sign in sign up
<<
Home , Kenya Wildlife Service, Mwea National Reserve, Ruma National Park, Tourism in Kenya

Abstract A significant proportion of 's is - based and 44,000 km2, representing about eight percent of the country's Wildlife-based territory, has been set aside for wildlife protection. This has denied local communities access to invaluable herding Tourism in and agricultural resources thereby creating conflicts between tourism and the well- Kenya: being of local people who also suffer the destruction of life and property from wildlife. Land use conflicts and This paper probes government policies on the sharing of benefits from tourism with government local communities in wildlife- protected areas. The analysis compensation policies could provide lessons for other African countries where such over protected areas conflicts are occurring. The findings show that although revenue-sharing has been initiated in some places, questions have been raised whether it is the local governments, communities or individual land-owners who Isaac Sindiga should be compensated. So far, direct benefits to the landowners have been minimal. This has partly motivated certain communities to form wildlife Introduction associations with the aim of participating directly in This article examines government revenue-sharing policies and tourism. This process is actions for rural people who support in national yielding some dividends but parks using the example of the administrative district of Kajiado and requires to be guided carefully Narok, home of the renowned pastoral Maasai. It then discusses the in order to involve the response of local communities to these actions. This is a first step to majority of the local people in suggesting strategies which encourage tourism and wildlife sharing in the benefits of development while at the same time conserving the resources wildlife management. supporting tourism and generating benefits that sustain the welfare of Ultimately, this should the people living adjacent to tourism destinations (Kenya, 1994). The motivate them to conserve analysis could provide lessons for other parts of Africa where such wildlife even in the face of conflicts obtain. expanding human and animal populations in In Kenya, exclusive wildlife reservations were carved out of lands delicate ecologies. which were previously used by traditional pastoral peoples. These national parks and reserves which are now managed by the (KWS) date back to the period immediately following the Second World War (Table l). They denied local people invaluable Dr Isaac Sindiga is Associate herding and agricultural resources and in some cases fishing rights Professor and Head of Department thereby creating conflicts between the demands of Kenya's wildlife- of Tourism, Moi University, Kenya. based tourism and the well-being of local people who also continue to

THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 6, No. 2, DEC.'95 45 Table l: Kenya National and Marine Parks and Reserves. suffer the destruction of life and Area Year Pastoral Agricultural property. Kenya provides an National Parks (Km2) gazetted District demand demand African example where there is 1. Sibiloi 1,570 1973 Marsabit Yes No “the clearest relationship 2. 5 1983 Turkana/ between the business of tourism, Marsabit No No the demands of land of an ever 3. South Island 39 1983 Marsabit No No increasing population, and the 4. Malka Mari 876 1989 Mandera Yes No conservation of delicate ecologies” 5. Marsabit 360 - Marsabit Yes No (Economist Intelligence Unit, 6. Mount Elgon 169 1968 Trans Nzoia Yes Yes 1991, p. 64). Below, the paper 7. Saiwa Swamp 2 1974 Trans Nzoia No No discusses the contribution of 8. Meru 870 1966 Meru Yes No tourism to Kenya's economy. This 9. Kora 1,787 1989 Tana River Yes No 10. 715 1989 Nyeri/Meru Yes Yes is a prelude to explaining the 11. Ndere Island 4 1986 Kisumu No No conflicts generated by wildlife- 12. Maua --- Yes Yes based . 13. 188 1967 Nakuru Yes Yes 14. Aberdares 715 1950 Nyeri Yes Yes Tourism in Kenya’s economy 15. Ruma 120 1983 Homa Bay Yes Yes 16. Hell's Gate 68 1984 Nakuru Yes No Kenya's tourism industry is 17. Longonot 52 1983 Nakuru Yes Yes relatively well developed. a 18. Fourteen Falls --- No No Tourism is the country's leading 19. 0l Donyo Sabuk 18 1967 Machakos Yes No foreign exchange earner and a 20. 117 1946 Nairobi Yes No 21. Amboseli 392 1974 Kajiado Yes No significant portion of this tourism 22. Tsavo West 9,056 1948 Taita-Taveta Yes Yes is wildlife-based (Kenya, 1979, 23. Tsavo East 11,747 1948 Taita Taveta/ 1989, 1994a). The tourism Kitui Yes Yes industry generated KSh.24,440 24. Arabuko Sokoke 6 1991 Kilifi No Yes million (approximately US$421 25. Chyulu 471 1983 Machakos Yes Yes million) in earnings in 1993, and KSh.28,100 million (US$484 Marine Parks million) in 1994 (Kenya, 1995). These earnings represent roughly 26. Malindib 6 1968 Kilifi No No 35% of the country's total foreign 27. Watamub,c 10 1968 Kilifi No No exchange earnings in a year. 28. Mombasab 10 1968 No No The number of visitors rose 29. Kisiteb 28 1978 Kwale No No from 826.2 thousand in 1993 to National Reserves 863.4 thousand in 1994 (Kenya, 1995). Many visitors go to the 30. Marsabit 1,198 1962 Marsabit Yes No country's national parks and 31. Nasolot 92 1979 West Pokot Yes No reserves for wildlife safari 32. South Turkana 1,091 1979 Turkana Yes No t o u r i s m (Table 2). 