, Loburua, July 2001

Disease Livestock disease is a high risk in pastoral lives, and considered a major cost. Participants cited

various forms of tick fever as a main reason for livestock deaths. Treatments are expensive25, and

difficult to afford as to buy them requires selling livestock. Men in Chumvi said goats may be sold to

buy antibiotics such as Oxytetracyline for diseased cattle. Tick and Tsetse borne diseases are most

common in the dry seasons. Diseases such as pneumonia are common in the wet seasons.

25 Antibiotics, in liquid form, cost at least 500 KSh. Per ½ litre. (Discussion Group 27/06/01)


31


Table 4: Commonly Cited Livestock Diseases

Disease Type Disease Tick-Borne Fever East Coast Fever (Theileriosis)26 (Ngana) Tick-Borne Fever Babesiosis Tick-Borne Fever Heart water Tsetse-Borne Fever Sleeping Sickness (Trypanosomiasis) Air-Borne Fever/Ulcers Foot and Mouth Intestinal Parasites Sambara27 Pneumonia Contagious Capillary Pleural Pneumonia Unknown28 Ilkirobi Unknown Livis Unknown Nborot

Ecozonal Conflict The issue of security used to be one of the most pressing in this area. Michael Dyer at Borana

Ranch29 said that before tourism, and associated security measures, people of Il Ngwesi and Lekurruki

group ranches used to live in fear of loss of land and cattle to marauding Somali pastoralists, and

before security was increased had moved away from parts of their land, allowing Somalis to use the

area. Morias Kisio30, secretary of the GRMC and a community liaison officer for the LWF, said

Somalis used to steal cattle from them before the creation of a tourism enterprise, that with the

support of KWS means three KWS guards and 12 Il Ngwesi guards are guarding the area with radio

communications, a vehicle and G3 automatic weapons. All participants cited security as a problem,

but one that was lessening due to increased security measures for the tourists, the wildlife and the

community as a whole, but did mean they would not graze livestock to the north and east of the Group

Ranch, considered Somali territory.

19 Grazing Areas: Risk Management by Rotation All participants said they grazed livestock in different areas depending on availability of pasture and

water supply. Grazing areas are seasonal. To different degrees, all participants have set grazing areas

local to their homes, divided into dry season and wet season grazing. During the wet season, all

participants said they were able to graze near their homes, local dry season areas were left to recover.

In the driest season of July to October, all participants, with the exception of Anadanguru which has

the largest amount of available pasture, said they move to other areas as local pasture is exhausted.

Many graze in the private settlement areas of Chumvi and Ethi, (‘with the agreement of the 26 East Coast Fever (ECF), or Ngana in the vernacular, was the most commonly cited disease of all. 27 A form of tapeworm, ingested via the water supply. Can trouble humans as well as wildlife and livestock. Apparently more common now than in the past (Discussion Group 19/07/01). 28 These diseases were commonly cited. It is likely that they are forms of tick-borne fever as these are considered very common occurrences. These are vernacular names and it was impossible to find any forms of translation in other forms of Maa, or Swahili or English. 29 (24/07/01) 30 SSI (06/07/01)


32


residents’31). Others use the forest reserves of Mukogodo and Ngare Ndare, taking branches of the

trees. These grazing patterns are listed by group in the table below.

Table 5: Dry Season Grazing Patterns

Study location RRA Discussion Group Dry Season Grazing Areas

Loburua Women Mixed Ages Far from home Moran Not cited

Elder Men If the grass is finished at Il Ngwesi they move to Lekurruki.

Ol Doinyo Dorobo Men Mixed Ages Not cited

Women Mixed Ages LWC, Ngira and other distant places. During the drought they go even further away.

Chumvi Women Mixed Ages Stay near Chumvi Men Mixed Ages They graze everywhere, by rotation in search of good pasture

Ngare Sergoi Men Mixed Ages Shift further afield in groups to increase security against bandits.To Losange, Ol Doinyo Loongishi and Lomotoni.

Women Mixed Ages During the dry season they graze everywhere, by rotation

Ngare Ndare Men Mixed Ages They graze, by rotation in search of good pasture, even to Tanzania

Women Mixed Ages They graze, by rotation in search of good pasture

Ethi Women Mixed Ages Ngare Ndare Forest Men Mixed Ages Stay near Ethi or Ngare Ndare Forest

Sanga Men Mixed Ages They graze, by rotation in search of good pasture. They never used to need to migrate.

Women Mixed Ages Ngare Ndare to the south but also to the hills of the north, north and east of Anadanguru

Moran Ol Doinyo Laserge and Lepororo. Ntalaban (Cultural Boma) Women Mixed Ages Ol Doinyo Laserge and Lomotonyi.

Ntantarieni Moran Mukogodo Forest Women Mixed Ages Mukogodo Forest

Arijijo Moran Chumvi, Makaradora and Ethi. If there is no grass they graze in the Mukogodo forest. If needs be they graze as far as Rumuruti.

Elder Men Chumvi, Mukogodo forest and Lumuruti. Women Mixed Ages Mukogodo forest and areas where there is good pasture and rain.

Lokusero/Loragai Elders Ngare Ndare Forest Moran Chumvi or anywhere there is good pasture.

Anadanguru Moran Chumvi, Lumuruti and Mount Kenya. They will not migrate this year because there is enough pasture.

Elder men They divide their land into two sides; one side for grazing during the rains, and the other for the dry season.

Elder Women Mukogodo forest, Lumuruti, Chumvi and Mount Kenya.

Younger Women Mukogodo forest, the Losos Mountains and anywhere there is good pasture

31 Discussion Group 16/07/01


33


20 Grazing: Restrictions of Tourism and Private Ranches Participants typically said they had relatively few restrictions to grazing areas, with the exception of

the Il Ngwesi II GR conservancy area and private ranches.

20.1 Private Ranches Many said they could not graze on private ranches owned by white settlers. This is a slightly

contentious issue. Most participants did not take issue with white ranches. Those on Il Ngwesi who

saw the benefits of tourism, and the corresponding advisory and administrational support from LWC

and Borana Ranch saw these private areas as an essential ally to Il Ngwesi, that the benefits from

these areas as greater than the costs of reduced grazing land.

Further, participants from Loburua said they were allowed to graze on LWC during the drought, and

those in the control area of Arijijo said the same about Borana. Although they have as yet no tourism

partnerships, people of Arijijo see the white ranches as potential allies in this industry. However,

participants from Sanga and Ntantarieni took a different perspective. Although they did not take issue

with LWC, they saw Borana as restrictive, with the general feeling that Borana refused them grazing

access, or indeed access to Ethi and Chumvi. Borana refutes this view, saying people are given

access, as well as providing a vehicle almost continually in use to take the sick to Ethi hospital.32

32 Michael Dyer 23/07/01, Ngilisho et al, 24/07/01


34


20.2 Il Ngwesi Conservancy Area According to Morias Kisio33, approximately 60% of Il Ngwesi II GR has been set aside for tourism

and wildlife. 40% has been left as grazing land.34 Jonathon Kipkorir, the Il Ngwesi Lodge Manager35

said the conservancy area is 16,000 acres, registered as a conservancy with the Kenya Government.

All groups and interviews indicated that the conservancy area is divided into two sections, the larger

area and a 15km2 circle of land of the lodge and near surroundings. According to GRMC elders36, and

many other participants, in the lodge area it is forbidden to graze at any time in order to focus the

wildlife numbers in that area and not bother the tourists. The conservancy as a whole restricts grazing

except during very dry periods.37 People risk civil action if they are caught in that area during

restricted periods by the lodge security.38

Figure 13: Conservancy in the Background, with Sanga in the Foreground

No participants took issue with the conservancy being in place. To some, such as women in Sanga39,

that area as a whole was already grazed by other members so they did not venture that way. For the

people of all control areas, it is too far from them to be an issue, and not good pasture. For others,

such as men at Ol Doinyo Dorobo and Loburua, it is too small an area to be concerned with. With the

exception of Sanga and Ntantarieni groups, who were concerned with the very poor pasture in their

33 SSI (06/07/01) 34 The ‘40% grazing area’ includes the plains of Anadanguru, Lokusero and Loragai to the west on the plateau and the south-western border area of Sanga and Ntantarieni. 35 SSI (23/07/01) 36 Discussion Group 24/06/01, SSI Kinyaga 27/06/01, SSI Kisio 06/07/01 37 The NRMC meet once a month from July to October, the driest periods, to discuss whether members require extra pasture. If they decide they do they divide the conservancy area into sections for different membership groups. The lodge area is never grazed. 38 SSI Kipkorir (23/07/01). 39 Discussion Group (06/07/01)


35


area, all participants within Il Ngwesi II GR felt that the conservancy brought more far more benefits

to them than costs by being restricted. The table below illustrates the restricted areas.

