PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c-JCIRC/Datoouopﬂs-pJS

A CONTEXTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR INTEGRATED WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION USING KAJIADO DISTRICT, KENYA AS AN ILLUSTRATION

By

Timothy George Lauxmann

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

Masters of Arts
Department of Geography

2003

ABSTRACT
A CONTEXTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR INTEGRATED WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION USING KAJIADO DISTRICT, KENYA AS AN
ILLUSTRATION
By

Timothy George Lauxmann

Many wildlife conservation researchers and planners acknowledge that an
interdisciplinary approach is necessary for planning. Many integrated programs
implemented since the 19705 have demonstrated positive short-term results. However,
these programs also have had the same problems, such as local resistance and political
corruption, crop up repeatedly. The repetition of these problems is partly due a limited
interdisciplinary discourse between the social and ecological sciences. This argument
was supported by a review of pertinent social and ecological literature, which
demonstrates the prevalence of neo-Malthusian thought in ecology. While useful for
studying wildlife, neo-Malthusian theory inhibits understanding in human societies and
results in oversimplifying the human dimension. On the other hand, the literature also
demonstrated that social scientists have traditionally had limited understanding of
ecosystem processes and interest in wildlife studies. The research question addressed is:
what information is required for integrated conservation planning that incorporates
historical circumstances, social driving forces, and a dynamic view of ecosystems? The
objectives were to help overcome the problems and obstacles listed above by developing
a Contextual Framework for Wildlife Conservation. To illustrate the Framework I

presented a case study from Kajiado District, Kenya.

©
Cepyright by

TIMOTHY G. LAUXMANN
2003

 

This thesis is dedicated to my wife Misty and my son Alexander, without whom its

completion would not have been possible.

iv

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS

Many people helped in the completion of this thesis as the inspiration for my
research came from varied sources. Even though I cannot thank you all, know that I am
grateﬁII. First, I thank my Chair, David J. Campbell, for his guidance and letting me
develop my own ideas. His dedication to Kenya and Africa and work to expand
interdisciplinary cooperation is inspiring. I also thank Henry Campa III of Fisheries and
Wildlife who also served on my committee. His help in understanding the ecological
88pects of my research was invaluable. The rotating reader on my committee was
Antoinette WinklerPrinz. Additionally, I wish to acknowledge the following professors

for their help: Bruce Pigozzi and Robert Walker from Geography and Patricia Soranno
and Angela Mertig ﬁ'om Fisheries and Wildlife.

My thanks to Perez Olindo, former Wildlife Director in Kenya, for his help and
adViCe while in Kenya and Helen Gichohi of the African Conservation Centre in Nairobi
for allowing me to use the 1977 and 1996 Kajiado data. I also thank all those I spoke

With in the Kenya Wildlife Service for providing me insight into Kenyan conservation

Issues - Additionally, David Western needs to be acknowledged, as his work and writings

w - - '
ere Instrumental In the development of my Ideas.

The many ﬁiends and fellow graduate students who believed in and encouraged

me throughout my efforts deserve thanks as well. Finally, I thank Dr. Lewis Binford,
p
to fesSor of Archaeology at Southern Methodist University, who believed in and helped

’11 . .
e deVelop my abilities, George Compton for listemng, and my father who came through

fol-
me when times were lean.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................. viii
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................. ix
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION: THE HUMAN/ENVIRONMENT DYNAMIC
The Problem .............................................................................. 1
Contextual Framework for Wildlife Conservation ................................... 5
Point A: Historical Perspective ................................................... 7
Point B: Contemporary Social Driving Forces ................................. 7
Point C: Future Trends ............................................................ 9
Theoretical Perspective ................................................................. 10
Chapter Outline ......................................................................... 13
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW: THE NEED FOR AND PROBLEMS
WITH EXPANDING THE INTERDISCIPLINARY DISCOURSE
0N CONSERVATION
Introduction ............................................................................. 14
The Ecological Perspective ............................................................ 15
The Sociocultural Perspective ......................................................... 38
Missed Connections: Applying Mono-Causal
Explanations to Multifaceted Issues,
The Neo-Malthusian Perspective in the Literature ................................ 52
Research Question and Objectives ................................................... 67
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Origins of the Conceptual Framework for Wildlife Conservation ............... 69
Data Collection: Library Research, Personal
Communications, and Survey Data .................................................. 73
Analytical Procedure ................................................................... 75
gII‘ISAPTER 4
C O CLISSION: THE CONTEXTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR WILDLIFE
NSERVATION
Introduction to the Contextual Framework ........................................ 77
Point A: The Historical Perspective ................................................ 85
Pre—Colonial, Colonial, and Post-Independence History ..................... 88
The Pre-Colonial and Colonial Periods ..................................... 99
The Post-Independence Period .............................................. 96
vi

Environmental Setting and Conservation/Wildlife History ................ 109

Environmental Setting ...................................................... 109
People and Wildlife Prior to the Colonial Period ........................ 110
Conservation Prior to 1945 ................................................. 112
Parks and Reserves (1945-1962) .......................................... 113
The Transition from Colony to Country (1963-1977) ................... 116
Wildlife Extension and Community Based
Participation (1977-1987) .................................................. 119
The KWS (1987 to the Present) ........................................... 123
Historical Trends in Kajiado and the Conceptual Framework ............. 130
Point B: Contemporary Social Driving Forces ................................. 127
The Proximate Causes of Change in Kajiado ................................. 135
The Social Driving Forces at Work ............................................. 139
Economic Drivers ............................................................ 140
Institutional/Political Drivers .............................................. 144
Sociocultural Drivers ....................................................... 141
Environmental Drivers .................................................... 146
Contemporary Trends in Kajiado and the Conceptual Framework ....... 151
Point C: Future Trends .............................................................. 154
General Social and Ecological Trends .................................... 157
Recommendations and Resource Allocation ............................ 158
Future Trends in Kajiado and the Conceptual Framework ............. 168
Review of the Pre-Conservation Information Gathering Checklist ............ 170
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS:
Thesis Review ........................................................................ 175
Contextual Framework: Strengths and Weaknesses ........................... 179
Conclusions: Conservation and Development .................................. 181
BIB LIOGRAPHY ........................................................................... 188
vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1—— A Contextual Framework for Wildlife Conservation ........................... 82
Table 2—Point A of the Contextual Framework for Wildlife Conservation ............ 87
........... 134

Table 3—Point B of the Contextual Framework for Wildlife Conservation
Table 4 - Reported Conﬂict Between Land Users: 1977 and 1996 (in order of
frequency of report in 1996) ............................................................... 145
Table 5 — Wildlife Species Involved in Herder-Wildlife Conﬂict (by

percent of those reporting conﬂict) ......................................................... 146
Table 6 — Wildlife Species Involved in Farmer-Wildlife Conﬂict: 1977 and 1996 (by
Percent of those reporting) .................................................................. 146

Table 7—Point of the Contextual Framework for Wildlife Conservation .............. 157

viii

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure l—T'he relationship between the three main points of the

Conceptual Framework for Wildlife Conservation ........................................... 6

Figure 2— Map of the Study Area ............................................................ 70
...... 71

Figure 3—Eastern Kajiado showing Amboseli and Tsavo West National Parks

Figure 4——One Possible Relationship between the Contextual Framework for Wildlife
Conservation and Wildlife Management Planning ....................................... 174

ix

ACC
CBC
GR

KLDP
KWS

ACRONYMS

African Conservation Center
Community-Based Conservation
Group Ranch
Individual Ranch
Integrated Rural Development
Kenya Livestock Development Program
Kenya Wildlife Service
Man and the Biosphere
The Nature Conservancy
Non-Govemmental Organization
United Nations Office of the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
Protected Areas and Wildlife Service

Structural Adjustment Program
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization

United States Agency for International Development
Wildlife Conservation and Management Department

Wildlife for Development Fund
Protected Areas and Wildlife Service

World Wildlife Fund

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION: THE HUMAN/ENVIRONMENT DYNAMIC

What now remains compared with what then existed is like the skeleton of
a sick man, all the fat and soft earth having been wasted away, and only

the bare framework of the land being left.
—Plato

The Problem

The fossil record tells us that mass extinctions have occurred throughout the
earth’ 3 history. The last great extinction occurred in the Pleistocene epoch, during which
the me gafauna virtually disappeared worldwide. As with previous mass extinctions,
Ch.n'latic: and environmental changes were blamed. However, the Pleistocene extinction
may have also included an additional factor not present during previous mass extinctions,
a h‘mlan factor. Some paleontologists believe that human beings may have played a
Significant role in the disappearance of some species, if only to push them over the edge.
This theory termed the “Pleistocene overkill hypothesis”, though not conclusive, has

considerable evidence to support it (Diamond, 1989: 37-49)-

Throughout the Holocene, human society has increased in both numbers and
te . . . . . . . .
chnOIOgical capability. Along With these Increases 1n population and matenal culture
h . . . . . .
ave Come correspondlng Increases In pollution, env1ronmental degradation, and the loss

of \Nri . . . . . .
ldlife. Moreover, these envrronmental impacts have Increased dramatically smce

 

the advent of the Industrial Revolution to the point where some ecologists believe that we
may now be looking at the beginnings of an extinction spasm on the scale of the mass
extinctions that occurred during the Cretaceous or the Pleistocene without the
corresponding climatic stresses. Indeed, some believe that because of increased human
impact the new extinction spasm could surpass previous mass extinctions (Diamond,
1989: 37-49; Myers, 1989: 42-49; Hunter, 1990: 115-138; Western, 1997: 174-176;
Terborgh, 1999: 116-120).

In Requiem for Nature, Terborgh lists the greatest threats to modern conservation
as: “over population, inequities of power and wealth, exhaustion of natural resources,
Corruption, lawlessness, poverty, and social unrest” (Terborgh, 1999: 17). In
Conservation for the Twenty-First Century, Western describes the “Evil Quartet” of land

use Practices threatening wildlife diversity as habitat fragmentation, the over-utilization
or r esOurces, ecological disruption, and the introduction of exotic species (Western,
1989c : 32). In Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-Based Conservation,
Salafsky warns against “the deep underlying threat of ecological collapse latent in the
tickitlg time bombs of human population growth and expanding consumerism” (Salafsky,

1994: 448-449).