33. Losai 1,806 1976 Marsabit Yes No 34. Kerio Valleya --- Yes No The wildlife component yields 35. Kamnarok 88 1983 Baringo No No substantial and increasing 36. Kakamega 4 1985 Kakamega Yes Yes economic returns. However, the 37. Lake Bogoria 107 1970 Baringo Yes No 38. Samburu 165 1963 Samburu Yes No major proportion of tourism 39. Shaba 239 1974 Isiolo Yes No expenditures remains with 40. Buffalo Springs 131 1963 Isiolo Yes No entrepreneurs elsewhere, far 41. Bisanadi 606 1978 Isiolo Yes No removed from communities 42. Rahole 1,270 1976 Garissa Yes No adjacent to the country's parks 43. North Kitui 745 1979 Kitui Yes No and reserves (Burnett & Conover, 44. Mwea 68 1976 Embu Yes Yes 1989; Sinclair, 1992; Sindiga, 45. 1,510 1974 Narok Yes Yes 1984, 1994). Tourism may bring 46. South Kitui 1,833 1979 Kitui Yes No in “hard” currency and help a 47. Arawale 533 1974 Garissa Yes No 48. Boni 1,339 1976 Yes Yes nation to balance its accounts, 49. Dodori 877 1976 Lamu Yes Yes however, the local consequences 50. Tana River Primate169 1976 Tana River Yes Yes of tourism development are often 51. Shimba Hills 192 1968 Kwale Yes Yes neglected. For decades, wildlife's impact on local people was (cont.) ignored thereby generating resentment to parks and reserves, and to tourism (Akama, Lant & Burnett, 1995; Olindo,

46 THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 6, No. 2, DEC.'95 Table 1 (cont.) and reserves are the basis of Area Year Pastoral Kenya's thriving wildlife safari Agricultural National Parks (Km2) gazetted District demand demand tourism. Two other major attrac- tions are coastal beaches, and Marine Reserves museums and archaeological sites. Most tourists, however, 52. Kiungab,c 250 1979 Lamu No No combine wildlife safari with 53. Malindib 213 1968 Kilifi No No “sun, sand and sea” perhaps 54. Mombasab 200 1986 Mombasa No No because of the proximity of 55 Watamub,c 32 1968 Kilifi No Yes wildlife areas to the coast (Dieke, 56. Mpungutib 11 1968 Kwale No No 1991).

National Sanctuary Kenya's tourism developed on the basis of up-country wildlife 57. Maralal 6 1968 Samburu Yes No conservation in national parks Notes: a in process in gazettement and reserves. These wildlife b there is demand for fishing on these areas by the local population areas became important tourist c local demand for forest products exist in these places Sources: destinations especially for Kenya Wildlife Service, 1990, p.vii; visitors from North America and Nyeki, 1992, pp.90-l0l; the United Kingdom. Initially field observations. most tourists came for big game hunting, collection of trophies, 1991). Local communities products (Table 1). sport-fishing and generally make demands to use park experiencing the wild in resources, for pastoral or Wildlife based tourism preserved in a near-natural state. agricultural development; in In the contemporary time, game addition, marine protected Kenya has 57 protected areas hunting is banned in Kenya and areas are desired for fishing dispersed widely across the the tourists come to see the and, in some places for forestry country (Table 1). These parks animals and make photographic safaris. However, significant Table 2: Number of Visitors to Selected Kenya National Parks and tourist traffic is going to the Reserves, 1990-1994. Indian Ocean coast. This beach '000s tourism draws most of its 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994a clientele from Western Europe, mainly Germany, Italy, and Nairobi 152.8 168.8 156.4 164.6 163.2 Switzerland. Animal Orphanage 213.8 217.6 173.2 155.3 182.0 Amboseli 237.2 198.2 168.3 121.1 159.5 Presently, Kenya's parks and Tsavo West 78.6 119.3 103.1 102.9 105.4 2 Tsavo East 127.7 135.9 125.5 135.8 132.4 reserves cover about 44,000 km Aberdares 66.6 56.3 63.6 60.8 60.2 or about 8 percent of the Buffalo Springs -- country's land area (KWS, 1990). Lake Nakuru 174.2 174.4 139.8 178.6 164.3 Most protected areas are located Maasai Mara 180.5 143.3 138.1 133.1 138.2 in the arid and semi-arid areas; a Marine 35.6 33.0 44.2 41.1 39.4 zone that comprises over 87 Lake Bogoria 53.8 53.0 39.4 37.2 43.2 percent of the national land. This Meru 11.1 9.1 7.1 7.4 7.9 region experiences low and Shimba Hills 60.0 38.2 31.9 24.8 31.6 unreliable rainfall and very high Mount Kenya 18.7 14.6 15.5 18.0 17.2 Samburu - - - 21.5 9.2 evapotranspiration rates. It Kisite/Mpunguti 27.1 33.1 28.0 27.5 34.8 cannot support substantial Mombasa Marine 29.1 54.6 57.8 43.3 48.0 cultivation and resident com- Watamu Marine 20.5 22.0 27.0 31.7 32.1 munities practise one or another Hell's Gate 31.1 41.3 34.2 47.4 44.9 form of pastoralism (Sindiga & Sanctuary, Kisumu - - - 59.1 5.5 Burnett, 1988). Othersb 13.8 14.8 14.0 16.6 9.6 The parks and reserves are at Total 1,532.2 1,518.5 1,367.1 1,927.8 1,428.6 varying levels of development. The tourism industry uses only Notes: a Provisional returns about two dozen of them (Table b Includes Mount Elgon, Ol-Donyo Sabuk, Marsabit, Saiwa Swamp, Sibiloi, , , Central 2). The most visited protected Island National Park, Nasolot National Reserve and Kakamega areas are Lake Nakuru, Maasai National Reserve. Mara, Amboseli, Nairobi and Sources: Kenya, l994b, p. 177; Kenya, 1995, p. 167 Tsavo. The visitor capacity in

THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 6, No. 2, DEC.'95 47 both Maasai Mara and Amboseli Kenya. Taxes on tourist Marine parks are somewhat like as well as several other protected expenditures, however, go to the national parks in both adminis- areas has been exceeded given central government. Also, the tration and management. They the current level of park KWS shares surplus park are restricted to the Indian infrastructure. In fact, lodges revenues with local authorities Ocean coast and start at the and camps have proliferated although this aspect has proved highest spring water mark and especially in Amboseli and controversial; as will be shown extend to some distance into the Maasai Mara. below under revenue sharing. sea. These parks are of varied sizes. The marine national Categories of protected areas In contrast, National Reserves reserves extend beyond the in Kenya are created on any type of land. parks. They are managed by the They are declared by the Kenya Wildlife Service. So far, Wildlife conservation areas are government w i th the consen t local authorities have not been designated as National Parks/ of the relevant local authority. involved in their management Marine Parks and National Their objectives are similar to although they share in the Reserves/Marine Reserves; in those of parks except that other revenues. Certain types of addition, there are game land uses by local communities fishing are allowed in the marine reserves. This categorisation and others may be specifically reserves. implies a concept of the owner- and conditionally allowed. s h i p and management of Finally, county council game The establishment of marine wildlife conservation areas reserves are similar in many parks and reserves was intended which is important for the later respects to national reserves. to conserve fragile marine eco- discussion on policies for the The game reserves are declared systems. It was realised t h a t distribution of benefits accruing and managed by county councils tourists had invaded coral from wildlife. National parks are or any other local government gardens in the reefs to collect essentially state lands which are (Kenya, 1975). Local authorities corals and shells thereby managed exclusively for the collect gate fees from National exploiting ornamental marine life conservation of fauna and flora Reserves; in all cases the KWS (Musyoki, 1992). In addition, (Kenya, 1975, 1985a, 1989). collects licensing fees for tourism coral gardens had become Among the objectives are to facilities located in protected important venues for snorkelling. preserve these resources for areas. These activities could lead to the aesthetic, scientific and cultural reasons; to provide educational and recreational facilities; to Table 3: Stakeholders in Wildlife Management in Kenya. provide attractions for tourists and serve as a major basis for the l. Local wildlife associations economically profitable tourist 2. Individual landowners industry; and to sustain such 3. Group landowners other activities as commercial 4. Trustees of communally owned lands 5. Individual ranchers photography and to act as water 6. catchments (Kenya, 1975). As 7. Kenya Wildlife Service such, wildlife management in 8. Forestry Department Kenya has numerous stake- 9. Fisheries Department holders (Table 3). Certain 10. Geology and Mines Department activities, in particular 11. Departments of Agriculture and Livestock Development cultivation, pastoralism, timber 12. Department of Tourism harvesting and consumptive 13. Kenya Tourist Development Corporation wildlife utilisation (sport 14. Water Department 15. District Development Committees hunting, live animal capture, 16. Local authorities especially county councils cropping for meat and trophies, 17. National parks and reserves and game ranching) are excluded 18. Hoteliers and tour operators from national parks (Kenya, 19. Beach operators 1975, 1985a). Kenya banned 20. Women's groups sport hunting in 1977 followed by 21. Community enterprises an embargo on curio and animal 22. Game ranchers parts in 1978. 23. Local non-governmental organisations 24. International non-governmental organisations 25. International community In terms of financial arrange- 26. The scientific community ments, all receipts by National 27. The people of Kenya including generations unborn Parks from tourism and wildlife 28. Entertainment industry activities go to the KWS which is the custodian of all wildlife in Source: Modified from KWS, 1994, p.29.