Table 6: Restricted Areas for Pastoralism Study location RRA Discussion Restricted Areas

Loborua Women Mixed Ages Il Ngwesi Conservancy unless drought very serious Moran Not cited Elder Men Il Ngwesi Conservancy unless drought very serious

Ol Doinyo Dorobo Men Mixed Ages Il Ngwesi Conservancy during wet season

Women Mixed Ages Nowhere is forbidden to grazing Chumvi Women Mixed Ages Il Ngwesi Conservancy

Men Mixed Ages Il Ngwesi Conservancy unless drought very serious

Ngare Sergoi Men Mixed Ages Il Ngwesi Conservancy except in October when drought is very serious

Women Mixed Ages Il Ngwesi Conservancy during wet season due to ticks. Il Ngwesi lodge area

Ngare Ndare Men Mixed Ages Il Ngwesi lodge area, private white ranches Women Mixed Ages Borana Ranch; Il Ngwesi lodge area because it is too far, via Borana

Ethi Women Mixed Ages Il Ngwesi Conservancy unless drought very serious Men Mixed Ages Nowhere

Sanga Men Mixed Ages Il Ngwesi lodge area

Women Mixed Ages Il Ngwesi conservancy area as it is already full of people from different areas; lodge as they are not permitted to, they do not know why they are not permitted. Borana as they are strictly forbidden

Moran Il Ngwesi lodge area Ntalaban (Cultural Boma) Women Mixed Ages Conservancy Area unless they get Elders’ permission; Il Ngwesi

lodge areaNtantarieni Moran Il Ngwesi Conservancy and Borana unless drought very serious

Women Mixed Ages White ranches Arijijo Moran White ranches; Mukogodo Forest during wet season

Elder Men White ranches: LWC, Borana, Loldaiga Women Mixed Ages White ranches such as Borana

Lokusero/Loragai Elders White ranches; Il Ngwesi lodge area Moran Not cited

Anadanguru Moran Il Ngwesi lodge area; Borana & Loldaiga white ranches Elder men Il Ngwesi Conservancy unless drought very serious Elder Women Il Ngwesi lodge area; Borana Ranch Younger Women Il Ngwesi lodge area; Borana & Loldaiga Ranches

21 Wild Animals: Nuisance or Natural Capital? Wild animals cause disruption and loss of stock through crop raiding, predation of livestock, and

occasionally the loss of human lives. With the increase of tourism, and the consequent

encouragement of wildlife to remain in the area, the risk of trouble or attacks by wild animals is said

to have risen.


36


21.1 Crop Raiding Loss of crops to elephants, vervet monkeys and baboons is common. It occurs in areas where there

are agricultural smallholdings; on the Ngare Sergoi river, on the plains of Anandanguru, in the private

settlement areas and very marginally, at Arijijo. Children spend whole days guarding smallholdings

from monkeys, sometimes having to miss school.

21.2 Predation of Livestock Lions and leopards regularly, and hyenas occasionally, attack livestock. Lions usually tend to attack

cattle, and leopards attack goats. Wild animal problems are most common in Il Ngwesi, and not as

great a problem in the private settlement areas.

Figure 14: Goats Enter Enclosure Avoiding Predation, Ntalaban

21.3 Injury to People Occasionally elephants attack, and may kill individuals who take them by surprise. People killed by

elephants are in a higher number in the Sanga and Ntantarieni area, in part due to it being seen as a

wildlife corridor from Borana and the plateau in general, down to the Il Ngwesi conservancy.40

Lions rarely attack people, and leopards almost never. However, in conflict over livestock, people are

occasionally injured. Two people were injured while the writer was at Il Ngwesi. Although unusual,

as a case in point, the incident serves to illustrate the conflicts present when rearing livestock in an

40 Discussion Group Sanga Women (06/07/01, SSI Kipkorir 23/07/01, Ngilisho et al, 24/07/01


37


area also set aside for the protection of wild animals and wilderness and the focus on an increase of

tourism.41

21.4 Community Based Tourism: Shift from Nuisances to Natural Capital The establishment and growth of tourism at Il Ngwesi has brought about a shift in local perceptions of

wildlife from being a costly risk to a beneficial form of natural capital that can be utilised through

tourism. Of the 28 discussion groups, 14 saw the benefits of wild animals (more tourists and more

wealth) overwhelming the costs. 10, typically women’s groups, were more ambivalent, waiting to see

how tourism would develop to reduce conflicts. 4 groups, that with the exception of the Lokusero

Moran, were from Sanga and Ntantarieni, said that the costs outweighed the benefits, for two reasons:

higher levels of injury and livestock loss, and few perceived benefits from tourism on a local and

individual level.

21.5 Compensation and Community Ownership Issues The Loburua elders said the GR would like permission from KWS, who manage Kenya’s wildlife, to

sell or kill problem animals. Ellen Ole Simbai said that local ownership of wild animals would mean

greater benefits for the community. At least five groups said that as they cannot legally kill problem

animals, problems are made worse, particularly if they felt benefits from tourism do not outweigh

these costs.

The issue of compensation, or some form of insurance to cover the risk of wild animal problems, was

often raised. Loburua Moran would like to see the GRMC use tourism finance to pay individuals

compensation. All groups in Sanga and Ntantarieni would like to see compensation to individuals for

lost cattle. The older women of Anadanguru, Lokusero and Loragai would like to use tourism money

to finance an individual insurance system. Dupa Wakerewa was irate at not being compensated for 6

lost cattle, worth 80,000 Ksh., to a lion which he is not allowed to hunt42. David Masere, a

representative of LWF and member of the GRMC, would like to see tourism income bring

compensation money, but as yet the business profits are insufficient. Jonathan Kipkorir is concerned

with how compensation would be allocated. Currently, he says, the lodge could in no way support

potential claims on a large scale, raising a complex question; ‘What is the price of a life?’43

41 At Ntalaban two Moran tried to fight off a lioness that had attacked their goats. One man was attacked, bitten on the arm after cutting the lioness’ neck with a panga. The second Moran saved the other by spearing the lioness. The lioness turned and attacked him causing injuries to the hand, head and the chest. Fortunately tourists present at the lodge were a local couple, one of whom was a doctor. They assisted the injured with extensive first aid before Ian Craig arrived by plane from LWC to take them to hospital. The situation was greatly improved by the presence of these tourists, as well as by the use of radio communications between the group with the injured, the lodge, and Ian Craig at Lewa Wildlife Conservancy. 42 SSI (07/07/01) 43 SSI (23/07/01)


38


22 Tourism: Opportunities and Limitations Tourism is cited by the majority of Il Ngwesi II members as bringing clear benefits. It is also seen as

the potential for social development in control areas, particularly in Arijijo.

Regarding the issues above, (grazing restrictions and wildlife damage) tourism is seen as an

“opportunity cost”44. Participants from Arijijo were very enthusiastic about the prospect of bringing

tourism to Makurian, and plans were already underway. Tourism at Il Ngwesi is currently small-scale

and in its youth: “There is one lodge now. There could be ten”45. There are plans among the

management and elders to build at least one more lodge in the Sanga area, enabling the lodge to

channel its overbookings profitably46.

The issue is not black and white. There are perceived costs and benefits to tourism which vary

according to location, gender and age groups.

22.1 Benefits of Tourism Since 1996, Il Ngwesi lodge has channelled funding into infrastructural development, schools and

scholarships. It has built several cattle dips, and set up a security system with radio communications.

27 people are employed by the lodge, 12 of them security47. Others work as managers, tour guides,

chefs, a pool attendant, waiters, room stewards and a stall keeper. In the financial year 2000-2001 the

lodge income was 2,687,902.50 KSh. Expenditure was 2,232,474.00, leaving a surplus of 455,428.50

KSh. Of the profits, 25 % is channelled into development activities such as schools, 15% into

bursaries for higher education, and 10% for lodge management and administration. Half goes directly

into the GR account, officially intended as a dividend for all GR members48. This will likely be used

for land purchases outside of Il Ngwesi, such as Ngare Ndare, Ethi, and Chumvi, in order to increase

the conservancy area, the wildlife and therefore the tourism business49. At Ntalaban, tourism money

is directly injected into the local community (the Cultural Boma shareholders), and individuals selling

crafts.50

Participants at Il Ngwesi cited the key benefits from the lodge as education, transport, employment,

security, radio communications, cattle dips, and to a small extent reduced risk to livelihoods in the dry

season. However, most participants said tourism does not reduce all risks present in livestock

44 Discussion Group (15/07/01) 45 SSI Kipkorir (23/07/01) 46 SSI Kinyaga (27/06/01), Discussion Group (20/07/01) 47 Il Ngwesi Company Ltd (June 2001) 48 Discussion Group (20/7/01), Minutes of Il Ngwesi NRMC meeting (04/07/97) 49 SSI Kinyaga (27/06/01), SSI Kipkorir (23/07/01), Discussion Group (20/07/01) 50 Discussion Groups (09/07/01, 10/07/01)


39


husbandry during the dry season. it was typically felt that as tourism at Il Ngwesi is not yet capable of

supplying individual benefits, as opposed to community-level services, it cannot reduce risks to

individuals, nor increase personal wealth- the one exception to this being cash benefits for the 27

employees. This was not usually resented, however it was only mentioned as a prelude to why

pastoralism continues to be central. Pastoralism can supply the individual with wealth, while tourism

provides public goods.