These lists of environmental concerns indicate that no one discipline or theoretical
petSpective can address the myriad issues facing wildlife conservation now and in the
future. Indeed, ecologists are showing increasing interest in studying the human
dimension when looking at conservation (Western, 1989: 31-41; Meine, 1992: 45-61).
Likewi se, social scientists are showing an increasing interest in wildlife issues when

s .
111(lylng people and the environment (Campbell et. a1., 1999; Gibson 1999: 1-18).

However, simply seeing a connection between human activities and wildlife diversity
loss does little to explain the exact nature of that relationship. Likewise, recognizing the
need for interdisciplinary cooperation does not explain how that cooperation can be
achieved to address the human/environment dynamic and meet conservation goals.

The understanding that conservation and development are linked has actually
been around for decades, as has the knowledge that an interdisciplinary approach is
needed to achieve conservation and development goals. Moreover, plans attempting to
implement varying degrees of integrated conservation have been and are being tried.
Unfortunately, none of these plans to date, despite the degree of short run success it may

have achieved, has been able to fully address all the issues facing conservation today, let
alone plan for those in the future. Moreover, many of the problems or stumbling blocks
encountered by these plans tend to be reoccurring (see Anderson and Grove, 1987;
Khalikane, 1991; Western, 1994a; Gibson, 1999).

I argue in this thesis that the main reason for these reoccuning problems is that
the di Scourse between the biological and social sciences is still immature. This
immaturity translates into limited understanding between the two groups and likely
cooIDeI-ation between them as well (Campbell, 1998: 292-296). The prevalence of the
neo‘Malthusian perspective in the ecological literature (see Brown, 1987; Salafsky,

1 994; Terborgh, 1999) and the lack of interest among social scientists in wildlife studies
(See Gibson, 1999) support this argument. The problems with applying neO-Malthusian
models to human societies are thoroughly discussed in chapter 2. Further related
evidence for the lack of a mature discourse can be found in the way social scientists tend

t -
o Sll"Uplify the natural world and ecologists tend to simplify the human dimension. Such

oversimpliﬁcation can limit understanding between the two perspectives. To overcome
these obstacles, common ground must be expanded between the positivist approach of the
ecological sciences and the dialectical approach common in the social sciences, so that a
discourse can be reﬁned to fully address conservation issues. The importance of
furthering this discourse cannot be overestimated (Campbell, 1998: 292-296; Zimmerer
and Young, 1998). All of these issues are examined in the literature review and the
discussion chapter.

Furthering the discourse between the social and biological sciences requires,
requires accepting that both cultures and environments are dynamic. An historical
perspective is required to put contemporary issues into perspective (Campbell et. a1.,

1 999: 38-39). An evolutionary view of ecology (Meffe and Carroll, 1997), sometimes
referred to as “scientiﬁc ecology” (Zimmerer, 1994: 2-5) needs to be employed in
Planning. Ecosystem management takes this view of ecology and emphasizes
maintaining critical ecological and evolutionary processes, adaptive and ﬂexible
marlagement, minimizing external threats while maximizing external beneﬁts, and
moving beyond park boundaries. Of course, within such a management framework the
human dimension is considered (Meffe and Carroll, 1997: 346-383, 385-417). The
fra“l'le‘w/ork presented in this thesis embraces the same ecosystem management approach.
Hov"ever, it expands the role of context and the human dimension within the
huttlall/environment dynamic.

In order to understand this dynamic the contemporary situation in a study area
must be put in context. Incorporating a historical perspective and scientiﬁc ecology only

p .
l‘Q"lde part of this context. In order to understand the role of the human half of the

dynamic in conservation requires not only identifying the proximate causes of change but
the indirect causes or the social driving forces as well (Stern et. a1., 1992: 67-93). Studies
of the human dimension to date do not tend to take social driving forces or historical
circumstances into account (Gibson, 1999: 9-14). The result has often been static plans
focused on the contemporary situation, examples of which are presented in the literature
review and discussion chapters. The Contextual Framework for Wildlife Conservation

presented in this thesis addresses the informational needs required for such adaptive

planning.

Con textual Framework for Wildlife Conservation

The literature review will show that research into the human dimension when
designing a conservation plan tends to be very basic. It commonly begins and ends with
the identiﬁcation of the proximate causes of wildlife diversity loss, then seeks to address
those causes. The problem with this approach is that it so oversimpliﬁes the
human/environment dynamic as to minimize the impact of the conservation plan. That is,
it Produces static, inﬂexible plans focused exclusively on the here and now. The
Col'ltﬁtxtual Framework, presented here, is designed to help gather the data needed to
create a ﬂexible, dynamic conservation plan that addresses the human/environment
dyrlalnic as thoroughly as possible. It does so by examining the present historical
(iron-Instances and assessing future needs. Moreover, the examination of the present
circumstances goes well beyond the standard identiﬁcation of the proximate causes of
challge into the driving forces behind those causes. The information gathered from these

0 Perspectives allows the Identiﬁcation of soc10economic, ecological, and sootocultural

trends that can be used to give the plan a longer-tenn perspective by helping determine
where resources should be allocated in a conservation area. The Framework will be
described in detail in chapter 4 and will ﬂow from the data presented in the literature
review. However, by way of introduction, ﬁgure 1 shows the relationship between the

three main points of the Framework, which are discussed below.

 

Point A:
Historical Perspective

. Historical time frame

. Human history

. Environmental setting

. Midlife/Conservation history
. Relationship between 1-4

Where have we been?

MhWNu—t

 

 

 

 

 

Point B:
Contemporary Social
Driving Forces

. Proximate causes of change

. Social driving forces at work
3. Relate Sub-Points 1 and 2
building on Point A analysis

Where are we now?

h.)—

 

 

 

V

Point C:
Future Trends

1. General social and ecological
trends based on Point A and
B analysis

2. Preliminary conservation
planning recommendations

 

 

r

Where are we going?

 

 

 

F -
lg‘ue l—T'he relationship between the three main points of the Conceptual Framework for Wildlife
Conservation

Point A: Historical Perspective

Before one can understand the present condition and circumstances of a
conservation area, one must ﬁrst examine the historical events that created them
(Campbell et. a1., 1999: 38-39), thus the need for an historical perspective. In the

Framework, this ﬁrst aspect is the Historical Perspective, Point A. The relevant historical
circumstances will vary for each conservation area, as will the sources available to study
them. However, as many sources as possible should be examined to gain understanding
from as many perspectives and at as many scales as possible. The purpose here is not to
write a history of the study area in the Western sense but rather to gain insight into the
circumstances that resulted in the present socioeconomic and environmental conditions.
Thi s requires not only including the perspectives of historians and social scientists but
ecologists and indigenous peoples as well. Using sub-points and questions to help guide
the information gathering process, the general social and ecological trends that help

eXplain the contemporary cultural and ecological conditions should emerge.

Po 1‘ n t B; Contemporary Social Driving Forces
The Historical Perspective should ﬂow into the contemporary situation, which is
Point B. Point B is also referred to as the Contemporary Social Driving Forces. To be
Clear, Point B does not de-emphasize the importance of the proximate causes of change
but I‘Elther emphasizes the drivers of those causes. In Global Environmental Change:
Understanding the Human Dimensions (Stem et. a1., 1992), the authors explain the
cOhCépts of both proximate causes and social driving forces. They deﬁne proximate

auses In anthropogemc terms as the immediate human action taking place that is seen as

directly causing environmental change. Among these causes may be road building, land
tenure, agriculture and ranching, and population pressure. These proximate causes can
combine with an extensive (as opposed to intensive) land use system, common in Third
World tropical countries, to help explain environmental concerns such as deforestation
(Stern et. a1., 1992: 67-75), which can translate into the loss of wildlife diversity.

Social driving forces, on the other hand, are deﬁned as the complex of
technological, economic, institutional, cultural, and environmental variables that
norrnally act in conjunction and at various scales to inﬂuence the more readily
identiﬁable proximate causes. Social driving forces, then, are the indirect causes of
Change- Unfortunately, because of their indirect nature, social forces are often hard to
idrenti fy. These driving forces can include population growth, political and economic
institutions, and belief systems (Stern et. a1., 1992: 75-93). Notice that the controversial
Vari able, population growth is listed as both a proximate cause and a social driving force.
Of <-"<>1.1rse, other variables may appear as either social driving forces or proximate causes
as Well, but, historically, population growth has held a rather unique position in the realm
0f callses. The population variable, and the mono-causal explanations that tend to
accOl‘l'lpany it, will be examined extensively in the literature review.

I will demonstrate in subsequent chapters that, while it is important to identify
both proximate causes and social driving forces as completely as possible, particular
attention needs to be paid to the latter. Identifying the proximate causes of change is
necessary to accurately assess immediate levels of environmental impact from different
t3,1398 of human activity (Stern et. a1., 1992: 92). On the other hand, to see a complete

plotllre of the human/environment dynamic and to fully address conservation issues

requires identifying the forces that are driving these proximate causes, as well. The
reason for emphasizing social driving forces is that, as discussed above, because of their
indirect nature they are often overlooked (Stem, et. a1., 1992: 93-94). At best, ignoring
the social driving forces at work in a conservation area will result in an oversimpliﬁcation
of a complex situation. At worst, it can result in an ecofalacy, in which Observations at
the macro level are erroneously used to explain micro level phenomenon. An example,
that has occurred more than once, is the observation of rapid population growth occurring
along side severe environmental degradation and, from this observation, assuming a

cause and effect relationship (Campbell, 1996: 4-5).