48 THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 6, No. 2, DEC.'95 Table 4: Causes of Wildlife-Human Conflict. and parks are scavenged for wood and other plant material, l. Loss of and damage to crops honey and water. If law 2. Damage of forest trees and seedlings enforcement is not diligent, 3. Injury and/or loss of human life grazing follows, and eventually 4. Loss of livestock 5. Competition with livestock for pasture and water leading to resource f a r m i n g (Burnett & Conover, degradation and water abuse 1989, p. 257). 6. Destruction of infrastructure (fences, pipes, works, housing) 7. Competition for space (protected areas) with communities This threat to wildlife habitats is 8. Hosting and transmission of livestock diseases already a serious problem in 9. Lack of direct utility of wildlife Africa (Kiss, 1990). Unless 10. Invasion of urban areas leading to insecurity and loss of freedom creative programmes which allow 11. Misbehaviour of KWS Rangers - shooting and whipping people for wildlife management and 12. Misconception of KWS as a philanthropic or donor agency leading to very the development of rural peoples high expectations 13. Ineffective techniques for controlling problem animals are established, conservation 14. No compensation for destruction of property by animals reserves cannot exist amidst 15. Low compensation for people killed by animals hostile neighbourhoods. 16. Inefficiency and abuse of compensation procedures 17. Competition and lack of involvement in tourism business Wildlife are also to be found in 18. Uncontrolled animal movements and migrations areas outside the parks and 19. Conflicts of interest over benefits accruing from wildlife based tourism. reserves in the so-called dispersal 20. Licensing problems among operators of wildlife-related tourism activities or migration areas where local 21. Security/safety of tourists in protected wildlife areas people are not allowed to kill 22. Policy weaknesses causing uncertainty in potential investors 23. Land-use conflicts and inadequacy of policy resolution them. In addition, wild animals 24. Illegal hunting and trade in wildlife products migrate seasonally, going to 25. Denial of a share of revenue and other benefits to stakeholders higher altitude areas or swamps 26. Poverty of local populations in the dry season and wandering 27. Negative social impacts of tourism (prostitution, alcoholism, drug throughout the plains in the wet peddling, scant dressing etc.) season. Without access to private 28. Negative environmental impacts of tourism (overcrowding, animal land in dispersal areas, “wildlife harassment, garbage and sewage disposal, pollution etc.) populations would crash” (KWS, 29. Population pressure 1990, p. 15). Nearly all parks 30. Foreign ownership and management of tourism enterprises leading to local resentment. and reserves including Amboseli, 31. Poor employment opportunities usually in servile positions and seasonal Maasai-Mara and Nairobi are nature of tourism jobs. dependent on dispersal areas for the survival of wildlife. An aerial Source: KWS, 1994, p. 27. count by the World Wildlife Fund done in May 1993, for example, showed that out of 1610 degradation of these marine pressures have built up in the (Loxendonta africana) resources. ecologically better endowed in the Maasai Mara, some 415 (or highland areas. To release the about 26 percent) were in Human-wildlife conflicts pressures, people have spon- dispersal areas; and of the 10,640 taneously moved downslope to buffaloes (Syncerus caffer), 2241 There are a myriad of causes for the rangelands and established (21 percent) stayed outside the wildlife-human conflicts in Kenya dense settlements thereby reserve (Mbugua, 1994). This (Table 4). For the purpose of this destabilising traditional pastoral wildlife reliance on dispersal article, emphasis is on the ecosystems. Setting aside land areas can be explained by the fact aspects of conflicts relating to for national parks and reserves that no park or reserve is a self- resource use. This is because the contributed to the problem as sufficient, all encompassing primary sources of conflict are Kenya's rangelands hold more ecosystem. In a sense, dispersal “the enormous losses, costs and than 50 percent of the country's areas act as buffer zones between fear wildlife causes by destroying livestock and 25 percent of the wildlife and human settlements property and killing humans” human population (Kenya, 1994). (Campbell, Huish & Kajuni, (KWS, 1994, p.3). The result is the competitive 1991). demands for land resources to The issue of land use conflicts support wildlife and livestock In general, wild animals are has come to the fore in Kenya leading to conflicts, ecological better suited to rangeland because of a rapidly growing, degradation and poverty. When grazing resources than livestock. essentially rural population. this happens Whereas wild animals eat many Increasing at a rate of about 3.5 grass and plant species, livestock percent per year, population subsistence increases, are selective grazers. This

THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 6, No. 2, DEC.'95 49 provides wild animals with an pay a heavy price for supporting to people; and community advantage over livestock in the wildlife protection areas. participation in wildlife competition for range resources. management. Each of these The proximity of wild animals Do the resident communities strategies has proved difficult to hinders effective grazing benefit from tourism? What are implement. management by livestock. Wild the institutional arrangements animals make it impossible to for revenue sharing and Initially the government made practise deferred rotational compensation for the local compensation payments for grazing which is the key to people? damage to property (crops and traditional pastoral systems. livestock) to landowners in the Revenue sharing and wildlife dispersal areas. These It begs reiterating that human compensation much-criticised payments were settlements have already