When asked about tourism income-led aspirations and projects for the future, 12 groups wanted to

build more lodges, 12 wanted a local hospital, 18 wanted more schools, 15 a water supply, 5 wanted

dips and veterinary medicine, 5 wanted improved transport, and 5 (male) groups wanted to buy land

outside the GR. In addition to these infrastructure provisions, four women’s groups wanted tourism

jobs, currently male-dominated, to be available for women also- this is notable as 7 female groups felt

their voices were not heard. Three groups requested increased cooperation and communication within

the membership.

22.2 Costs of Tourism The majority of participants, including those in control areas, stated clearly that tourism’s benefits far

outweighed the costs. Although all groups discussed the obvious problems related to wildlife, this

was not typically seen as a major obstacle. Those most embittered by wildlife attacks and the lack of

compensation were those who felt sidelined by the management, i.e. Sanga and Ntantarieni.

Many groups initially said that tourism has no costs, but went on to mention the dangers of wildlife.

This shows that wildlife attacks are not automatically associated with tourism, although wildlife

numbers have commonly been said to have increased since tourism began.

23 LWC and Borana Partnerships Lewa Wildlife Conservancy and Borana Ranch work in close partnership with Il Ngwesi tourism51.

Of the 8 members of the Il Ngwesi Company Board of Directors, one is Ian Craig of LWC who has

taken the role of Managing Director, and another is Michael Dyer of Borana. The remainder are

Maasai. As volunteers, they act as advisors to the company and provide administrative and marketing

support through their own, longer established, tourist ventures, and share tourist clients. Because of

the support they give, currently the board of directors and management as a whole, do not wish for

either men to resign although they have offered to do so for democratic reasons.52 Both Borana, and

LWC in particular, are praised by many participants of Il Ngwesi for providing logistical and

administrational support and advice in establishing tourism at Il Ngwesi. It is clear from participants

51 An analysis of the LWC-Il Ngwesis partnerships is given in Thomas (2000). 52 Michael Dyer (23/07/01), SSI Kipkorir (23/07/01).


40


that the Il Ngwesi community as a whole would like to continue working in partnership with LWC,

and the majority with Borana. The men of Arijijo are keen to engage with Borana and LWC in setting

up tourism there, however they are equally keen that tourism for them remains largely self-reliant.53

For many Il Ngwesi participants, a combination of neighbourly business partnerships while remaining

largely self-reliant is an important theme.

53 Arijijo Moran (15/07/01). Arijijo Elders (16/07/01)


41

Implications Paul Harrison MSc. Tourism, Environment & Development, SOAS

Implications

24 Changing Attitudes: Diversification of Livelihoods Tourists see the herdsman leaning “one-legged” on his staff. They hear the sound of tinkling cowbells and watch girls and warriors dance bedecked in red ochre and coloured beads. However, behind these famous

images of [Maasai] pastoralism are changing values, aspirations and livelihoods shaped by modern circumstances, propelled by influences such as tourism. (Berger, 1996:178)

Wildlife and livestock can coexist- indeed they have to- as both are essential forms of natural capital

in this context and assist community members on different levels. The Il Ngwesi community are

accepting change by diversifying their livelihoods.

24.1 Community Based Tourism Participants at Il Ngwesi present a picture of this group ranch as a leading example of this approach,

in the wider spectrum of wildlife tourism. While there are limitations (discussed below) that will need

to be addressed, the overall impression is one of a community that feels represented, respected, and

has their views accounted for. CBT is showing signs of success; tourism is bringing in benefits and

being managed by Maasai. Viewpoints gathered in Arijijo also illustrate the positive approach

towards tourism of this kind.

24.2 Community Based Natural Resource Management Overall, the community appear to have made a shift to diversifying their livelihood base. This is not to

the detriment of pastoralism, but has been able to offer people more choices and opportunity in their

lives. The community viewpoint is that wildlife can coexist with livestock, and to the writer the

situation at Il Ngwesi illustrates this is not only quite achievable, but that it has begun to reduce

ecozonal conflicts, such as with Somali pastoralists, and foster an attitude that wildlife and livestock

are both credible forms of natural capital. There remain some key issues to be addressed, analysed

below.

25 Balancing Capital: Wildlife Tourism and Pastoralism ‘Social infrastructure, and even cash income, does not necessarily compensate for increased exposure

to diseases, predation and crop pests. .. Local tenure over wildlife is therefore essential for wildlife

management to improve local livelihoods and contribute to both conservation and development

objectives.’ (Boyd et al, 1999)


42


25.1 Scale: Economic Limitations Il Ngwesi II GR is a small area, and questions of economic carrying capacity can be raised.

Currently, alongside a small campsite and the Cultural Boma, it largely relies on income from only

one lodge. To distribute income benefits, whether through community development activities or as

cash to around 600 households, is a difficult task with perhaps less than £5,000 profit per annum54.

Tourism at Il Ngwesi relies not only on a socially and environmentally conscious image, but also on

being a wilderness area, free of other tourists and distractions of the western world. It does not

encourage vehicle tourism55 and does not aim at the mass tourism markets typical to the Maasai

Mara56.

Consequently, any extension of the conservancy area and the creation of one or more new lodges will

require careful consideration of its market. This has to be balanced with the need for greater profits,

to cater for the development requirements of the GR members, than its current size can produce.

25.2 Balancing Risk Pastoralism is inherently risky. Currently, tourism is not able to reduce the risk of drought to livestock

in the dry season for the majority of the community. As a capital base, cattle are vulnerable to wildlife

attack and disease, both of which increase in a conservancy setting. Consequently, this is where much

of the tourism money has been channelled. The view, illustrated in the quote above, that this does not

necessarily reduce inherent risks was felt in some areas but not in others, likely to be linked to the

scale of local development, the availability of pasture and the degree of representation.

Increasingly, capital management means reducing, but not eliminating, the number of cattle and

diversifying to more reliable livelihoods, such as small business. Important community services

including schools and hospitals reduce risk on a community level, but individuals will still have to

obtain cash from sources other than tourism.

25.3 Compensation and Wildlife Management ‘It is increasingly being realised that the solution to the problem of conservation is not merely to strengthen the

power of the authorities against local communities. On the contrary, the solution lies in planned integrated management.’ (Parkipuny, 1991:27)

The issue of compensation for wildlife damage needs to be addressed. While GR funds remain

limited, compensation claims could bankrupt the entire tourism venture before it has taken off

properly. However, a lack of compensation will eventually damage tourism because of community

resentment.

54 Based on the 2000-01 financial year. Profits can vary considerably year to year. 55 Directors Meeting (22/06/01) 56 In any case, mass-style tourism has seen a decline in Kenya, and socially and environmentally conscious CBT is being widely promoted, see Literature Review


43


In a move that will reflect a more self-reliant form of CBNRM, in the long term the community will

benefit from localised management and ultimately more ownership rights over wildlife. If ownership

is decentralised in some form by KWS it is likely that community wildlife management programmes

will be coordinated on a district level by the Laikipia Wildlife Forum. The LWF is already discussing

the issue of compensation, to be paid out of a community fund, its small scale reducing the likelihood

of false claims57. The involvement of the LWF at this level is likely to mean the compensation issue

will be addressed with greater energy and efficiency than at present.

25.4 Wildlife Translocation As greater benefits of wildlife come to light, there is potential for greater numbers of wildlife to move

to Il Ngwesi conservancy area, including threatened species such as rhino which may be translocated

from LWC and other private ranches and are likely to attract higher numbers of tourists.

25.5 Questions of an Ecological Carrying Capacity Given the scope of this paper, it is not possible to ascertain whether pastoralism in this area has

contributed to land degradation. This would require ecological research to determine biotic and

abiotic influences. However, it is clear that some areas have considerably less pasture than others.

Above the escarpment, pasture is abundant. From Ntalaban east to Loburua, there is less pasture. On

the steep escarpment from Sanga to Ntantarieni, the quality of pasture is notably poorer. It will be of

interest to see what an ecological study would reveal in this area.

The overall view that livestock numbers are very low due to the 2000 drought, that the grazing areas

are largely unrestricted and that Il Ngwesi conservancy and private ranches are not generally

perceived as limiting, is likely to mean that tourism in the area does not affect any given ecological

carrying capacity, even if that could be defined. The only exception to this could be Sanga and

Ntantarieni, where inhabitants feel more restricted in their grazing activities.