Point C: Future Trends

Just as sub-points and questions will be offered to help with the information
gathering at Point A, they will also be provided for Point B and Point C, the latter of
which is also referred to as Future Trends. Likewise, just as the information gathered at
Point A will ﬂow into Point B, the information gathered at both these points should ﬂow
into Point C. Extrapolation into the future is problematic, particularly where
socioeconomic trends are concerned, thus the need for ﬂexibility in planning. However,
some degree of prediction is necessary for planning into the future (W estem, 1989b: 11-
25). General trends should emerge from the information previously gathered that can

help identify areas of need and the best allocation of resources to meet those needs.

Theoretical Perspective

The theoretical framework I used in developing the Conceptual Framework
presented here is that of political ecology. Political ecology is a fairly recent
development coming out of geography and anthropology, which is particularly suited to
the type of interdisciplinary study called for in this thesis. It has the potential to yield
additional insight into the causal process involved with the extinctions of native wildlife
communities without making unwarranted assumptions due to statistical associations or
coincidence (Campbell et. a1., 1999: 8-10). Political ecology allows for the analysis of
interactions encompassing a wide range of socioeconomic and biophysical variables,
each having its own spatial and temporal characteristics (Campbell, 1996: 6-8; Campbell
and Olson, 1991). Political ecology has its roots in Marxism and developed out of
political economy and ecological analysis, identifying both society and nature as social
constructs (Greenberg and Park, 1994: 1-8). In their seminal work, Land Degradation
and Society, Blaikie and Brookﬁeld present regional political ecology as an alternative
approach to mono-causal explanations that employs “chains of causation” beginning at
the scale of the speciﬁc and moving outward to the scale of the general in discussing
issues of land degradation. Multiple perceptions, deﬁnitions, and rationales are used to
develop “multiple and conditional hypotheses” which are grounded in case studies
(Blaikie and Brookﬁeld, 1987: 13-34). The ﬂuid nature of political ecology is not only
an advantage, it is essential (Greenberg and Park, 1994: 8).

In addition, Geography has the strongest tradition among the social sciences of
studying people and the environment and is open to the exchange of ideas with other

disciplines. In Nature ’5 Geography: New Lessons for Conservation in Developing

10

Countries, Zimmerer and Young state that there is an “urgent need to join environmental
management that is sound with economic development that is viable in the long term.”
To achieve this sustainable development requires a “combined focus on the biogeography
and human ecology of environmental changes. Geography offers much to such
understanding—with its core of human-environment relations, geography integrates
various areas of research that are highly relevant” (Zimmerer and Young, 1998: 4).

Along with emphasizing the breadth of the discipline of Geography, the statement

above reemphasizes the assertion at the beginning of this chapter that no one discipline
can address the myriad issues facing modern conservation. One of the major criticisms
of political ecology is that it lacks a genuine ecological component. (This criticism will
be examined in the literature review.) Because of this gap in ecological understanding,
the perspectives of the ﬁeld of Conservation Biology were incorporated into my research
to provide the ecological component to the Framework. Conservation biology is a
relatively new ﬁeld that developed largely as a response to the worldwide biodiversity
crisis and is a synthetic discipline emphasizing the application of principles from the
biological and social sciences, as well as the humanities, to the maintenance of
biodiversity.

In practice, Conservation Biology is designed as a link between pure science and
Practical ecological management to address the most pressing conservation issues, such
as Wildlife extinction and ecosystem process maintenance. The addition of an

evOlutionary view of ecosystems, which brings a longer-term view to conservation, is
2118113ny the discipline’s most signiﬁcant break with past approaches. Additionally, the

interdisciplinary perspective emphasizes the need for understanding the human

11

dimension. Nature is not viewed by conservation biologists with a purely utilitarian eye
nor is development seen as necessarily the antagonist of conservation. On the contrary,
the idea of sustainable development, a mainstay of political ecology, is stressed in
Conservation Biology as well (Western, 1989c: 31-36; Soulé, 1989: 297-303; Meffe and
Carroll, 1997; Campa, 1999: personal communications). As with political ecology,
Conservation Biology will be discussed further in the literature review.

Along with presenting the Framework in this thesis, I am also attempting to
further the discourse between the biological and social sciences. With their openness to
interdisciplinary cooperation, the disciplines of Conservation Biology and Geography are
particularly suited to the development of the Contextual Framework and to furthering the
discourse between disciplines needed to address conservation issues. The importance of
furthering the type of cooperation called for by the Framework, with its emphasis on
social driving forces and historical perspective, is well articulated by Western and Wright
when they describe the situation facing wildlife worldwide:

Renewable-resource use and preservation have served the

environment well, but neither approach has proved sufﬁcient. Both often

have fared badly in the face of population growth, poverty, and

commercialism. At one extreme, international forces such as trade and

economic incentives undermine conservation efforts. At the other,

government indifference and incompetence—often intensiﬁed by

commercial greed, nepotism, corruption, and local hostility—have swelled

the tide of destruction. Finally, both utilization and preservation policies

falter wherever land tenure and access rights are ill deﬁned. The problem

is most acute in areas where national policies deprive local communities

of the right to use the resources on their own land. The resulting us-

versus-them rush to harvest is the root of resource depletion (Western and
Wright, 1994: 4).

12

Chapter Outline

The literature review, chapter 2, builds on the themes presented here in the
Introduction, which include: the need to further the interdisciplinary discourse to better
address conservation issues and the obstacles to be overcome for its continued
development by examining the pertinent social and biological literature. It also presents
my research question and sets the stage for a hill discussion of the Contextual Framework
in the discussion chapter. The methodology, chapter 3, discusses the formulation of my
research question and the development of the Framework, as well as presents my data
sources and the study area I used to illustrate it. Chapter 4, the discussion, will present
the Framework in detail, using a case study from Kajiado District Kenya to help illustrate
it. In the conclusion, chapter 5, the previous chapters are summarized, the strengths and
weaknesses of the Framework examined, and further issues regarding the integration of

conservation and development are discussed.

13

Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW: THE NEED FOR AND PROBLEMS WITH EXPANDING
THE INTERDISCIPLINARY DISCOURSE ON CONSERVATION

when the last individual of a race of living things breathes no more,

another heaven and another earth must pass before such a one can be

again.

—William Beebe

Introduction

In the previous chapter I emphasized the need to reﬁne the interdisciplinary
discourse between the biological and social sciences to understand the complex
human/environment dynamic and address the problems faced by conservation today. I
also introduced the Contextual Framework to aid in gathering the information required
for ﬂexible, comprehensive conservation planning in a study area. Within the
Framework is emphasized the need for historical perspective, a general level of
predictability, and especially the importance of identifying social driving forces. In the
literature review, I will build on the foundation laid out in chapter 1 by examining
literature pertinent to the human/environment dynamic.

In the ﬁrst section, I will present ecological literature addressing conservation
issues and illustrating the problems with the way the biological sciences view human
society. In the second, I will review literature from the social sciences pertaining to

people and the environment, demonstrate where ecological understanding is lacking, and

establish further the usefulness of political ecology. These two sections will lead to the

14

third section, which will examine the inﬂuence of and problems with the neo-Malthusian
perspective when applied to human societies. It also offers an explanation why human
population growth becomes virtually a mono-causal argument that oversimpliﬁes
multifaceted conservation issues. The last section will present my research question and

objectives.

The Ecological Perspective
In Conservation Biology and Sustainable Societies: A Historical Perspective,
Meine writes:
There will always be those who insist on framing any and all
environmental issues in terms of “people versus trees,” “jobs versus the
environment,” “progress versus stagnation.” But people are becoming
increasingly aware of the fallacies, simplistic assumptions, and myopic
historical perspectives that underlie such sentiments, and are searching for
viable, workable alternatives that do not involve choosing the short-term
evil of individual hardship or the long-term evil of environmental decline
(Meine, 1992: 61).
In this passage, Meine states what most conservationists have realized—that protecting
wildlife diversity is not an either or situation and that with an interdisciplinary approach,
sustainability may be achieved (Meine, 1992: 45-61). The question is what do we need
to know to understand the requirements of sustainability? Without a clear knowledge of
the issues involved with the human/environment dynamic, how can we hope to offer
effective answers to conservation questions? While wildlife managers might agree with
Meine’s statement, their understanding of the issues involved and, therefore, their
approach to conservation varies.

In 1986 the Conservation 2100 conference was held at Rockefeller University in

New York under the auspices of Wildlife Conservation International. The diversity of

15

views presented at this conference were brought together in the 1989 book, Conservation
for the T wenty-ﬁrst Century (Western and Pearl, 1989). The contributors, each involved
in conservation scientiﬁcally, ﬁnancially, politically, philosophically, or practically,
provided a wide range of approaches to the subject. One of the major themes throughout
the book is that single remedy solutions to conservation could “exterminate as many
species as habitat fragmentation and poaching” (Western, 1989a: xii). The need for
public support and sustainable development were also emphasized. As Western says in
the overview of the book:

The conservationist tends to anti-development in the belief that if wildlife

is victim of humanity, ﬁirther development is abhorrent. That view is too

simple and ultimately futile, for if humanity is the sole threat to wildlife, it

is also its only hope. The challenge is not to shun humanity, but to make

conservation and development the twin criteria of human progress

(Western, 1989a: xiii).
He points to the need to examine issues of poverty and social inequity and essentially
denounces a strictly Malthusian worldview. He also discusses issues of scale, pointing
out that what is happening in places like Africa is not isolated from what occurs in the
West. He concludes the introduction with the admonition that if long-range views are not
incorporated into conservation planning, urban and agricultural development will exclude
the interests of nature (Western, 1989a: xi-xv).

Although every contribution to Conservation for the T wenty-ﬁrst Century brings
something important to the discourse on conservation, I will not examine each chapter
individually. They all essentially follow or contradict the general themes outlined by

Western above. Instead, I will summarize the chapters that pertain to issues related to the

Contextual Framework and those that focus on Aﬁica. I will begin with chapter 2,

l6

Population, Resources, and Environment in the T wenty-ﬁrst Century, which was also
written by David Western.