scrapped in 1990. The compen- expanded to dispersal areas. A Directing greater economic sation procedures were always mix of land uses including benefits from parks to local cumbersome and took several cultivation has developed. This people is an expressed goal of years. In addition, landowners further reduces the amount of the Kenya government (Kenya, frequently falsified claims. The land available for wildlife all 1975, 1979; KWS, 1990). The programme proved difficult to year round, a problem hardly principles underlying revenue implement leading to its dis- unique to Kenya; it has been sharing are continuance. However, the reported from other African wildlife conservation authorities countries as well (Campbell, 1. that local people bear the cost must strengthen protection of Huish & Kajuni, 1991). of wildlife conservation by livestock and crops from damage tolerating crop and livestock by wildlife. This appears diffi- Wild animals are a menace to livestock, crops, and people. Where cultivation is done large h e r d s especially of buffalo Compatibility between wildlife and other land destroy crops. The annual uses is basic to local communities and their migration of wildebeest future support of wildlife tourism (Connochaetes taurinus) in the Maasai Maraand Loita plains to and from the Serengeti National Park in Tanzania means that the Maasai livestock must compete losses, and foregoing potential cult to achieve in view of the fact with wild animals for range income from alternative land that a large number of wild resources. Wildebeests migrate uses and animals (about 70%) lives outside in large herds; herds of 10,000 the protected areas. Despite this and more are not unusual in the 2. that local communities will knowledge, a controversial electric Serengeti (Pratt & Gwynne, continue supporting parks and fencing programme of protected 1977). These numbers make it reserves if they are seen to areas has been initiated by the impossible for livestock to assist in people's development KWS. Already, Lake Nakuru compete for resources. (KWS, 1990). National Park has been fenced and work is going on elsewhere Successful livestock breeding It follows that wildlife-based including the Aberdares Park depends on effective control of economic activities should and the Shimba Hills Reserve. diseases. However, this has not provide economic incentives for This is likely to be insufficient as been easy to do in Maasailand conservation both in the short- a conflict resolution mechanism because of the presence of wild and long-term (KWS, 1990). As and it may prove ecologically animals. The latter have such, wildlife should be disastrous. In lieu of compen- immunity over dangerous live- compatible with such other land sation for crop and livestock stock diseases and carry these uses as tourism, livestock, losses, landowners may have to without being affected. These harvesting forest products and change to land uses that are diseases which include foot and even cultivation. compatible with wildlife. mouth disease, East Coast fever, Perhaps tourism and related malignant catarrh fever, In pursuit of the above objec- activities such as curio-making rinderpest, pleuro-pneumonIa tives, the Kenya government has and handicrafts could be and nagana are a bane to the called for revenue sharing with considered as alternatives. It Maasai herder. landowners adjacent to the must remain a mute point, parks, and relevant local however, whether traditional The foregoing discussion demon- authorities; and direct livestock cultural groups can strates that local communities compensation for loss and injury abandon their primary livelihood

50 THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 6, No. 2, DEC.'95 system and adopt a new lifestyle. Minister Ntimama accused the of inaccessibility and lack of KWS of insensitivity to the plight accountability to local com- Revenue-sharing and of the Maasai. He claimed that munities. Specifically, local community participation the KWS dismissed people argue that they are not represented on the board of The KWS has a revenue sharing every legitimate claim that we trustees of the KWS. This is seen programme with communities put to them as cheap Narok as insensitivity to local problems using park entry fees (KWS, politics. According to them related to wildlife and tourism. 1990). The main beneficiaries of (KWS), it is not only the politics The case of Maasai Mara reserve this scheme are landowners in of Narok that is cheap, but also and the Amboseli park where wildlife dispersal areas outside a the lives of the people because revenue-sharing has been in park or reserve. However, they recommend KSh.30,000 operation for several years is landowners adjacent to fenced (about US$430) compensation instructive. Maasai Mara, with National Parks or Marine Parks for loss of human life (T h e an area of 1510 km2 is normally receive little or no payment S t a n d a r d, December 24, 1993, viewed as one eco-unit with the because, in the view of the KWS, p. 2). Serengeti National Park of Tan- they do not incur any opportunity zania. The Mara is characterised costs (KWS, 1990). These media reports may not tell by open grassland mixed with the full story. They indicate riverine forests and is quite rich In spite of the policy to share nevertheless that all is not well with an estimated herbivore revenues with landowners, there with wildlife management in population of 237 per km2. It was is no fixed proportion of revenues Kenya. In fact, the failure of the initially popularised as a reserve from a park that a local com- KWS in forging strong local to see the “big five”, namely munity is expected to get. The community and institutional , lion, cheetah, leopard Kenya Wildlife Service “reserves the right to decide who receives what from revenue sharing” (KWS, 1990, p. 51). This has Current compensation is low and unacceptable caused much resentment against to community groups wildlife. It is in this context that the Maasai community leaders have complained about wildlife and tourism.