26 Wider Political Issues and Implications

26.1 Self-reliance The preoccupation with infrastructural outcomes of tourism- when asked about what they want out of

tourism, people mention roads, water, schools, a hospital- eloquently shows the Kenyan government’s

neglect of the area. The de facto status of Laikipia is largely autonomous from central government,

and this makes the interrelationships between the group ranches and the white-owned ranches very

important for successful self-sufficiency locally and on a district level. Community managed tourism

can offer a greater, but not complete degree of self-reliance from a non-providing, weakened

57 SSI Masere (07/07/01)


44


government, and potentially provide a capital assistance during times of drought, which reduces the

reliance on government and donor support.

26.2 Representation: Socio-Political Issues Beyond Tourism Many of the aspirations mentioned in the Results and Analysis section surround issues which tourism

income can’t affect. The lack of representation mentioned by women and some Moran, the wish for

women to be employed, and the marginalized groups’ wish for integration and cooperation, are all

cultural matters to do with power structures.

Many participants in Sanga and Ntantarieni feel they have been excluded from the benefits of and

influence over the tourist industry. Partly this is because of their marginalized location, and partly

perhaps because the network of influence in the GRMC works on nepotistic lines, favouring the

families of the managers. However, the writer takes the view that this is a surmountable issue and that

the tourism profits have been distributed in largely egalitarian ways, typical to an egalitarian society

(Anderson & Broch-Due, 1999:3). A new project manager, responsible for the allocation of funds

and of Kikuyu ethnicity, has been hired partly to counteract culturally-based tendencies of an

employed individual being expected to assist family members.58

Participants seemed to mention matters of representation not only out of practical consideration, but

perhaps because the sessions provided a rare opportunity to bring up discontents. That they were

mentioned in the discussions might also imply that tourism is seen in a romantic light, as a panacea

for today’s problems.

27 Implications of the Increase of Tourism

27.1 Plans for Increasing Tourism There is a commonly held view, not only among the management and employees, that a new lodge in

an increased conservancy area would provide the income for increasing community development

activities, more educational opportunities for the youth to increase their options and to increase the

company dividend.

27.2 Migration to Private Settlement Areas One prerequisite to increasing income from tourism through expansion is migration and steadily

relinquishing the reliance on pastoralism; an approach favoured by the majority of participants59. As

lodge profits are increasingly focussed on the long process of buying private land for the resettlement

of community members, the management will have to deliberate which areas are of priority.

58 SSI Kipkorir 23/07/01


45


On the Anadanguru plain, the provision of tourist-funded services and plentiful pasture mean that area

is likely to remain for GR living and grazing activities. A similar situation applies from Ntalaban to

Loburua, although ultimately, with poorer land than above the escarpment they may see more benefits

in relocating. A considerable difference applies to the Sanga-Ntantarieni area60, which requires

priority in addressing these issues and plans.

27.3 Sanga & Ntantarieni: Potential for Conflict Resolution ‘The Sanga area needs to be conserved, it is a very nice place for tourism but not for living in. Elephants have killed many people at Sanga..’ (Kipkorir, 23/07/01)

Figure 15: Sanga Grazing Pasture

These two locations are the most disadvantaged, apathetic and disgruntled in the sample. The area is

environmentally a challenge for its inhabitants, with minimal grass cover, apparently very little rain

and it lacks most infrastructure, including a reliable water supply. Logistically, it lies between the

wildlife-rich Borana Ranch and Il Ngwesi conservancy, in the path of elephants moving from one to

the other61.

Logically, if the GRMC can access the capital and this section of the community approves, Sanga and

Ntantarieni inhabitants would benefit from leaving these areas to become a wildlife corridor, and

move to a private settlement area funded through the company dividend. That may not be sufficient,

as a hectare of land in Chumvi is likely to cost more than 30,000 KSh.62, and some donor-assisted

funding might be needed.

59 Including SSI Masere (07/07/01), SSI Kipkorir, (23/07/01), SSI Kinyaga (27/06/01), Discussion Group (20/07/01) 60 This wider area is also known as Emuru or Emuru Nairusha 61 Ngilisho et al (24/07/01) 62 SSI Kipkorir, (23/07/01)


46


Ethi, Chumvi and Ngare Ndare are based on the plateau. There is considerably higher rainfall and

better pasture in that area, and they are near the main Isiolo-Nanyuki road, near Timau and Nanyuki.

Agriculture is possible here, as well as pastoralism with reduced risks from wild animals and drought.

Because of the location of these areas, it may be more likely that people can engage in small

businesses at the Ngare Ndare trading centre or in and around Timau and Nanyuki, steadily

diversifying their livelihood base.63

As there are perhaps 45 households in the Sanga-Ntantarieni area, accounting for an estimated 350

people, their relocation will neither be simple nor an instantly achievable objective, but it appears to

be the most obvious solution to both conflicts and resentment felt in the area and a method of

increasing tourism profits for the community as a whole. A new lodge could be built far enough from

the current lodge not to disrupt its isolated wilderness image nor its activities.

63 SSI Masere (07/07/01), SSI Kipkorir, (23/07/01)


47

Conclusions Paul Harrison MSc. Tourism, Environment & Development, SOAS

Conclusions ‘Everyone needs money at the moment. We need something that brings money immediately. If I have 150 goats, and sell two a month, in six months I have spent 12. And they only give birth twice a year. If two goats a month amounts to 3,000 KSh., then I can’t feed my wife. Life has changed; we are not wearing skins anymore, we are

wearing trousers and using money64.’

The Il Ngwesi community are gradually accepting global economic change and environmental

limitations by diversifying their livelihoods. The utilisation of wildlife through a community-based

wildlife tourism enterprise is able to co-exist alongside the use of livestock typical to pastoral

livelihoods. Livestock and as a consequence of tourism, now wildlife, are both considered forms of

natural capital for utilisation by the Il Ngwesi community. A diversification of livelihoods and capital

of this kind provides greater opportunities for development on different levels, and may reduce some,

but certainly not all, of the risks present in the dependence on solely pastoralism.

However, the introduction of tourism into a pastoral area is not simply a panacea and does have

limitations, largely linked to matters of scale, its youth in this area, ever-present ecological and

economic risks and socio-political issues of representation that are beyond its scope.

Tourism brings the opportunity for diversification of livelihoods, but this does not simply mean a

choice between tourism and pastoralism. Capital from tourism dividends is being used to buy private

land. On the private settlement areas, while pastoral land is more restricted, people are nearer towns

so small businesses are more feasible, and the climate is more suited to agriculture.

With diversification, the level of risk to the community in the short term is reduced because of social

infrastructural developments; members no longer have to sell their livestock capital to pay school

fees, although they are still having to pay for hospital fees. Tightened security has significantly

minimised the risk of ecozonal conflict.

Currently, with the exception of the 27 employees, and a few who receive scholarships, wildlife

tourism cannot benefit the individual. Improved roads, the use of a vehicle and radio communications

reduce the risk of death or sickness to some individuals, but not the majority. However, with children

attending the newly built nursery schools, and scope for further educational developments, in the long

term more individuals will benefit from opportunities an education may bring.

Tourism is still a new entity in the area; it is likely to grow, but may always remain too insignificant

to bring personal wealth. Individual livelihoods will remain largely pastoral-based, with many of the

associated risks, particularly drought, predation and disease, and the latter two are likely to increase

with the increase of wildlife. However, the conservancy area does not restrict livestock grazing, it is

considered too small an area in the context of the many areas people graze, allowing people to stay 64 Jonathan Kipkorir (23/07/01)


48

Conclusions Paul Harrison MSc. Tourism, Environment & Development, SOAS

clear of many of the wildlife-associated risks. Individuals may also require some level of

incorporation with other forms of livelihood, such as subsistence agriculture and small business. With

the likely steady movement of many members to settlement areas, as is already happening- on an

entirely voluntary basis- more individuals may benefit from greater choice in the longer term.

Resettlement will not be a straightforward or inexpensive process. Priority needs to be given to areas

whose resettlement will bring greater benefits to the greater number of people. This research indicates

that the Sanga-Ntantarieni area will be the most appropriate area to start discussions, negotiations,

planning and land purchases. The necessary financial resources are likely to be considerable. Support

may be required from external funding. Resettlement in some areas is not be appropriate, particularly

the Anadanguru plains.

A gradual or part migration will mean the conservancy area set aside for wildlife and tourism can be

extended and new tourist facilities can be built. This is likely to bring in greater profits and increase

the community dividend. However, care needs to be taken that new developments do not take reduce

the market of the current lodge.