Western has spent his professional life working on conservation issues in East
Africa and has contributed greatly to the ecological literature on this area. He is also a
former director of the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS). He states in the second chapter of
Conservation for the T wenty-ﬁrst Century that predicting the fate of nature in the next
century in an increasingly humanized world requires predicting socioeconomic trends.
Recognizing the difﬁculty of such an endeavor, he says that these predictions need not be
extremely precise. They only need to point to risks, which will help focus research and
help avoid crises. Achieving this perspective on the future of wildlife requires
understanding the forces behind extinction, which Western lists as: habitat fragmentation
and destruction, overkill, exotic species introductions, and chains of extinction. He
emphasizes that these biological factors are not the only nor the ultimate factors involved
here. Other factors such as global warming, pollution, and ozone depletion play a role as
well. This list of proximate causes is lengthy and most causes ultimately stem from
human activity. On the other hand, he is quick to point out that human activity can also
be beneﬁcial to wildlife communities and biodiversity. In the end, states Western,
“humanity will be the arbiter of wildlife survival in the twenty-ﬁrst century” (Western,
1989b: 11-13).

With these issues in mind, he argues, much in the same vein as Meine, that the
people versus wildlife myth must be denounced and looks to the idea of sustainability,
which is the basis of ecosystem management. This chapter examines different

approaches to predicting long-term trends in population growth, resource use, welfare,

l7

and environmentalism. He ends the chapter by linking the survival of wildlife with the
striving for the improvement of human welfare. Essentially, the argument is that if we
cannot care for ourselves, we will not care for other species (Western, 1989b: 13-25).

The problem with predicting long-term socioeconomic trends is that historically
the random events that nullify these predictions tend to repeatedly occur. Stochastic
events play at least as large a role in human culture as they do in the natural world. Once
again though, he stresses, the predictions do not need to be exact to identify areas of risk
and focus research. On the other hand, while distancing himself from the neo-
Malthusians in the Overview, many of the methods Western discusses for predicting
socioeconomic trends that could be used for these predictions employ the concept of
carrying capacity, which is the heart and soul of neo-Malthusian thought (Western,
1989b: 14-23). I will save the discussion of the problems with applying carrying capacity
to human society for the missed connections section of this chapter. In this section I
present instances of neo-Malthusian thought only to point out its prevalence in ecological
theory.

Finally, in the beginning of this chapter Western discusses the proximate causes
listed above that threaten wildlife. While it is important to understand the proximate
causes threatening native wildlife communities, I argue in chapter 4 that understanding
the driving forces behind these causes, particularly when anthropogenic factors are
involved, are at least as important to the future of wildlife (Western, 1989b: 12-14, 24-
25).

The Conservation Realities section of Conservation for the T wenty—ﬁrst Century

examines the roles of human values, management planning, and the developed world in

18

conservation. Mary Pearl states a recurrent theme throughout the literature in the
introduction to this section, The Human Side of Conservation, when she writes that the
most difﬁcult task facing wildlife managers is accommodating the needs of wildlife with
those of the short-term economic needs of people. She argues that addressing the social
and management requirements of this task at various levels of government requires a
conservation minded international citizenry. One of the main objectives of such a
citizenry is to examine the mores of diverse cultures and infuse them with environmental
values. Though it is not explicitly stated, the implication is that this citizenry will be
largely from the developed world and that the purpose of understanding other cultures is
to ingrain a Western style conservation ethic in them (Pearl, 1989a: 221-225). This
interpretation Of the composition of this international citizenry and the role of cultural
study is reinforced in her later chapter, How the Developed World Can Promote
Conservation in Emerging Nations. In this later chapter, examples of how the West can
help emerging nations are presented with no discussion of the complicity of the West in
creating the problems occurring within emerging nations. Neither is there a discussion of
the Problems that hamper conservation efforts in the West itself, which are examined
below (Pearl, 1989b: 274-283).

The chapters that follow Pearl’s introduction to the Human Values section of
conservation Realities deal with conservation in the United States. Their importance to
the present discussion is that they emphasize the problem with the proposed makeup of
the international citizenry discussed above. Norton writes in chapter 23, The Cultural
Approach to Conservation Biology, that the debate between the intrinsic and instrumental

Value of nature should be rejected. The problem with American society is the arrogance

19

and cultural perversion that reduces all things, including wildlife, to consumer values
(Norton, 1998: 241—246). In the following chapter, Hard Times for Diversity, Ehrenfeld
adds that Western culture in general mitigates against a conservation ethic because it fails
to value diversity. He continues that it seems unlikely that we would strive to conserve
that which we do not value (Ehrenfeld 1989: 247-250). The situation depicted by these
two researchers does not augur well for the formation of Pearl’s international citizenry,
lead by the industrialized world, solving the Third World’s conservation problems.
Clearly the West has its own issues to address, many of which directly impact the Third
World. I will return to the problems with this manipulative approach to cultural studies
and paternalistic approach to conservation below.
Two more contributions in The Role of Planning Section that follows Human
Values are important to this discussion. The ﬁrst is entitled. Overview: A Planner ’s
Perspective (1989) by Perez Olindo, who is a former director of the Wildlife Department
in Kenya. A self-described preservationist in the past, Olindo now praises the shift in
wildlife management toward an approach that takes in the human aspect. He writes,
however, that he does not see the adequate involvement of economists, politicians, and
PlanIIers in conservation planning. In his opinion, the idea of forming conservation
effOI'ts independent of human valuation and societal parameters is not viable in his
culture (Olindo, 1989: 222, 251-253). Implied in this statement is the idea that any action
taken by the West that does not take cultural values into consideration is unlikely to
suWeed. One need only look to the outcome of the Green Revolution in places like
Kenya to see the perils of such an oversight (Western, 1989b: 20). Additionally, it will

take more than economists and politicians to fully achieve the management approach of

20

which Olindo speaks, as geographers, anthropologists, and sociologists can also provide
insight.

The other contribution in this section is by another Kenyan, Reuben Olembo and
is entitled, International Perspectives in Conservation Planning (Olembo, 1989). Once
again, Olembo emphasizes the need to understand human behavior for effective
management planning. He repeats that to achieve sustainable development, a balance
must be struck between socioeconomic needs and the needs of natural systems. Priorities
must be set based on an understanding of these needs. He also looks at issues of scale in
relation to effective management. While Olembo makes several good points in this
chapter, he has two major problems. First, while he says environmental problems are
seldom due to a single cause and occur at different scales, he offers for consideration only
the national and international scales (Olembo, 1989: 261-269). However, most of the
costs of wildlife conservation in terms of land set aside for parks and reserves, crop
damage, livestock loss, and even sometimes loss of life are bome at the local level.
National and local interests are not necessarily the same. Further, not just most
environmental problems but all environmental problems are the result of diverse issues,
and I argue that those with anthropogenic origins can only be addressed by the study of
social driving forces, which occur at all scales. The second problem, which deals with
communal versus open access land, I will deal with in the missed connections section of
this chapter. This problem centers on the concept of a global commons, which is viewed
in terms of Hardin’s The Tragedy of the Commons and the difference between open

access and a true commons (Olembo, 1989: 267-269).

21

Western, along with Wright, edited another volume that deals with conservation
issues and the human dimension, Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-
based Conservation (Western and Wright, 1994). As the title implies, this volume deals
with “experiments” in community participation in wildlife and resource management
throughout the world. The idea of community participation in conservation is as hard to
deﬁne as sustainability or social driving forces themselves. Essentially, it is an attempt to
enable those at the local level who bear most of the cost of wildlife and environmental
management to share in its care and beneﬁts. The topic of community-based
participation in conservation is a research project unto itself. Since participation is not
the focus of my research but, rather, another example of an attempt to affect the
human/environment dynamic for the purposes of conservation, I will not attempt to make
a more succinct deﬁnition here. Western claims any attempt to deﬁne the term too
narrowly is “futile and even counterproductive” (Western and Wright, 1994: 8).

The ﬁrst chapter of the book, The Background to Community-based Conservation,
examines the origins of this management philosophy and deﬁnes the concept in, as
indicated above, the most general terms. In essence, this conservation approach is a way
of putting the ideas presented in Conservation for the Twenty-ﬁrst Century into practice.
One of the most important points the authors make is that even the largest parks are not
sufﬁcient in size to insure the long-term survival of many species, and, as a result, there
is the need to promote conservation in rural lands beyond park boundaries. Community-
based conservation (CBC) is an attempt to address this need and grew out of the
recognition of real environmental threats (beginning in the 19603), the grass-roots

approach to development (19508), and the human rights and indigenous peoples

22

movements (19608). The major change from previous management strategies is that
community-based conservation is bottom, rather than top driven. The authors note
enormous obstacles to be overcome for this “experiment” to succeed. These obstacles
include cultural, political, institutional, and economic factors, which operate at various
scales through time. This list, which could easily have come from a political ecology
perspective, underlines the need to understand social driving forces and the need for an
historical perspective, especially for conservation to be successﬁil outside protected areas
(Western and Wright, 1994: 1-10).

The book is broken into four sections. The ﬁrst two sections present case studies
of community-based conservation from around the world. The third examines themes
that arise from these case studies. The ﬁnal section presents the conclusions derived
from the previous sections as discussed at the Airlie House workshop. As with the
previously discussed volume, each author’s contribution to this book discusses important
conservation issues. However, it is not necessary to discuss each one individually. Iwill
examine the case study from Amboseli in Kenya from the ﬁrst section for two reasons.
First, it is pertinent to my study area. Second, Amboseli is considered an important test
case in CBC. Additionally, I will include two other writings from additional sources
pertaining to this case study to help elucidate the issues presented in it. From the third
section of the book, I will examine a contribution that further illustrates the preeminence
of the neo-Malthusian approach in the ecological community and the problems with
employing it to ﬁnd general themes throughout the case studies. From the fourth section,

I will examine the lack of consensus that came out of the Airlie House workshop.