In December 1993, Maasai linkages for wildlife conservation and rhinoceros. leaders in the area surrounding and its apparent insensitivity to the world famous Maasai Mara resolving local concerns led to the Amboseli is a rather small park National Reserve and led by the premature departure of Richard which has suffered significant area member of parliament, Leakey from the organisation in overgrazing by livestock and wild threatened to kill elephants and 1994. animals. The very heavy tourist other animals found outside the traffic into Amboseli has not reserve boundaries. They The major complaints against the helped matters. The park lies at complained of the destruction of KWS may be summarised. The the foot of Mount Kilimanjaro, life and property by rogue compensation for loss of life is which, at over 5790 metres elephants and buffaloes and the inadequate; also, the processing altitude, has permanent snow- inability of the KWS, then under of claims is too slow. In addition, capped peaks, and is a source of its first director Richard E. local people do not obtain the perennial springs of the Leakey, to contain the wildlife compensation for loss of property. Amboseli. within the reserve. On December Payments of compensation to 23, 1993, William ole Ntimama, property were discontinued in Maasai Mara falls under the a member of the Kenya cabinet 1990. jurisdiction of Narok County as minister for local government Council. This has made it and himself a Maasai from Narok The current rate of 25 percent of possible for the council to collect district, added his voice to the gross park fees ceded to a local money and pay it directly to wildlife menace on local authority is deemed to be too low. landowners in wildlife dispersal communities. He pointed out Residents are clamouring for areas as part of revenue-sharing. that in the previous two years, more equitable revenue sharing Since 1989, Narok County elephants had killed 16 people (Sindiga, 1992). There are also Council has been levying a fee of and maimed scores of others from complaints about non-remittance KSh.50 from every visitor to the Narok town area alone (T h e of the 25 percent gate fees to the reserve and paid to the neigh- Standard, December 24, 1993). affected local county councils. bouring group ranches through a Finally, the KWS is accused both trust fund established for the

THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 6, No. 2, DEC.'95 51 purpose (Sindiyo, 1992). This infrastructure in the reserve can that these initiatives will increase money ceded to group ranches be expected to deteriorate and incomes to rural people by represents some 20 per cent of tourism activities will likely be spreading wildlife-generated the gate fees. The money has put in jeopardy. Perhaps as tourism benefits (Kenya, 1979). been put to community projects Western (1992) suggests, some At the Maasai Mara for example, such as schools, health centres, form of management board will 10 of the 16 developed camps or cattle dips and other services. be required to oversee Mara's lodges are located on private affairs. Such a board should ranches outside the borders of the In the case of the Amboseli, the comprise of professional national reserve (Tuya, 1992). neighbouring Maasai people are p e o ple on wildlife management supplied with piped water from and tourism and recognised local Members of some group ranches springs located inside the park leadership to take care of in the wildlife dispersal area of (Gakahu, 1992). Also, the community interest in the the Maasai Mara have organised government collects gate fees wildlife-based tourism enterprise. themselves and formed the 0l and then shares out the revenue Choro Oirouia Wildlife with the local county council Response of local Association, an indigenous which would then finance local communities to revenue conservation group which is to community projects. Thus, in sharing act as a management group for Amboseli, revenue-sharing does their land. The group collects not go to landowners specifically The programme of revenue- wildlife viewing fees from tourists and this is a cause for discontent. sharing in the Maasai Mara and and distributes the proceeds to Also, it appears that the water is Amboseli has fallen short of the membership. They appear to piped because of the park and not expectations (Gakahu, 1992). It make a substantial amount of the local people. Although there has failed to compensate the money each year. Other group are some claims that local Maasai producer, that is, the individual ranches which border the Maasai hostilities against wild animals landowner in the dispersal areas. Mara are planning to form their have decreased (Hadley, 1994), This has spurred community own associations. living conditions in the efforts aimed at direct neighbourhood of the park have participation in tourism activities The group ranches around not improved. The conflicts with a view to earning greater between park authorities and the incomes. Local people have including Olgulului Ololorashi, local people appear to be far from organised themselves to create Mbirikani, Kimana and Selengei resolved (Talbot & Olindo, 1990). income generating activities. and those close to the Tsavo These include providing West National Park (Rombo and The Maasai Mara dispersal area Kuku) are planning to draw up is quite large, covering some 1. camping concessions and agreements with the KWS in 3,400 km2 (Sindiyo, 1992). This exclusive camp sites, order to protect their rights and area has many landowners to be compensated for protecting thereby increasing the potential 2. public camp sites and other wildlife (Kenya Times, 21 for future conflict on revenue low-cost accommodation, January 1994). Such agreements sharing among them. And like will be done by wildlife Amboseli, the revenue from the 3. leases or partnerships with associations planned on the reserve is not paid to landowners lodge and hotel operators, model of Ol Choro Oirouia. but serves as a tax waiver to the community. Finally, the KSh.50 4. guiding tours, and The emergence of wildlife fee levied on a tourist visiting the associations by indigenous people Maasai Mara is probably too low 5. supplies and services to lodges. is to be encouraged. It will to meet a private landowner's (KWS, 1990). sustain the wildlife conservation costs. ethic and discourage poaching. In addition, certain consumptive Reports from Ol Choro Oirouia But the Maasai Mara example is utilisation of wildlife may be indicate that the association has atypical. Its management status permitted to private landowners employed a security team of is in flux. Mara's land resource is such as bird shooting, game trained scouts. Also, the governed by the county council cropping and hunting for home associations are beginning to but the wildlife is under the consumption subject to obtaining attract support from inter- KWS. This makes it hard to plan a license and possessing required national conservation g r o u p s a programme of development and skills and equipment (KWS, and other stakeholders in financial investment in the 1990). tourism. A group known as reserve. Friends of Conservation has Some of these activities have been offered to build and equip two Unless the management problem developed in areas adjacent to the primary schools libraries in the of the Mara is resolved, the parks and reserves. It is expected area covered by Ol Choro Oirouia;