Tourism has brought greater self-sufficiency. Social infrastructural developments mean a reduced

reliance on government, neighbouring ranches and donor support. Increased educational prospects and

scholarships are beginning to create a youth that not only has more opportunities, but which can return

to Il Ngwesi with new skills to assist in the development of the area, which is highly likely given the

egalitarian (although male-dominated) nature of this society. Conversely, some degree of self-

sufficiency will be lost by reliance on an external tourist market, but the abiding impression from the

research is that this kind of economic reliance can be deemed more stable than on ecological factors;

for it offers reduced reliance on a climate that is even more unpredictable than a niche tourist market.


49

Bibliography Paul Harrison MSc. Tourism, Environment & Development, SOAS

Bibliography

28 Cited References Adams, J. (1995) Risk London: University College London Press Limited −

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

Adams, W.M., (1990) Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in the Third World,

London: Routledge

Akama, J.S., (1999) ‘The Evolution of Tourism in Kenya’ in Journal of Sustainable Tourism Vol.7,

No.1.

Anderson, D., & Grove, R., (eds) (1987) Conservation in Africa: People, Policies and Practice

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Anderson, D.M. & Broch-Due, V., (eds) (1999) The Poor Are Not Us: Poverty and Pastoralism in

Eastern Africa. Oxford: James Currey

Ashley, C. & Hussein, K., (2000) ‘Developing Methodologies for Livelihood Impact Assessment:

Experience of the African Wildlife Foundation in East Africa’ London: Overseas Development

Institute. Working Paper 129

Ashley, C., & Roe, D., (1998) Enhancing Community Involvement in Wildlife Tourism. UK: IIED,

Series 11.

Ashley, C., (2000) ‘The Impacts of Tourism on Rural Livelihoods: Namibia’s Experience’ London:

Overseas Development Institute. Working Paper 128

Ashley, C., Boyd, C., & Goodwin, H., (2000) ‘Pro-Poor Tourism: Putting Poverty at the Heart of the

Tourism Agenda’ UK: Overseas Development Institute

Ashley, C., Goodwin, H. & Roe, D., (2001) ‘Pro-Poor Tourism Strategies: Making Tourism Work for

the Poor’ London: Overseas Development Institute/IIED/Centre for Responsible Tourism

Atsedu, M., Coughenour, M.B., & Swift, D.M., (1996) ‘Arid and Semi-arid Ecosystems’ in

McClanahan, T.R. & Young, T.P. (eds) East African Ecosystems and Their Conservation Oxford:

Oxford University Press pp 243 - 270

Baker, K., (2000) Indigenous Land Management in West Africa: An Environmental Balancing Act.

Oxford: Oxford University Press pp 1 - 38

Bartels, G.B., Norton, B.E. & Perrier, G.K., (1993) ‘An Examination of the Carrying Capacity

Concept’ in Behnke, R.H.Jr., Kerven, C. & Scoones, I., (Eds) Range Ecology at Disequilibrium: New

Models of Natural Variability and Pastoral Adaptation in African Savannas. London: Overseas

Development Institute pp 89 - 104

Behnke, R. H.Jr. & Scoones, I., (1993) ‘Rethinking Range Ecology: Implications for Rangeland

Management in Africa’ in Behnke, R.H.Jr., Kerven, C. & Scoones, I., (Eds) Range Ecology at

Disequilibrium: New Models of Natural Variability and Pastoral Adaptation in African Savannas.

London: Overseas Development Institute pp 1 - 31


50


Behnke, R.H.Jr., Kerven, C. & Scoones, I., (Eds) (1993) Range Ecology at Disequilibrium: New

Models of Natural Variability and Pastoral Adaptation in African Savannas. London: Overseas

Development Institute

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

Berger, D.J., (1996) ‘The Challenge of Integrating Maasai Tradition with Tourism’ in People and

Tourism in Fragile Environments. Ed. M.F. Price, UK: John Wiley and Sons

Bird, C. (1999) ‘Communal Lands, Communal Problems’ in France, L., (ed) The Earthscan Reader in

Sustainable Tourism, UK: Earthscan Publications Limited

Bourn, D., & Blench, R., (eds) (1999) Can Livestock and Wildlife Co-Exist?: An Interdisciplinary

Approach Oxford: Overseas Development Institute

Bowers, J., (1997) Sustainability and Environmental Economics: An Alternative Text Harlow: Pearson

Education Limited.

Boyd, C. et al,(1999) ‘Reconciling Interests Among Wildlife, Livestock and People in Eastern Africa:

A Sustainable Livelihoods Approach’. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Boyd, C., Gupta, V. & Shah, K., (2000) ‘Tourism, the Poor and Other Stakeholders: Experience in

Asia’ London: Overseas Development Institute

Brockington, D. & Homewood, K., (1996) ‘Wildlife Pastoralists and Science: Debates Concerning

Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania’ in Leach, M., & Mearns, R., (eds) The Lie of the Land:

Challenging Received Wisdom on the African Continent Oxford: The International African Institute,

James Currey

Cater, E., (1996) Community Involvement in Third World Ecotourism, Discussion Paper No.46,

Geographical Papers: Series B, University of Reading

Chambers, R., (1983) ‘ Rural Poverty Unobserved: The Six Biases’ in Rural Development: Putting the

Last First Harlow: Longman pp 13 - 23

Chambers, R., (1992) Rural Appraisal: Rapid, Relaxed and Participatory. Sussex: Institute of

Development Studies Discussion Paper No. 311

Cock, J., & Koch, E., (eds) (1991) ‘Animals versus People: The Tembe Elephant Park’ in Going

Green: People, Politics and the Environment in South Africa Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chapter 15

Dann, G.M.S, (1997) Greenspeak: An Analysis of the Language of Eco-tourism in Tourism

Development, Environmental and Community Issues, Eds. Cooper and Wanhill: UK, Wiley and Sons,

pp. 91-103

De Angelis, D.L. & Waterhouse, J.C., (1987) ‘Equilibrium and Non-equilibrium Concepts in

Ecological Models’ Ecological Monographs, 57. pp 1 –21

Ellis, J.E., Coughenour, M.B. & Swift, (1993) ‘Climate Variability, Ecosystem Stability, and the

Implications for Range and Livestock Development’ in Behnke, R.H.Jr., Kerven, C. & Scoones, I.,

(Eds) Range Ecology at Disequilibrium: New Models of Natural Variability and Pastoral Adaptation in

African Savannas. London: Overseas Development Institute pp 31 - 42


51


Emerton, L., (1997) ‘The Economics of Tourism and Wildlife Conservation in Africa’ African

Wildlife Foundation Discussion Papers Series. Applied Conservation Economics Discussion Paper

No.4

−

−

−

Fairhead, J. & Leach, M., (1996) Misreading the African Landscape: Society and Ecology in a

Forest-Savanna Mosaic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

FAO ‘Semi-Structured Interviews’ URL: http://www.fao.org/docrep/x5307e/x5307e08.htm Accessed

14th June 2001

Fennell, D.A., (1999) Ecotourism: An Introduction. London: Routledge −

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

Foucault, M. (1990) The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Routledge

France, L., (ed) (1999) The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Tourism, UK: Earthscan Publications

Limited

Gakahu, C., Gichohi, H. & Mwangi, E., (1996) ‘Arid and Semi-arid Ecosystems’ in McClanahan,

T.R. & Young, T.P. (eds) East African Ecosystems and Their Conservation Oxford: Oxford University

Press pp 273-297

Gleick, J., (1987) Chaos: Making a New Science New York: Penguin

Goodwin, Kent, Parker, Walpole, (1998) Tourism, Conservation and Sustainable Development UK:

International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) Wildlife and Development Series No.

12.

Hardin, G. (1968) ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’ Science, 162, pp 1243 – 8

Herren, U., (1987) ‘The People of Mukogodo Division, Laikipia District: A Historical and

Anthropological Baseline’ University of Berne, Switzerland, Institute of Geography

Horta, K., (2000) ‘Rainforest: Biodiversity Conservation and the Political Economy of International

Financial Institutions’ in P. Stott & S. Sullivan, (eds) Political Ecology: Science, Myth and Power.

UK: Arnold pp 179-202

IIED (1994) Whose Eden?: An Overview of Community Approaches to Wildlife Management. UK:

International Institute for Environment and Development

Il Ngwesi Lodge (2000) Newsletter of Il Ngwesi Group Ranch Community Project, Laikipia, Kenya

Johnstone, R., (1999) ‘Talking Ecotourism’, ‘Insight’, Swara Magazine 22:4, Kenya: April 2000

Kapuscinski, R., (2001) The Shadow of the Sun: My African Life Bath: The Penguin Press

Kideghesho, J.R., (1999) ‘Conflict Management in Protected Areas’ in Kakakuona: Tanzania Wildlife

Magazine. No. 12, February to April 1999

Leach, M., & Mearns, R., (eds) (1996) The Lie of the Land: Challenging Received Wisdom on the

African Continent Oxford: The International African Institute, James Currey

Leader-Williams, N., Kayers, J.A. & Overton, G.L., (eds) (1996) Community Based Conservation in

Tanzania UK: IUCN Species Survival Commission

LWF Ltd.(2000) ‘Conserving Wildlife and its Habitat Outside National Parks’ Pamphlet.