23

In Ecosystem Conservation and Rural Development: The Case of Amboseli,
Western presents a CBC case study from Kajiado District in southern Kenya. During the
19608 and 19708, Amboseli was the most controversial of the parks or reserves in the
country. Because of the degree of human/wildlife conﬂict, the area became a test case in
integrated conservation and development and impacted policy not only in Kenya but also
in other African countries including Zimbabwe, Namibia, and Zambia as well. The area
in and around the park, known as Maasailand, has been home to pastoral peoples for over
3000 years and for the past 400 to 500 years to Maasai herders. The herders shadowed
the migratory species and experienced no real conﬂict with wildlife until aﬁer the arrival
of Europeans. Prior to the loss of land to farmers and wildlife preserves during the
colonial period and in the post-independence period, the Maasai attitude toward wildlife
was benign. Wildlife was seen as “second cattle” to be relied on during times of
environmental hardship. With their marginalization however, the Maasai became more
antagonistic toward wildlife as competition for scarce resources increased. As a result,
human/wildlife conﬂict has risen steadily over the years (Western, 1994a: 15-23).

Given this setting, Westem’s goal was to ﬁnd a management solution that
satisﬁed both the Maasai and preserved wildlife. His approach was in opposition to the
protectionist ethos prevalent at the time, which sought to exclude people from pristine
natural settings. In Amboseli, which was the last important wildlife area in Kenya still
occupied by humans, herders were largely blamed for the habitat degradation that was
occuning. Western argues though, that blaming the Maasai had more to do with the
mechanistic view of nature held by protectionists than what was really happening. The

fact is, he says, that wilderness does not exist in East Africa. Pristine natural settings

24

untouched by humans are not to be found. Furthermore, ignoring the fact that humans
have been part of the natural processes of the region for thousands of years can result in
the protectionist approach causing more harm than good (Western, 1994a: 18-19). The
volume, Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature (1996), edited by
William Cronon, also debunks the myth of pristine nature and supports Westem’s
observations.

This symbiotic relationship between pastoralists and their environment is
expanded on in Western and Gichohi’s 1993 paper, Segregation Effects and the
Impoverishment of Savanna Parks: The Case for Ecosystem Viability Analysis.

Evidence is presented in the paper that supports the idea that not only are herders part of
the natural landscape in East Africa but herding activities are beneﬁcial, if not integral, to
the health of savanna ecosystems by helping maintain the natural stages of grassland
succession. Excluding humans from conservation areas, in this case, is actually
detrimental to conserving diversity (Western and Gichohi, 1993: 269-281).

Understanding the relationship between the Maasai and their environment and the
need to include them in conservation efforts was one thing, actually achieving a CBC
approach was quite another. The task required overcoming the antagonistic attitude of
the Maasai toward wildlife, born of conﬂict, and their distrust of the government, born of
colonial and post-independence land grabs. To meet this task, the conservation plan used
research showing the importance of the Amboseli Basin’s highly diverse ecology,
seasonal wildlife migration patterns, and the Maasai’s interaction with wildlife. Maasai
culture, including its views of nature and history were also considered. Western felt that

the pastoral economy of the Maasai would eventually collapse, largely due to population

25

increase from in-migration and natural increase, and that they would have no altemative
but to diversify their economy. Based on a land use study, it was determined that the
only viable economic alternative to herding was ecotourism, which had shown substantial
actual and potential economic returns. The CBC plan itself grew out of these studies and
through consultation with Maasai elders (Western, 1994a: 22-29).

When the plan was ﬁrst presented, it met with favor from neither the Maasai, who
still feared land annexation, nor the conservationist community, who distrusted the CBC
approach. Tensions escalated until in 1971 the Kenyan government set aside an
unspeciﬁed section of the Amboseli basin for wildlife. Even though they were to be
compensated, the Maasai were outraged and retaliated by slaughtering wildlife. Clearly,
Western notes, while the government could pass legislation to protect wildlife, its actual
fate lay squarely in the hands of local people. Westem’s efforts in conjunction with the
Ministry of Livestock Development and the World Bank’s program to develop Kenyan
rangelands brought about a compromise once the link between landowner income and
conservation became obvious. These efforts at the national and international levels
operated in tandem with continued efforts to improve the Maasai attitude toward wildlife
by demonstrating its economic beneﬁts. As these beneﬁts began to be realized locally,
poaching levels dropped. The ﬁrst phase of the plan was implemented between 1977 and
1981 (Western, 1994a: 28-37).

While there were successes in the ﬁrst phase, such as the lowered incidence of
poaching, the increase in total biomass in Amboseli, and the policy impact of the CBC
project throughout Kenya and Aﬁica, several shortcomings are also noted. The foremost

was at the national level, with the failure of the government to keep their part of the

26

bargain in terms of access to water and the use of revenues in ways unacceptable to the
Maasai, on which he does not elaborate. On the international scene, a drop off in the
tourist market ensued due to the 19708 energy crisis, impacting the Kenyan economy.
While this development was not a shortcoming, per say, it did serve to help increase
tensions. Locally, the Maasai were unwilling to initiate wildlife income diversiﬁcation
and community wide involvement was stiﬂed by the domination of a few inﬂuential
individuals. Additionally, Western blames national, district, and local problems with
patronage, nepotism, corruption, as well as antipathy toward local involvement by the
Wildlife Conservation and Management Department (WCMD) for the lack of success in
the initial phase of the program (Western, 1994a: 36-32).

The second phase of the Amboseli CBC program (1982-1987) tried to include a
broader spectrum of the Maasai community by the use of “self-help conservation
programs” which gave locals a more active hand in diversifying their economy. Western
argues the success of this approach is shown by the fact that while poaching was rampant
and depleted wildlife throughout the rest of Kenya during this period, Amboseli and
Maasai Mara (which was managed in a similar fashion) saw increases in wildlife
numbers. On the other hand, the same sorts of problems such as corruption and
patronage politics that plagued the ﬁrst phase also plagued the second (Western, 1994a:
39-42). It was not until the third phase of the project (1987-1992) that the successes
began to outweigh the failures. Among these changes responsible for this shift were the
replacement of the corrupt and poorly funded WCMD with the KWS, the implementation

of a national revenue sharing plan (reinforcing the local participation policy), and

27

renewed dialogue with the four group ranches surrounding Amboseli, which increased
community involvement (Western, 1994a: 42-44).

In quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the CBC program in Amboseli (1977-
1992), Western emphasizes the ecological successes: the ecosystem remained open,
wildlife populations were healthy, and migrations continued relatively unhampered.
Also, while the Maasai received a less than equitable distribution of cost to beneﬁts,
some success has been achieved among them as well. Generally, their attitude toward
wildlife became less antagonistic and the wildlife economy was integrated into the
overall Maasai economy. That beneﬁts were gained, Western feels, is more important to
the future of wildlife than whether or not those gains outweighed the costs (Western,
1994a: 44-47). Further, community programs in both Amboseli and Massai Mara were
more effective in curbing poaching than law enforcement was in the rest of Kenya, thus
reducing the need for enforcement and lowering management costs (Western, 1994a: 48).

The biggest failure in the program, according to Western, occurs at the national
governmental and institutional levels where colonial preservationist policies and
paternalistic attitudes toward pastoralists remain. Other problems included a lack of
widespread participation among the Maasai at the local level, and corruption, nepotism,
and patronage at all levels. However, without the program, Western stresses, the
situation in Amboseli would be much worse. The greatest challenge for the future of
Amboseli, in his view, is a recurrent theme throughout the literature. It is to
accommodate the cultural, economic, and political transitions occuning in Maasailand
into well-balanced land use planning that includes the needs of wildlife (Western, 1994a:

44-50). As he writes in, In the Dust of Kilimanjaro, a recent, mostly anecdotal work

28

based on his career, "for wildlife to survive in independent Africa, it must become an
asset to the African ﬁrst and foremost," (Western, 1997: 50).

While his efforts (along with those working with him) to make CBC a reality in
Amboseli were valiant, provided a lot of useful data, and were in many ways successful,
Campbell suggests there may be two additional issues not listed above hampering the
program’s long-term success. The ﬁrst is the shifting sociocultural makeup of
Maasailand itself. The second has to do with the involvement and nature of non-
governmental organizations (N GOs) in conservation programs (Campbell, 1999, 2000:
personal communication), which can be applied beyond Amboseli as will be explained
below.

Taking into account the way local people view nature and wildlife is essential to
establishing a dialogue between groups, let alone implementing a bottom up conservation
program like CBC, which Western clearly understood. In fact, William Cronon edited an
entire volume examining the subjectivity and ﬂuidity of the way different groups and
individuals within groups deﬁne nature (Cronon, 1996). Herein may lie the problem,
according to Campbell. He states that the cultural complexion of Kajiado has changed
considerably since the 19708 and the Maasai are not the only group that must be
considered for 3 CBC program to be successful (Campbell, 1999, 2000: personal
communication; Campbell et. a1., 2000: 1-11). I will address this issue further in the
next section.

The second concem is illustrated by the history of NGO evolvement in CBC in
Africa. Several internationally prominent NGOs including the World Wildlife Fund

(WWF), the Nature Conservancy (NC), and the World Resources Institute (WRI), with

29

funding from The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), formed
the Biodiversity Support Program in the 19805. In 1993 the program published, African
Biodiversity: Foundation for the F uture—A Framework for Integrating Biodiversity
Conservation and Sustainable Development. The document presents a framework for
implementing community-based conservation programs in the ﬁrst two chapters. The
remaining six chapters are devoted to discussing the critical aspects of conservation in
sub-Saharan Africa that support this framework (Biodiversity Support Program, 1993).

Many of the ideas presented in African Biodiversity resonate with those presented
in Natural Connections and Conservation for the T wenty-ﬁrst Century. The most
important of these ideas reiterates the multi-faceted nature of conservation issues and that
population growth is but one factor and not the ultimate or even the most important cause
of biodiversity loss. Issues of scale and social driving forces (though they are not directly
referred to as such) are also introduced, as is the unique nature of each conservation case
(Salau, 1993: 16-18). An entire chapter is devoted to the importance of understanding
people’s varying perceptions of nature, another to the value of indigenous knowledge,
and another to importance of education in conservation (Biodiversity Support Program,
1993: 47- 55, 57-6, Ill-117).