52 THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 6, No. 2, DEC.'95 and African Safari Club will build people for long periods. On this demands with local needs with a and equip a secondary school score, local authorities are view to enhancing wildlife (Daily Nation, 25 January 1994). equally insensitive to the needs conservation and sharing of local people. Local authorities revenues and other benefits Conclusion such as county councils put accruing more equitably. Such tourism revenues into their planning must also address the This study has shown that general bank accounts and use issues of the ownership, communities adjacent to National the money to balance their management, and coordination Parks and National Reserves pay budgets and pay recurrent of National Reserves. At present, a price for the conservation of operational expenses. There is no a county council can levy wildlife through the loss of specific requirement that part of whatever fees it wishes to allow farming land, agricultural crops, the revenue be used for wildlife tourists to enter a national livestock, and loss and injury to conservation and improving the reserve. Local wildlife manage- people. Over the past few years, tourism infrastructure. ment associations operating on the KWS has encouraged the private lands adjacent to national sharing of revenues generated Local authorities, of course, parks and national reserves from wildlife-based tourism obtain greater revenues from impose their own fee rates as between government at all levels National Reserves which they well. This is to be encouraged. and local communities. Such own. But local authorities have As the wildlife associations sharing started with the little capacity to develop and proliferate, competition will Amboseli National Park and the maintain reserve infrastructure increase and only those offering Maasai Mara National Reserve in such as roads, fences, security of quality services will survive to 1989 and is expected to be the wildlife and tourists; and to the advantage of tourists. extended to all other parks an sustain ecologically fragile However, the KWS and other reserves. However, the KWS has environments. The overcrowding tourism authorities should not specified who is to be in the Mara is a case in point. anticipate a multiplication of compensated and how much is to The KWS is in a better position to groups erecting barriers to levy be paid and when. This leaves do these functions in terms of charges to tourists without little room for local communities resource capacity, personnel and providing any services. Too many to negotiate with the KWS on the financing. fees collection centres could opportunity cost for their support become cumbersome and trigger for wildlife. Such a policy The policy intention of sharing negative reactions among decision by the KWS appears tourism revenues directly with travellers and tour operators. absolute and arbitrary. The local landowners has proved easier communities have no avenues of said than done. So far, direct Planning should identify who channelling their grievances on benefits to local people have been bears responsibility for park or this matter. Also, the KWS minimal. This partly has reserve development. Who decision not to share revenue motivated certain communities to should plan new lodges and with communities adjacent to form wildlife associations to camping sites, for example? Who fenced parks is equally arbitrary. participate directly in tourism. should determine the optimum This action is yielding dividends. number of a given facility in a Questions have also been raised However, not all landowners are reserve or park? How can the on what proportion of tourism involved. Local wildlife con- interests of local people be met? revenues the KWS (and the servation and management central government) should give associations are characteristically Compensation for loss and injury to local authorities. Is the level of elite groups which monopolise the from wildlife is an emotive issue 25% of gross gate fees collected benefits from tourism. The among residents adjacent to sufficient? What is the 'right' majority of the local people need parks and reserves. Complaints level of compensating local to be educated on how they can are raised that processing of authorities? Yet ceding money to participate fully in sharing the compensation claims is too slow. a local authority in which a park tourism resource thereby being Actual settlements are too low or reserve is located is not the motivated to conserve wildlife. and do not even reflect market same thing as sharing tourism This is the idea of community values. Compensation tends to be revenues with local people who participation in tourism manage- partial covering only certain support wildlife and it is certainly ment. It may be noted though losses and not others. not the same thing as com- that local people have little, if any pensating the producer. In fact, expertise in contemporary wild- It is not clear what role KWS local authorities are not life conservation and tourism plays in compensation for loss necessarily any more efficient management (Dieke, 1993). and injury. Who is responsible? than the KWS or the central The matter of procedures and government. They are known to Also, planning is required to responsibilities for compensation keep resources belonging to local integrate national tourism ought to be clarified by relevant

THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 6, No. 2, DEC.'95 53 authorities. Nonetheless, what- References ever compensation packages are Akama, J.S., Lant, C.L., and Burnett, G.W. (1995). Conflicting put in place will be inadequate for attitudes toward state wildlife conservation programs in Kenya. conflict resolution involving Society and Natural Resources, 8, 133-144. humans and wildlife. The Burnett, G.W., & Conover, R. (1989). The efficacy of Africa's National conflicts can be minimised but Parks: An evaluation of Julius Nyerere's Arusha manifesto of certainly not eliminated. 1961. Society and Natural Resources, 2, 251-260. Campbell, K.I.I., Huish, S.A., & Kajuni, A.R. (Eds.) (1991). Serengeti Finally, population pressure is National Park Management Plan 1991-1995. Arusha: Tanzania increasing in the rangelands National Parks. because of relatively large human Daily Nation (1994). Wildlife Group Sue Narok Council. D a i l y and livestock populations and Nation (January). wildlife. The human settlements Dieke, P.U.C. (1991). Policies for tourism development in Kenya. are becoming dense and the Annals of Tourism Research, 19, 69-90. cultivation frontier is expanding Dieke, P.U.C. (1993). Cross-national comparison of tourism in areas of delicate ecologies. development: Lessons from Kenya and the Gambia. Journal of This demand for land is sending Tourism Studies, 4(1), 2-l8. distress signals to planners and Economist Intelligence Unit. (1991). EIU international tourism policy-makers dealing with reports No. 2 Kenya. London: EIU. wildlife-based tourism. Tourism Gakahu, C.G. (1992). Participation of local communities in planning and development plans ecotourism: Rights, roles and socio-economic benefits. In C.G. must seriously address the issue Gakahu & B.E. Goode (Eds.), Ecotourism and sustainable of increasing population, and development in Kenya (pp. 117-123). Nairobi: Wildlife expanding settlements and Conservation International. wildlife conservation. Only then Hadley, M. (1994). Linking conservation, development and research can wildlife-based tourism in in protected area management in Africa. Unasylva 176, 45, 28- Kenya be sustained. 34. Kenya, Republic of (1975). Sessional Paper No. 3 of 1975: Statement It is fortuitous that during the on future wildlife management policy in Kenya. Nairobi: 1994-96 development plan period, Government Printer. the government will support the Kenya, Republic of (1979). Development Plan 1979-1983 Part l. KWS efforts in the Nairobi: Government Printer. Kenya, Republic of (1985a). The Wildlife (Conservation and planning, development and Management) Act. Chapter 376 Laws of Kenya. Nairobi: management of protected areas Government Printer. under its jurisdiction and in Kenya, Republic of (1985b). The Wildlife (Conservation and seeking solutions to conflicts Management) Amendment Act 1989. Kenya Gazette arising between the demand for Supplement No. 95 (Acts No. 9). Nairobi: Government Printer. the wildlife conservation and Kenya, Republic of (1989). Development Plan 1989-1993. Nairobi: the competing interests of the Government Printer. landowners and the local Kenya, Republic of (1994a). National Development Plan 1994 to 1996. communities living within or Nairobi: Government Printer. near wildlife protected and Kenya, Republic of (1994b). Economic survey 1994. Nairobi: Central dispersal areas (Kenya, 1994a, Bureau of Statistics. pp. 195-196). Kenya, Republic of (1994c). Sessional Paper No. 1 of 1994 on recovery and sustainable development to the year 2010. Nairobi: This work will be aided a great Government Printer. deal after the proposed National Kenya, Republic of (1995). Economic Survey 1995. Nairobi: Central Tourism Development Master Bureau of Statistics. Plan is produced. It is expected Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) (1990). A policy framework and that the master plan will provide development programme 1991-1996. Nairobi: KWS. a harmonised regulatory frame- Kenya Wildlife Service (1994). Wildlife-human conflicts in Kenya: work for addressing extant land Report of the five-person review group. Nairobi: KWS use conflicts related to tourism Kiss, A. (Ed.) (1990). Living with wildlife: Wildlife resource (Kenya, 1994c). management with local participation in Africa. World Bank Technical - Paper No. 130 Africa Technical Department Series. Washington DC: World Bank. Mbugua, Ngugi wa (1994). Maasai-game conflict: Who has right of way? Sunday Nation (January). Musyoki, B.M. (1992). Marine National Parks and Reserves of Kenya. In C.J. Mayers, & C.K. Rumisha (Eds.), A proposal for the establishment of the Mafia Island Marine Park, Tanzania

54 THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 6, No. 2, DEC.'95 Part II: Proceedings of the planning workshop 20th-24th October 1991 (pp. 74-80). Dares Salaam: World Wide Fund for Nature. Nyeki, D. (1992). Wildlife conservation and tourism in Kenya. Nairobi: Jacaranda Designs. Olindo, P. (1991). The old man of nature tourism: Kenya. In T.J. Whelan (Ed.), Nature tourism: Managing for the environment (pp. 23-38). Washington DC: Island Press. Pratt, D.J., & Gwynne, M.D. (Eds.) (1977). Rangeland management and ecology in East Africa. Huntington, New York: Robert E. Krieger. Sinclair, M.T. (1992). Tour operators and policies in Kenya. Annals of Tourism Research, 19, 555-561. Sindiga, I. (1984). Land and population problems in Kajiado and Narok, Kenya. African Studies Review, 72(l), 23-39. Sindiga, I. (1992). The future of Maasai pastoralists. P r o f e s s i o n a l Geographer, 44, 101-102. Sindiga, I. (1994). Employment and training in tourism in Kenya. Journal of Tourism Studies, 5(2), 45-52. Sindiga, I., & Burnett, G.W. (1988). Geography and development in Kenya. Professional Geographer, 40, 232-237. Sindiyo, J. (1992). Management proposal for the Mara Dispersal Area. In C.G. Gakahu (Ed.), Tourist attitudes and use impacts in Maasai Mara National Reserve (pp. 76-78). Nairobi: Wildlife Conservation International. Standard, The (1993). Ntimama lashes out at Leakey. T h e Standard, (December). Talbot, L., & Olindo, P. (1990). Kenya: The Maasai Mara and Amboseli Reserves. In A. Kiss (Ed.), Living with wildlife: Wildlife resource management with local participation in Africa. World Bank Technical Paper No. 130 (67-74). Washington DC: World Bank. Tuya, S. ole (1992). Keynote Speech. In C.G. Gakahu (Ed.), Tourist attitudes and use impacts in Maasai Mara National Reserve (pp. 3-5). Nairobi: Wildlife Conservation International. Western, D. (1992). Planning and management for optimal visitor capacity. In C.G. Gakahu (Ed.), Tourist attitudes and use impacts in Maasai Mara National Reserve (pp. 66-75). Nairobi: Wildlife Conservation International.

THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 6, No. 2, DEC.'95 55