LWF Ltd.(2001) ‘Where to Stay, What to Do…’ Pamphlet.

LWF Ltd.(March 2001) Newsletter


52


Metcalf, S., (1994) ‘Zimbabwe Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources

(CAMPFIRE)’ in Right, R.M. & Western, B., (eds)(1994) Natural Connections: Perspectives on

Community Based Conservation Washington D.C.: Island Press

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

Moore, P.D., Chaloner, W. & Stott, P., (1996) Global Environmental Change Oxford: Blackwell

Science

Mowforth, M., & Munt, I., (1998) Tourism and Sustainability: New Tourism in the Third World.

London: Routledge

Muya, S., (1998) ‘ Lewa Wildlife Conservancy Kenya: Range Condition and Use by Elephants’ Lewa

Wildlife Conservancy

Nahongo, C., (1999) ‘Ruaha Community Conservation’in Kakakuona: Tanzania Wildlife Magazine.

No. 12, February to April 1999

Nelissen, N., Van Der Straaten, J., & Klinkers, L., (1997) Classics in Environmental Studies: An

Overview of Classic Texts in Environmental Studies The Netherlands: International Books

Olindo, P., (1999) The Old Man of Nature Tourism: Kenya in France, L., (ed) (1999) The Earthscan

Reader in Sustainable Tourism, UK: Earthscan Publications Limited pp 90-97

Parkipuny, M.S., (1991) ‘Pastoralism, Conservation and Development in the Greater Serengeti

Region’ London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)

Pepper D., (1996) Modern Environmentalism: An Introduction London: Routledge

Pleumarom, A., (1999) ‘Ecotourism: An Ecological and Economic Trap for Third World Countries’,

Third World Network http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/cbd.htm Accessed 29 November 2000

Raikes, P.L., (1981) Livestock Development and Policy in East Africa Uppsala: Scandinavian Institute

of African Studies

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

Sikoyo, G.M., Ashley C. & Elliott, J. (2000) ‘Financial and Livelihood Impacts of Il Ngwesi Lodge,

Laikipia District, Kenya’ Nairobi: African Wildlife Foundation, Conservation, Economics and

Commerce Programme

Spear, T. &Waller, R., (eds) (1993) Being Maasai Oxford: James Currey

Stott, P. & Sullivan, S., (2000) (eds) Political Ecology: Science, Myth and Power. UK: Arnold pp 1-

14

Thomas, N.W., (2000) ‘From Herdsmen to Safari Guides: An Assessment of Environmental

Partnerships at Il Ngwesi, Laikipia District, Kenya. Unpublished MSc. thesis. Durban: University of

Natal

Von Holdt, A. C., (1999) ‘Ecological Separation by Browsers on the Lewa Wildlife Conservancy,

Kenya’ Unpublished MSc. thesis. Pretoria: University of Pretoria

Weaver, D., (1998) ‘Ecotourism in Kenya’ in Ecotourism in the Less Developed World Oxford: CAB

International pp 109- 131

Wheeller, B. (1994a) ‘Ecotourism: A Ruse by any other Name’ in Progress in Tourism, Recreation

and Hospitality Management, Vol. 4, 1994, (Eds.) Cooper and Lockwood, pp. 3-10


53

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/cbd.htm


Wheeller, B. (1994b) ‘Egotourism, Sustainable Tourism and the Environment – A Symbiotic,

Symbolic or Shambolic Relationship’ in A.V. Seaton (ed) Tourism: The State of the Art, Chichester:

John Wiley

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

Wiens, J.A., (1984) ‘On Understanding a Non-equilibrium World: Myth and Reality in Community

Patterns and Processes’ in Strong, D. Jr. et al., Ecological Communities, Conceptual Issues and the

Evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press pp 439 - 457

29 Additional Reading Adams, W. et al (Eds) (1996) Physical Geography of Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Barrow, E., Bergin, P., Infield, M. & Lembuya, P., ‘The Peoples’ Voice: Partnership and

Community Conservation’ African Wildlife Foundation Discussion Papers Series. Community

Conservation Discussion Paper No. 2

Blench, R. & Marriage, Z., (1998) ‘Climatic Uncertainty and Natural Resource Policy: What Should

the Role of Government Be?’ London: Overseas Development Institute.

Blench, R., (1996) ‘Aspects of Resource Conflict in Semi-Arid Africa’ London: Overseas

Development Institute.

Emerton, L., (1996) ‘Maasai Livelihoods, Forest Use Values and Conservation in Oldonyo Orok,

Kenya’ African Wildlife Foundation Discussion Papers Series. Applied Conservation Economics

Discussion Paper No.2

Koch, E., (1998)‘“Nature Has the Power to Heal Old Wounds”: War, Peace & Changing Patterns of

Conservation in Southern Africa’ in Simon, D., (ed) South Africa in Southern Africa: Reconfiguring the

Region Oxford: James Currey pp 54 - 71

Leach, M., (1994) Rainforest Relations: Gender and Resource Use among the Mende of Gola, Sierra

Leone Edinburgh University Press: International African Institute, London

Lewa Wildlife Conservancy (September 2000) Newsletter No. 10

Lembuya, P., Makilya J. & Ntiati, P., ‘Linking Enterprise to Conservation: Examples from Kenya’.

African Wildlife Foundation Discussion Papers Series. Community Conservation Discussion Paper No.

8.

Roe, E.M., (1991) ‘Development Narratives, or Making the Best of Blueprint Development’ in World

Development 19(4), pp287-300

Vorhies, F., ‘Making Community Conservation Economically Attractive’ African Wildlife Foundation

Discussion Papers Series. Community Conservation Discussion Paper No. 9


54

Appendix 1: RRA Framework Questions Paul Harrison MSc. Tourism, Environment & Development, SOAS

Appendix 1: RRA Framework Questions Keeping in mind time, location, scale, gender, age

Introduction • Location • Gender • Names • Number • Approximate ages

Livelihood Activities • What are the development/livelihood activities for this group? • Which is more significant? • What are the benefits, costs and time-scale of each activity for this group?

Health • What illnesses do you suffer from?

Income • What is the family/Manyatta income? • Are any of your people employed outside this area?

Environmental Constraints • How many seasons are there? • When are the rains? The dry season? Drought? • When was there a bad drought in recent memory? • What were the effects of this to your livelihoods? • What and where is your water source? • Where does it originate? • Is it available all year round or does it dry out?

Pastoralism • What kind of livestock do most people keep? • Who owns the livestock – the family or the individual? • How many of each, on average, e.g. cattle? • What is the price of livestock? e.g. a goat • Which illnesses do their livestock suffer from? • With what effects on their livelihoods?

Grazing Areas, Tourism And Wild Animals • Which areas do they graze, and during which season/time of year? • By rotation/in search of good pasture? • Are there any areas where they are restricted from grazing? • Do the graze within the Il Ngwesi II GR conservancy area? Which people? • If so, when? If not so, why not? • What are the perceptions regarding the conservancy area? • Does having the conservancy area assist your livelihoods during the dry season? • Does tourism assist your livelihoods during the dry season? • How are you able to graze livestock, and/or to cultivate as well as increase tourism, particularly if

tourism means an increased number of wild animals and/or land area reduction? • What are the effects on the vegetation if you graze in the conservancy area? • What do the tourists think if they see the area has been/is used for grazing? • What are the costs and benefits of wild animals – and which is greater?


55

Appendix 1: RRA Framework Questions Paul Harrison MSc. Tourism, Environment & Development, SOAS

Tourism • What are the associated benefits and costs of tourism here? • What actual benefits has tourism finance brought here? • How would this group like to use tourism finance used here in the future?

Management and Representation • Is this Il Ngwesi I, II, or elsewhere? • How many people of the group are members of Il Ngwesi II? • What benefits does membership bring? • How do they choose the management committee? • Do they feel represented?

Relationships with Lewa/Borana • How do they see Lewa Wildlife Conservancy? • What is the relationship? • How do they see Borana?

Problem Solving • How they do they feel they can solve their problems?

Opinions and Aspirations • Do they have any further views or wishes?

Socio-Cultural Effects of Tourism65 • Are these houses (Cultural Boma) built for the tourists only, or do you live in them? • Have you noticed that tourism has brought about changes in your culture?