Now, however, with the new ecoregion approach to conservation that has
prevailed in the WWF in the past couple of years, CBC has been largely abandoned in
this NGO and a return to a more preservationist approach has been embraced (Campbell,
1999: personal communications). A likely reason for this philosophical reversal is that a
CBC approach is a long-term solution and positive results were not coming fast enough

to meet their short-term goals (Campbell 2000: personal communications). This same

30

criticism was leveled at NGOs in general by Terborgh, who states that by their very
nature NGOs are too occupied with fund raising to be effective in furthering conservation
goals (Terborgh, 1999: 3-9). If donations are based on short-term results, then the short-
terrn versus long-term explanation for the return to a preservationist position is supported.

What has occurred with WWF attitude toward CBC is not universal among
conservation NGOs. In Site Conservation Planning: A Framework for Developing and
Measuring the Impact of Effective Biodiversity Conservation Strategies, published by the
NC, which, as noted above, was another member of the Biodiversity Support Program,
still emphasizes the importance of local participation and understanding. However, the
importance of social driving forces noted in Aﬁican Biodiveristy is down played. Their
conservation goal is to:

Identify the most proximate sources (e. g. incompatible timber harvest)

rather than ultimate sources (e. g. human population growth), as sources

that are several steps removed from the impact on targets will not bring us

to realize direct, feasible conservation strategies (Nature Conservancy,

2000:10)
This goal clearly emphasizes the short-term over the long-term. What is being advocated
is a static view of and approach to conservation problems, which seems to prevail
throughout the literature. Note also that human population growth is once again elevated
to an ultimate cause in direct contrast to what was said in African Biodiversity (Nature
Conservancy, 2000: 1-16).

The Amboseli case study and the appended sources clearly demonstrate the

problems involved in implementing a successful long-term CBC program. Although

each study presented in Natural Connections has its own set of unique circumstances, the

31

social misconceptions and obstacles illustrated in the Amboseli case are generally
reﬂected throughout and demonstrate the need for enriched socicocultural understanding.

Actually, the emphasis on mono-causal explanations and short-term approaches
among NGOs is not surprising given the conﬂicting information coming out of the
scientiﬁc community. In the third section of Natural Connections, where the various
themes running through the case studies are connected, one chapter stands out and
illustrates the problems with the way the ecological community tends to approach cultural
questions, as well as the problem with the way social scientists tend to use ecological
concepts. The latter issue will be taken up at length in the next section. In chapter 20,
Ecological Limits and Opportunities for Community-based Conservation, Salafsky states
that:

There is a fundamental tension between the processes of biodiversity

conservation and human development. . .The strict preservation of natural

ecosystems essentially requires that humans be excluded from the

system. . .Having worked as both a tropical forest ecologist and a rural

village economist, I can attest that there is thus a certain personal and

professional schizophrenia involved in simultaneously trying to do both

conservation and development work (Salafsky, 1994: 448).
The internal conﬂict described in this quote stands in stark contrast to the integrated
approach advocated by Western and Wright at the beginning of this volume where
development and conservation go hand in hand.

Salafsky criticizes the development sector for co-opting the concept of
biodiversity without a strong ecological understanding of it and the conservation
community for embracing the concept of sustainable development with an equal lack of

understanding. In his view, both sides ignore “the deep underlying threat of ecological

collapse latent in the ticking time bombs of human population grth and expanding

32

consumerism” (Salafsky, 1994: 448-449). It is only through addressing these time bombs
that the CBC approach, which he feels (as most seem to) is the only option for long-term
conservation, can succeed. To illustrate his views he presents an extremely simplistic
economic and ecological model for understanding the role of ecology in CBC.
Unfortunately, he relies heavily on the work of Hardin and Ehrlich (examined in the
missed connections section of this chapter) and emphasizes the role of human population
growth almost to the exclusion of all other factors. In essence, he essentially substitutes
the concept of carrying capacity for sustainable use and criticizes other contributors for
not doing the same (Salafsky, 1994: 448-469).

Salafsky’s views are unabashedly neo-Malthusian and, therefore, offer a mono-
causal approach (emphasizing carrying capacity and population growth) to conservation
problems. Ironically though, he claims to understand the issues involved are multi-
faceted in nature. No wonder he describes the situation as schizophrenic. Retuming to
the Amboseli case, population growth was but one of many issues involved with the
conservation problems of the area. In fact, Western does not even list population growth
among the reasons for the problems that occurred with the program. Issues like
governmental corruption and patronage politics have more to do with socioeconomic
factors than straight demographic numbers and preservationist ideas are of little use in an
area rich in wildlife diversity but with no “pristine wilderness” to preserve. While this
single factor approach ﬁts nicely into Salafsky’s model, it fails to account for the myriad
of other issues involved and is therefore too simplistic. Even rampant consumerism,
which is indeed an important factor that needs to be addressed particularly in the West,

seems minor next to population growth in his view.

33

Salafsky’s chapter sets the stage for the conclusions in the fourth section of the
book, which examines the outcome of the Airlie House Community-based Conservation
Workshop. Wright best sums up the results of the workshop when he says:

We found the issue of partnerships between communities and

conservationists too new, the views too varied, the time too short, and the

need for learning still too great for a tidy set of simple answers (Wright,

1994: 524).

Western adds that the only consensus was that local involvement is essential to long-
terrn, non-coercive conservation (Western, 1994c: 499-511).

Salafsky’s views tend to be the rule instead of the exception among the ecological
community. In Analyzing the Demographic Trap (1987) Brown attempts to integrate
ecology and economics to understand the human/environment dynamic in terms of land
degradation and diversity loss. In the paper, he develops a model of what he calls the
demographic trap, which is based on Notestien's model of demographic transition.
Brown’s model consists of three transitional stages of social development: (1) a pre-
industrial stage where both birth and death rates are high, (2) an industrializing stage
where expanding food production and improved public health bring about a drop in
mortality while fecundity remains high, and (3) a post-industrial stage where economic
and social gains conspire to bring birth and death rates into equilibrium. That Notestien’s
model is outdated is irrelevant, since it is Brown's model we are really concerned with
here. According to Brown, Third World nations are failing to make the transition to the
third stage and remaining in the second stage due to overpopulation. The result of this
failure is increasing environmental degradation, which could eventually lead to the

regression of these nations back to the ﬁrst stage, which is the demographic trap (Brown,

1987: 20-37)

34

This model is another overly simplistic articulation of the neo-Malthusian
perspective, which emphasizes limits to growth and the environmental hazards of
overpopulation. Throughout the paper, Brown stresses the importance of carrying
capacity to both environmental and developmental issues. As with Salafsky, he does
claim to recognize the multifaceted nature of the human/environment dynamic. He also
recognizes the need for an interdisciplinary approach to solving environmental problems.
Moreover, despite the fact he chose an outdated model of social development on which to
base his model, Brown seems aware that historical circumstances and questions of
poverty and marginality play a role in environmental problems and need to be addressed
as well (Brown, 1983: 20-37). However, he, like Salsfsky, concentrates on human
population growth to the near exclusion of all other factors, making it essentially the
prime (and one might argue the only) factor involved with environmental problems, such
as wildlife diversity 1088 (Brown, 1983: 20-37).

In effect, this mono-casual approach elevates a proximate cause to the level of an
ultimate cause. Yet ironically, Brown himself warns against making the assumption of a
direct cause and effect relationship between population growth and environmental
degradation. Similarly, he suggests the wedding of ecology and economics as the perfect
interdisciplinary match for understanding environmental problems (Brown, 1983: 20-3 7),
ignoring the fact that much of the human dimension cannot be reduced to dollars and
cents. Economics is but one of the social sciences and alone is not sufﬁcient to address
all the cultural issues involved in the complicated human/environment dynamic. I will

revisit this issue in the following section of this chapter.

35

Terborgh is another ecologist who recognizes a multitude of factors involved in
human/wildlife interactions and yet focuses almost strictly on the population factor in
offering analysis and solutions. In Requiem for Nature, Terborgh devotes several
chapters to the human dimension and in the ﬁrst chapter discusses the need for a
completely new approach to conservation (Terbrogh, 1999: 1-9). Like Brown and
Salafsky, he recognizes that poverty, marginalization, social inequity, and governmental
corruption all play a role in issues like wildlife diversity 1088. Speciﬁcally, as stated in
chapter 1, he lists the greatest threats to conservation as: “over population, inequities of
power and wealth, exhaustion of natural resources, corruption, lawlessness, poverty, and
social unrest” (Terborgh 1999: 17). Notice that while population is ﬁrst on the list, it is
not the only factor listed. It is also interesting that consumerism, which can drive a
number of these other threats, is not listed at all as it was with Salafsky. Terborgh goes
on to say that conservation success requires progress on scientiﬁc, economic, social, and
political fronts. Sustainable development is essential to the long-term conservation of .
species. He also argues that conservation must move beyond parks and calls for a
redesign of international conservation strategy (Terborgh 1999: 17-22).

Despite his apparent understanding of human dimension issues, Terborgh still
takes a decidedly neo-Malthusian approach to conservation. In chapter eight, aﬁer
discussing the numerous social and economic forces involved in deforestation, he
concentrates on population growth as the main problem (Terborgh 1999: 121-140). In
the following chapter, the need for sustainable development and a stable land use system
are emphasized, as well as the obstacles to that stability including “crushing” poverty,

social inequity, and political instability. Yet, the ﬁrst step he offers for stabilizing land

36

use is to stabilize human population growth (Terborgh 1999: 141-160), which does not
address the issues he himself presents. In the end, a new approach to conservation never
materializes and Terborgh’s solutions to the problems facing it amount to little more than
stronger birth control programs and stricter enforcement of national park policies
(Terborgh 1999: 93-148). This seems to be another example of the schizophrenia of
which Salafsky writes.