65 The following two questions used only at the Cultural Boma.


56

Appendix 2: Timetable of Field Research Paul Harrison MSc. Tourism, Environment & Development, SOAS

Appendix 2: Timetable of Field Research

Month Day Location June 2001 20 Leave Nairobi 21 Lewa Wildlife Conservancy 22 Meeting with elders, Il Ngwesi lodge 23 Loborua Women, mixed ages 24 Loborua Women, Moran, Elders 25 Ol Doinyo Dorobo Men, mixed ages 26 Ol Doinyo Dorobo Women, mixed ages 27 Chumvi Women, Men; SSI Simon Kinyaga 28 Ngare Sergoi Men, Women 29 Lewa Wildlife Conservancy (data collation) 30 Ngare Ndare Men, Women July 2001 1 Lewa Wildlife Conservancy (Fundraising Marathon) 2 Ethi Women, Men 3 Lewa Wildlife Conservancy (data collation) 4 Il Ngwesi Lodge (data collation) 5 Sanga Men, mixed ages 6 Sanga Women, mixed ages; SSI Morias Kisio Il Ngwesi Lodge 7 Il Ngwesi GR Management Meeting, Lokusero; SSI David Masere 8 Borana Ranch and Timau (repairs and fuel) 9 Ntalaban (Cultural Boma) Moran 10 Ntalaban (Cultural Boma) Women, mixed ages 11 Il Ngwesi Lodge (data collation) 12 Il Ngwesi Lodge, Anadanguru 13 Nanyuki (Food, fuel) 14 Ntantarieni Moran, Women, mixed ages 15 Arijiju Moran 16 Arijiju elders, Women, mixed ages 17 Lokusero/Loragai Moran, Elders 18 Anadanguru 19 Anadanguru Moran, Elders 20 Anadanguru and Lokusero/Loragai Women, Elder, Younger 21 Lewa Wildlife Conservancy (data collation) 22 Lewa Wildlife Conservancy (data collation) 23 SSI Kipkorir at LWC, Borana Ranch (Michael Dyer) 24 Borana Lodge discussions, Return to Nairobi


57

Appendix 3: Participants Paul Harrison MSc. Tourism, Environment & Development, SOAS

Appendix 3: Participants

Location/Date/Group Participant's Name Est. Age GenderDay One at Loborua with women of all ages. 23/06/01 Ellen Ole Simbai 26 F Nolemar Ole Simbai 28 F Noonguta Sikanya 27 F Noongoroin Ole Loitina 45 F Naisarusaru Ole Mitira 30 F Nalangu Erongai 22 F Fatuma Ole Mitira 21 F Ana Maua 21 F Simbai Ole Kinyaga 70 F Sitainei Yaani 23 F Day Two at Loborua 24/06/01 Moran (younger men) Ngoima Ole Kinyaga 28 M Mkambi Ole Kinyaga 27 M Joshua Naitira 26 M Siruanei Legei 26 M Kagara Legei 26 M Siparu Kipsoi Kinyaga 29 M Loborua Wazee (older men) 24/06/01 Lesuk Larandile 68 M Sikanya Kinyaga 58 M Parkay Ole Naitira 70 M Sereben Toki 52 M Lipan Kitaonga 28 M Joffrey Nderenba 35 M Meriaki Kiperus 38 M Cholimo Kinyaga 35 M Kinyon Legei 34 M Sambore Kinyaga 32 M Sumbere Toki 32 M Lemaingei Legei 45 M Lekiru Nyasi 42 M Sookia Nang’unye 37 M Kongo Parkussaa 35 M Parali Nbereba 39 M Kivusoi Ole Simbai 55 M Day One at Ol Doinyo Dorobo 25/06/01 Ndiyon Marijo 39 M Ol Doinyo Dorobo Wazee and Moran Kimanga Parkussaa 40 M Leina Loomboki 40 M Ntivo Ole Navushe 38 M Lesian Parkussaa 37 M Natukoi Loichuchu 28 M Yona Kai 30 M Loibiruni Kivusoi 30 M Mboya Lemagile 28 M Papai Ole Tingai 40 M Kiperewapili Lesakat 56 M Matarian Lesling’in 66 M Philip Letamorita 19 M Tipo Ole Parkussaa M Day Two at Ol Doinyo Dorobo 26/06/01 Susanna Ole Marijo 28 F


58


Location/Date/Group Participant's Name Est. Age GenderOl Doinyo Dorobo Women Mixed Ages Mosoni Kitonga 40 F Paulina Levalo 30 F Joyce Loombovonji 30 F Napiolomong’o Ole Mandile 32 F Mavda Parkussaa 33 F Ng’oto alesin Parkussaa 31 F Noolasho Kitonga 33 F Noongewab Lemangile 22 F Noondawa Parkussaa 20 F Nasieka Savdebi 21 F Kumondare Lemandile 20 F Mitayon Nolesarioye 32 F Ng’oto Sholing’ae Parkussaa 20 F Ng’oto Neanyu Parkussaa 65 F Noobarisha Parkussaa 28 F Jeni Ole Nbovinyi 29 F Chumvi 27/06/01 Simon Kinyaga (SSI) 50 M Chumvi Women Joyce Kasoo 38 F Benedette Kinyaga 28 F Lois Kinyaga 25 F Chumvi Men Swan Kamwiro 30 M Papaye Sariyo 40 M Pamuta Karumusho 18 M Kiruta Ole Masar 40 M Johanna Matungi 42 M Koikai Pardero 39 M Masia Kasoo 33 M Samora Kamwiru 28 M Ngare Sergoi 28/06/01 Tipo Ole Tarumbushi 50 M Ngare Sergoi Men (mixed age) Wanyobi Kitonga 52 M Kisherewe Kitonga 56 M Samwel Lemiyo 34 M Marko Parkussaa 23 M Parkioo Lekiyaa 48 M Paulo Popoti 42 M Papi Ole Timori 51 M Leivashe Lekoidei 40 M Tumanga Parkussaa 50 M Kapureki Marijo 38 M Letaile Ndimori 40 M Mbiyon Marijo 38 M Lejuuee Tambushi 21 M Steven Leranjile 26 M Kortool Kartano 36 M Ngare Sergoi Women, all ages Nimo Yusuf 21 F Ng’otooshuroi Ole Tambushi 31 F Noosemuon Letimori 30 F Kageni Ole Legei 28 F Ng’itayon Ole Kodei 30 F Yeyeai Ole Saraayo 28 F Mulinga Ole Legei 30 F Ng’okoyo Ole Tambushi 35 F


59


Location/Date/Group Participant's Name Est. Age Gender Kurian Timoriti 30 F Ngare Ndare 30/06/01 Ernest Lepirorisi 70 M Ngare Ndare Men (all ages) Lepish Ngalisho 55 M Kisalien Legei 52 M Omaya Shuel 30 M Paulo Shuel 32 M Alexander Mongai 35 M David Mongai 36 M Koyok Ng’alisho 32 M Mambaran Shuel 40 M Francis Lepararashao 29 M Francis Karume Moniko 50 M Msiibi Mayani 70 M James Gilisho 26 M Kitoto Gilisho 28 M Ngare Ndare Women (all ages) Sara Kimiri 60 F Mary Kimiri 62 F Jane Ng’ilisho 35 F Tiparis Karamusho 28 F Sirikwa Kimiri 61 F Agnes Ng’ilisho 27 F Jesinta Naituta 26 F Siringo Karamusho 30 F Susan Kirobi 25 F Margaret Sharom 29 F Gladys Nyausi 30 F Fatuma Kotola 29 F Penina Morijo 27 F Ethi 2/7/01 Perisila Ndoyee 40 F Ethi Women Susanna Toyee 23 F Sileli Sakita 43 F Malise Mayani 41 F Christina Kinguri 24 F Pamela Kisio 22 F Anna Pibatea 24 F Siman Moikai 23 F Naivante Ole Meiro 38 F Nootwalan Ole Kisio 40 F Ethi Men Peter Mshamoro 40 M Saimon Kisio 41 M Anton Muriokoi 43 M Chausi Kinywa 36 M Antoni Maina 46 M Saimoni Thiuri 38 M Murioki Irenya 72 M Aizacki Ngare 40 M James Ngare 46 M Joseph Maina 29 M Peter Ngila 30 M Maiko Morio 67 M David Njaga 62 M Letambon Mayani 24 M