Two themes emerge from the preceding review of the ecological literature. The
ﬁrst is that ecologists tend to take a static, and hence a too simplistic, view of human
culture. This view manifests itself in overly generalized models, an often paternalistic
view of Third World nations and indigenous peoples, and an almost single minded focus
on the present when forming conservation plans. However, without a clear understanding
that cultures are dynamic, that social driving forces propel the more readily identiﬁable
proximate causes, and that historical circumstances also play a role in problems like
wildlife depletion, an understanding of the human/environment dynamic will remain
elusive. This ﬁrst theme will be addressed in the following section. The second theme is
the prevalence of the neo-Malthusian approach in ecological thought. It is hard to
conceive how anything other than confusion can result from trying to apply a mono-
causal approach to a multifaceted issue like conservation. This second theme will, once

again, be discussed in the missed connections section of this chapter.

37

The Sociocultural Perspective
[Wildlife offers signiﬁcant beneﬁts to a wide variety of individuals and
groups in Africa. The struggle to control its value, in which many people
continue to risk their lives, makes wildlife an appropriate object of inquiry

for the social scientist.
— Clark C. Gibson

In the preceding section, I presented a survey of the ecological literature related to
the human dimension in conservation, concentrating on East Aﬁica and Kenya whenever
possible. While this review is by no means exhaustive, it illustrates some of the problems
and misconceptions among biological scientists about the social dimension. In this
section, I will deal with the ﬁrst of two main themes that emerged from the ecological
literature review. That theme is the static and simplistic view of culture often held by
ecologists. By presenting pertinent sociocultural literature, I will establish the need for
the kind of cultural understanding that the study of social driving forces and historical
circumstances can bring to conservation planning. Likewise, the need to employ the
framework of political ecology to achieve this understanding will be established. In
addition, I will also show where the social sciences lack ecological understanding and
why this deﬁciency needs to be corrected.

Various perspectives are available to social scientists that study people and the
environment, although real ecological study, including wildlife study, has been largely
ignored by the social sciences until recently (Gibson, 1999: 5). Some ecologists,
including Brown and Salasfsky (discussed above) advocate and employ an economic
approach to understanding the human dimension in conservation. Brown argues that

understanding human development trends requires understanding economics and

38

ecology, particularly in terms of the concept of carrying capacity (Brown, 1987: 24-27),
and Salafsky is himself a rural village economist as well as a tropical forest ecologist
(Salafsky, 1994: 448). The integration of economics and ecology is not favored by all
ecologists though. Terborgh says that when “economics rules, most tropical forests are
worth more dead than alive” (Terborgh 1999: 18), making the point that nature is often
undervalued and seen as an extemality. In any case, economic theory is incorporated into
many studies of the human dimension.

A recent addition to the political economy literature, Politicians and Poachers:
The Political Economy of Wildlife Policy in Africa (Gibson, 1999), examines
conservation issues in three Aﬁican countries Zambia, Kenya, and Zimbabwe. In this
study, Gibson argues that since wildlife is an important resource both politically and
economically in all three countries, groups and individuals strive to shape policy that
procures its beneﬁts for their own ends. The relationship between policy and wildlife has
not been adequately studied, according to Gibson. Part of the reason for this oversight,
he says, is that social scientists have largely ignored African wildlife as an area of study
and have tended to focus on development issues. Those “human dimension” studies that
have taken place, he criticizes for presenting a too simplistic view of the political
situation in Africa. Speciﬁcally, he states that these studies lack a full accounting of
wildlife policy and, while prescribing legislative changes at the national level, generally
do not examine the legislative institutions that will make these changes or the political
consequences of the changes themselves (Gibson 1999: 1-9).

Furthermore, Gibson challenges as untenable the assumption that conservation is

the purpose of wildlife policy in these countries. He argues to the contrary that

39

conservation policy is characterized by conﬂict and should be studied within a political
framework as the interaction of individuals and institutions. In this study, he adopts the
theory and methodology of new institutionalism because its analytical focus is
individuals, their preferences, and institutions. A main assumption of this approach is
that rational, self-interested individuals strive to gain preferred outcomes by the
structuring of institutions. The role of institutions in this scenario is to reduce the
uncertainty among individuals to prevent suboptimal outcomes. New institutionalism
relies heavily on economic theory, particularly principal-agent theory. Additionally, the
distributive nature of institutions is incorporated into the analysis, in order to avoid the
institution-as-remedy view often associated with this approach. Recognizing that issues
of scale are involved, Gibson looks at multiple political levels in his analysis namely, the
legislative, bureaucratic, and local levels (Gibson, 1999: 1-18).

Four empirical questions are examined in this book: (1) Why did the
governments in Zambia, Kenya, and Zimbabwe keep colonial wildlife laws intact after
independence? (2) Why did the President of each country respond differently to
poaching? (3) Why did wildlife agencies, particularly in Zambia and Kenya create
bureaucracies in the 19808 that inhibited conservation efforts? (4) Why did the programs
created by these agencies fail to curtail local small-scale illegal hunting? Gibson ﬁnds
that the answers to all these questions lie in the political climate of each country (Gibson,
1999: 153-164).

Gibson answers the ﬁrst question by pointing out that, although local outrage at
exclusionary wildlife laws was used in native campaigns against white rule in each case,

the initial independent governments found the discretionary power of the status quo

40

useful in the patronage politics that developed. Not until the political climate changed
and parliamentarians (MP8) became more directly answerable to constituents did the
widespread antipathy toward wildlife become reﬂected in national policy (Gibson, 1999:
21-79).

The answer to the second question about the differing presidential responses to
poaching in Zambia is that the expansion of the international wildlife market combined
with an economic crisis to make poaching increasingly lucrative. Ironically, the
formation of the one-party state, which tied the MP8 to their constituents, as mentioned
above, actually made the conservation minded Zambian president less effective in dealing
with the poaching crisis. In Kenya, the discretionary powers of the status quo provided
no incentive to address poaching until the valuable tourist industry was threatened. On
the other hand, Zimbabwe saw much less poaching because it never developed the
extensive patronage systems found in Kenya and Zambia. Additionally, bureaucratic
oversight held down the corruption in the wildlife department, and the economy did not
falter (Gibson, 1999: 21-79).

The answer to the third question about bureaucratic inhibition of conservation
efforts, according to Gibson, is that wildlife agencies were more concemed with securing
control over the fate of wildlife than its conservation. It is a common misconception that
conservation policy in Aﬁica is always for the beneﬁt of wildlife. In Kenya and Zambia,
due to the prevalence of patronage politics, control over wildlife involved courting
presidential favor in one form or another. This capricious approach hampered

conservation measures in both countries. Zimbabwe, on the other hand, because of its

41

institutional makeup was able create more efﬁcient conservation programs (Gibson,
1999: 83-116).

The fourth question about the failure of agencies to curtail illegal hunting
addresses the outcome of conservation programs at the local level. The problems of local
peOple were similar in all three countries, and the following outcome generally applies to
each case. The approach taken by wildlife agencies was economic, providing incentives
to persuade local people to tolerate wildlife. Unfortunately, beneﬁts were provided to
both hunter and non-hunter alike and a free rider problem ensued, where individuals
beneﬁted from the program whether they behaved appropriately or not. The main change
was that increased enforcement made poachers select smaller animals and switch from
ﬁrearms to snares as their primary form of hunting. Much of the problem lay in the fact
that bureaucrats were reluctant to undercut their own authority and failed to recognize the
importance of local political institutions (Gibson, 1999: 154-160).

The themes that run through this study are that wildlife is of political importance,
that political institutions shape wildlife policy, and that understanding political struggles
is central to explaining that policy. The importance of this study lies in the addition of a
political dimension, which goes beyond straight economic explanations, to the study of
wildlife conservation in Africa. However, while Gibson provides a wealth of information
on the political dimensions of Aﬁican wildlife policy and presents cogent arguments for
social scientists to study wildlife, he nonetheless does not provide a complete
sociocultural picture. Despite the political dimension, economic theory plays an
important role in his approach to wildlife study. Certain assumptions of economic theory

incorporated into new institutional theory can potentially result in the same sort of overly

42

simplistic views of the sociocultural dimension for which Gibson chastises earlier human
dimension studies (Gibson, 1999: 1—18).

An example of this potential problem is the assumption of the rational individual
acting in his own self-interest (Gibson 1999: 9-14). The rationale of this assumption lies
in a largely Western, capitalistic perspective that does not necessarily apply to pre-
industrial or industrializing nations or tribal peoples. At issue is the standard by which
rationality is to be measured. Anthropologists and some geographers argue that
rationality is as culturally bound as people’s perceptions of nature (Cronon, 1996: 23-56;
Sahlins, 1976: 55-125).

The rejection by the Maasai of a potential campground near Amboseli National
Park can be viewed as completely irrational in economic terms. From an economic
standpoint, the construction of this potentially lucrative tourist draw makes perfect sense.
To the Maasai, however, this campground was culturally unacceptable and its rejection,
therefore, rational (Western, 1994a: 36-39). Rationality, then, lies largely in your cultural
viewpoint. Other aspects of culture such as values and mores are at least as important as
economics and have a profound inﬂuence on community politics and institutions. Given
the importance of the local level to conservation, which was established in the previous
section, and the fact that societies are dynamic, it is also important to understand the
historical and contemporary inﬂuences on these aspects of societies. While Gibson does
examine some of these inﬂuences, he does so to a very limited extent. In making
unwarranted assumptions and oversimplifying cultural issues, even social scientists risk

offering shallow explanations for complex problems.

43

Scale is also another problem with Gibson’s study. As stated above, he examines
institutions and politics at the legislative, bureaucratic, and local levels, but he bases most
of his conclusions on the ﬁrst two. Gibson’s own results show that despite the efforts of
the legislative and bureaucratic levels, the ultimate success of any conservation program
and, therefore, the long-term viability of wildlife lies squarely with local peoples (Gibson
1999: 119-152). It follows, then, that a better understanding of local level politics and
institutions is warranted. Furthermore, in non-Westem countries with strong tribal
traditions, such study is likely to provide insight into the workings of higher level
politics. Also, while this study has a regional aspect with the comparison of the three
Sub-Saharan African countries, the role of international politics and institutions is largely
ignored. The impact of such outside forces should not be ignored anymore than local
level forces if important factors like social driving forces are to be examined.