60


Location/Date/Group Participant's Name Est. Age Gender David Maina 26 M Richadi Mayani 28 M Jackson Siha 29 M Njugona Nesimo 30 M Bonifasi Bisharo 29 M Simon Gitoga 20 M Peter Maina 19 M Chausi Kenya 18 M Isaya Wahome 23 M John Monike 20 M Rongai Kaunga 20 M Joseph Dracko 30 M Robert Kaunga 28 M Richard Wayunga 65 M Francis Kisio 62 M Sanga 05/06/01 and 06/07/01 Saikwa Ole Kirobi 57 M Sanga Men, mixed ages Lekaiton Ole Kortool 62 M Kupai Korua 51 M David Legei 28 M Joseph Mungai 27 M Nyausi Kiros 26 M Naitingu'ung Lesimorit 30 M Joshua Shuel M Sanga Women, Mixed Ages Sianda Lerumbe 19 F Rosia Sarbabi 20 F Margaret Ole Rumbe 21 F Navayai Saimoitie 18 F Ambuyi Nyausi 24 F Nesimon Lekonyool 19 F Mama Sheita Ole Kirobi 24 F Nookiseya Ole Kirobi 25 F Parua Ole Legei 28 F Namungei Nyausi 37 F Mariamu Mureyani 56 F Il Ngwesi Lodge SSI 06/07/01 Morias Kisio 35 M Lokusero SSI 07/07/01 Dupa Wakarewa 75 M Lokusero SSI 07/07/01 David Masere 35 M Ntalaban (Cultural Boma) Sipaal Kishine 24 M Ntalaban (Cultural Boma) Moran 09/07/01 Letare Lerapa 23 M Pililia Parkussaa 23 M Sekere Torongos 30 M Pilip Ole Timoriti 20 M Ng’asakile Ole Timoriti 22 M Moreyen Parsaare 19 M Salim Ole Tiwa 20 M Mboya Tuantile 22 M Nanng’uroo Kayaa 24 M Kimboka Natiri 21 M Ntalaban (Cultural Boma) Women, Mixed ages 10/07/01 Marda Morijo 40 F Noondawa Morijo 26 F Nookitoip Leng’alai 38 F Paulina Ole Legei 30 F


61


Location/Date/Group Participant's Name Est. Age Gender Katai Parkussaa 60 F Noong’iva Ole Nang’unye 26 F Ntantarieni 14/07/01 Patrick Mungai 22 M Ntantarieni Moran Wilson Legei 23 M David Naitiri 30 M Bachivi Nang’unye 24 M Peter Kiperus 23 M Repot Moreyen 24 M Salim Moreyen 20 M Peterson Kiperus 26 M Anon 20 M Ntantarieni Women, mixed ages Mary Loondian 70 F Kortai Nashuru 65 F Sinyok Nalang 70 F Elena Ole Legei 30 F Nadungu Nandiri 38 F Maria Kirobi 28 F Rose Kirobi 24 F Arijijo Moran 15/07/01 Daniel Morijo 23 M James kolua 21 M Francis Legei 22 M Joseph Shuel 28 M Justin Tete 30 M William Sambaine 24 M Leskoyo Morijo 31 M Steven Karumba 36 M Kasirimu Morijo 20 M Naisindi Parkawa 26 M Sikim Nairejie 25 M Arijijo Wazee 16/07/01 Thomas Moire 38 M Jastin Tetia 32 M Piligwan Yasoi 33 M Manato Lesenderia 50 M Nicholas Kobi 32 M Ibrahim Wiston 56 M Siambe Ole Sapuro 60 M Licki Sapuro 56 M Sikoyo Morijo 37 M Arijijo Women, mixed ages 16/07/01 Mary Morijo 28 F Grace Nang’unye 24 F Alice Simoire 25 F Joyce Morijo 26 F Marisa Moire 27 F Mariam Morijo 23 F Jane Legei 20 F Namanu Ole Seketeti 60 F Kumondare Ole Ngila 38 F Noosalaash Ole Morijo 56 F Joyce Morijo 35 F Moomuno Ole Seketeti 45 F Mary Ole Kiliole 21 F Naishilili Ole Shivayo 42 F


62


Location/Date/Group Participant's Name Est. Age Gender Jane Pirosus 29 F Kinyakui Ole Morijo 63 F Resina Kurusa 30 F Consolata Morijo 23 F Lokusero/Loragai 17/07/01 Kamori Ole Kisio 65 M Lokusero/Loragai Elders Karamusho Tema 45 M Gabriel Lemayani 42 M Remoinei Lemureyani 60 M Joseph Mureyani 55 M Ole Nyausi 45 M Lekato Loosiriiai 46 M Kasan Nyerere 35 M Uson Ndodo 30 M Patrick Ole Ngina 28 M Oshilon Mungai 32 M Lalakau Ole Muya 30 M Kiperus 30 M Lesoi Lesakui 30 M Lokusero/Loragai Moran Julius Ole Kiparus 20 M Lotutuki Leruso 18 M Njoroge Loolel 19 M John Nyausi 24 M Dickson Kiperus 23 M Anadanguru 19/07/01 and 20/07/01 Francis Shuel 26 M Anadanguru Moran John Nyausi 28 M Steven Kisio 27 M Lerikan Lourookiek 29 M Shadrack Kinyaga 25 M Salaun Febriki 26 M Anadanguru Wazee Sioya Kisio 75 M Ndondo Nyausi 66 M Pemba Salaon 40 M Kiaki Sariayo 42 M Kuseere Salaon 70 M Randa Kinyaga 44 M John M. Kisio 55 M Women over 30 of Anadanguru/Lokusero/Loragai Lucy Salaon 32 F Jane Mayan 33 F Koris Moreyan 30 F Mariam Kisio 33 F Lookiseya Ole Karumusho 34 F Noonguta Sanang 36 F Mery Nalangu 37 F Kukulo Ndondoo 40 F Namanu Paramusho 40 F Nookiramat Paramusho 42 F Nootwalan Lengejo 42 F Noljuke Lososle 50 F Noolamer Nyausi 45 F Titolai Ole Gilisho 40 F Naitoye Ole Legei 38 F Nookimani Ole Sakui 68 F


63


Location/Date/Group Participant's Name Est. Age Gender Noomori Ole Sakui 65 F Nalangu Salang 40 F Sandiwa Nangunye 43 F Namanu Loombovongi 65 F Julia Morare 40 F Gladnes Doldol 35 F Mariam Paramusho 32 F Noomungen Ole Koruta 32 F Noondawa Ole Legei 36 F Naija Shuel 68 F Ng’aarkunyi Kinyaga 65 F Noolesengi Ole Kawai 60 F Women under 30 of Anadanguru/Lokusero/Loragai Luua Nang’unye 20 F Nooseuri Kisio 22 F Teite Kinyaga 19 F Suzan Saraon 19 F Jacklini Nyausi 18 F Mariam Saloon 19 F Roda Piroris 19 F Anna Piroris 21 F Doricas Nyausi 21 F Esther Nyausi 20 F Sitainei Piroris 19 F Magreti Nyausi 20 F Rebeka Nyausi 22 F Jane Nyausi 17 F Joyce Napei 19 F Nootwalan Lomulei 28 F Mary Muthoni 19 F Roza Kisalal 20 F Kigeo Salaon 19 F Nakosi Lourookiek 20 F Nimikie Sauna 23 F Narikuni Olkilipan 23 F Nalangu Paramusho 24 F Noongisho Karaju 25 F Namani Paramusho 26 F Jane Kilipa 24 F SSI Kip at Lewa 23/07/01 Jonathan Kipkorir 28 M Borana Ranch 23/07/01 Michael Dyer 40 M Borana Lodge 24/07/01 William Kinde 35 M Francis Ngilisho 28 M Kasao Lerat 26 M


64

Appendix 4: Acknowledgements Paul Harrison MSc. Tourism, Environment & Development, SOAS


65

− −

−

−

−

− −

−

− −

− −

Appendix 4: Acknowledgements My very grateful appreciation for all those who helped in the preparation, research and collation of this study. In particular I would like to thank the following:

Christian Jaroljmek for hiring me his sturdy Range Rover. Dr. Tanya Bowyer-Bower, my supervisor at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. Ian Craig and Dr. Chris Thouless at Lewa Wildlife Conservancy, for the initial correspondence and preparation that went into organising the research. James Lesckari Laizer, from Tanzania, who was my research assistant and translator during any discussions in the Maasai language. James Munyugi at Lewa Wildlife Conservancy for his views on many of the research issues, not to mention use of his office. Linda Lönnqvist for her humour and support. Michael and Nicki Dyer at Borana Farm for welcoming James and I to their home, and for the use of a mechanic. Patrick Shorten, and the trustees of the Brill Church of England Educational Endowment for generously providing me with funding of £500 towards the research. Phil and Katherine Collins for generous financial assistance and support. Simon Ole Kinyaga and the elders of Il Ngwesi II Group Ranch for their welcome and organisational assistance. Siparu Ole Kipsoi of Il Ngwesi, for assistance as a guide. The community of Il Ngwesi II Group Ranch and the people of Arijijo, Ethi, Chumvi and Ngare Ndare for their welcome, patience and involving discussions.

Documents

Il Ngwesib MSc Dissertation - Kilimanyika · 2013-05-30 · Title: Il Ngwesib MSc Dissertation Author: Paul Harrison Created Date: 12/8/2003 9:55:45 AM