The framework of political ecology has the potential to overcome both these
problems of oversimpliﬁcation and scale. Political ecology allows for the examination of
chains of causation moving from the speciﬁc or local to the general or global. Its
adaptable nature allows for multi-scale, multi-variable, multi-temporal analysis and
invites interdisciplinary cooperation. Political ecology incorporates the important
economic, political, and institutional aspects of culture as well as allowing for the
incorporation of other variables, such as local traditional values (Blaikie and Brookﬁeld,
1987: 13-34; Campbell and Olson, 1991; Greenberg and Park, 1994: 1-8; Campbell,
1996: 6-8). However, in spite of, and in some ways due to, its versatility speciﬁc

criticisms have been leveled at this approach.

44

In Land Degradation and Society (1987), Blaikie and Brookﬁeld present the
framework of regional political ecology in a coherent format for the ﬁrst time. The
problem with the approach, it has been argued, is that it lacks any real ecological aspect,
as understood in the biological sciences, as well as scientiﬁc rigor (Vandermeer, 1994: 5-
7; Whitesell, 1994: 1-2; Walker, 2000: personal communication). The role of scientiﬁc
ecology within the framework is debated by political ecologists and played a central role
in the discussions that took place at the Political Ecology Workshop held at Michigan
State University in 1994. The arguments about the place of ecology in political ecology
ranged from Vandenneer’s assertion in Integrating Political Economy into Ecology, “that
political ecology is largely a problem of the social sciences. The natural sciences have
very little to contribute, except in a very narrow. . .boring way. . . [E]cology has very little
to offer at the theoretical level” (Vandermeer, 1994: 7), to Zimmerer who stated in
Integrating New Ecological Theory into Political Ecology that, “scientiﬁc ecology can
help us further elaborate the dialectic between environment and politics that was intended
to be born of political ecology. . . [T]he ecological systems themselves may acquire an
importance via their changing character that is well beyond that solely of a baseline or a
benchmark or a background” (Zimmerer, 1994: 5).

Taken at face value, Vandenneer’s view that scientiﬁc ecology has little if
anything to offer to the study of people and the environment appears to run counter to the
very openness that makes political ecology a useful tool to facilitate interdisciplinary
study. Dismissing the natural sciences out of hand when a clear relationship exists
between humans and their environment is tantamount to looking at the complexities of

the human dimension and merely advocating birth control to solve the problems

45

observed. Moreover, this perspective dooms the development of any sort of discourse
between conservationists and social scientists and, therefore, any important wildlife study
by social scientists. Granted, Gibson presented a political economy study of wildlife that
contains no ecology, but, if conservation is the issue, leaving out either half of the
equation, ecology or humanity, will insure no complete solution emerges.

Zimmerer’s viewpoint, on the other hand, recognizes the importance of ecology in
the human/environment dynamic and opens the door to the kind of interdisciplinary
approach advocated by many conservationists and social scientists alike. The task of
creating a discourse will not be simple, however. As Campbell writes in Towards an
Analytical Framework for Land-use Change, creating such a discourse requires bridging
the differences in epistemologies between the positivist tradition of biophysical scientists
and the dialectic approach employed by many social scientists. It requires recognizing
the importance of both quantitative and qualitative analysis in understanding the
human/environment dynamic and understanding that neither alone can provide a
complete picture. In this work, Campbell discusses how landscape ecology and political
ecology can beneﬁt from a broader understanding of the other’s ﬁelds (Campbell, 1998:
281-298), but conservation biology could easily be substituted for landscape ecology.
The same relationship applies.

The problem is that where as biological scientists tend to view culture as a static,
which was demonstrated in the previous section, social scientists tend to take a similar
view of the environment. Arguably the most important understanding that conservation
biology brings to the study of the human/environment dynamic is the concept of the

evolutionary nature of natural environments. Zimmerer that political ecology tends to

46

employ an outdated view of ecology in which nature is assumed to be static and
environmental equilibrium is emphasized. In order to understand the human/environment
dynamic, he argues, the dynamic view of the natural world presented by the “new
ecology” needs to be integrated into political ecology (Zimmerer, 1994: 2-5).

Zimmerer returns to this theme of dynamic ecology in Natures Geography: New
Lessons for Conservation in Developing Countries (1998), which he edited with Young.
In this volume the value of incorporating aspects of geography and ecology in addressing
conservation issues is stressed. In a series of case studies from developing nations
worldwide, the importance of understanding the non-equilibrium dynamics of natural
enviromnents to an overall understanding of the human/environment dynamic is
developed. The paradigm of non-equilibrium dynamics, which is the essence of the new
ecology, was developed in opposition to the idea of the balance of nature. It recognizes
the natural processes at work in an ecosystem are constantly in a state of ﬂux and are
rarely if ever in a state of equilibrium. Zimmerer and Young discuss taking non-
equilibrium dynamics one step further and apply it to human altered environments, such
as range and agricultural land, where social scientists and land managers alike have
maintained a static ecological view. The evidence shows that natural processes continue,
albeit in an altered and subdued form, on even highly impacted landscapes (Zimmerer
and Young, 1998: 7-26).

Combining biogeography and cultural ecology, Zimmerer and Young deﬁne a
biogeographical landscape as a “spatially distinctive system of interacting biological
processes and physical features in the environment. . .irnpacted upon by human activities”

(Zimmerer and Young, 1998: 3-11). The twin themes running through this volume are

47

processes of natural and anthropogenic disturbances, differentiating the latter by the
frequency, magnitude, and scale of the disturbance through a study of patch dynamics.
Employing the concepts of landscape, deﬁned by heterogeneity and interacting
ecosystems, and region, deﬁned as a series of interrelated landscapes including both
protected and non-protected areas, ecological units are identiﬁed at a spatial scale thought
to be essential to sustainable development planning. The book is divided into three parts
presenting the conservation challenges facing the different types of landscapes: forest
conservation (deforestation and fragmentation), conservation in high mountain areas, and
conservation in settled areas (Zimmerer and Young, 1998: 1-26).

The case studies in this volume, including one from the Tana River in Kenya
(Medley, 1998: 39-56), emphasize the dynamic nature of both human society and the
natural environment. The other unifying concepts running through the case studies
include: the ubiquity of past and present human impacts on the landscapes of developing
countries, the need for enhanced cultural understanding among ecologists, the importance
of non-equilibrium conditions and patch dynamics operating at various scales, and the
relevence of evaluating the uncertainty arising from these factors when developing
conservation plans. The complexity of dynamic biogeographic landscapes underlines the
need to rethink conservation strategies. In particular, Zimmerer and Young cite no longer
using destocking programs as the primary means of range management, no longer
dismissing agrodiversity out of hand, or prohibiting human use as a necessary step to
conservation (Young and Zimmerer, 1998: 327-340).

Along with the role of scientiﬁc ecology in political ecology, the epistemological

problem was also addressed during the Political Ecology Workshop. In Epistemological

48

Issues in Political Ecology (1994), Whitesell notes that the literature is inconsistent as to
the theoretical direction of political ecology, whether it will remain contextualized or
move toward generalizations (Whitesell, 1994: 1-2). Both Campbell and Zimmerer and
Young offer similar ways to insure scientiﬁc rigor.

In Towards an Analytical Framework for Land-use Change, Campbell points out
that the use of case studies, common among both ecologists and social scientists, offers a
promising avenue for navigating the myriad of factors involved in the
human/environment dynamic. The case study method can facilitate the discourse
between landscape ecologists and social scientists and lead to the development of useful
theory. Additionally, the development of heuristic models can provide a framework for
interdisciplinary study of society-environment issues. However, he is quick to point out,
these models need to incorporate the issue of uncertainty, prevalent throughout science
but especially when dealing with human societies, and not be simply a joining of social
and physical models. Instead, new, interdisciplinary models of society and the
environmental need to be developed to provide the basis for a more comprehensive study
of global change issues including environmental degradation, biodiversity, and
sustainable development (Campbell, 1998: 292-296). As before, conservation biology
can be substituted for landscape ecology in the above discussion.

Zimmerer and Young also address this issue of scientiﬁc rigor in Nature’s
Geography. They argue that the general themes of their book must necessarily be
advanced through the use of case studies because of the unique aspects of each study
area. They also warn against unwarranted extrapolation toward global conservation

prescriptions. On the other hand, the analysis of case studies with shared themes, they

49

argue, can provide useful intermediate level generalizations (Zimmerer and Young, 1998:
22-23). Thus, through the comparison of general themes running through speciﬁc case
studies with similar variables, especially when incorporating scientiﬁc ecology,
interdisciplinary models and broader statements about the human/environment dynamic
can be made with acceptable scientiﬁc rigor.

One ﬁnal contribution to the sociocultural literature from the development arena
that illustrates the value of political ecology for understanding the human/environment
dynamic needs to be presented. In Popular Development: Rethinking the Theory and
Practice of Development (1996), Brohman looks at the relationship between environment
and sustainability. He, like Western in the previous section, feels that the two are
inextricably related. Arguments are presented from the perspective of political ecology
that critique the idea of applying exclusively technological solutions to environmental
problems while ignoring the socioeconomic, political, and ethical aspects of
sustainability. Achieving sustainability, he states, is more than simply achieving
ecological and agricultural sustainability.

This statement applies to polarized Third World countries in particular. Unless
you meet the basic needs of the populace, conservation, especially long-term
conservation could be elusive. Using the framework of political ecology, the political
and redistributive nature of most environmental issues can be examined in context.

While other approaches do not account for the role of the global political economy in the
environmental problems of such countries, political ecology, through its study of the
structural roots of these problems, has a strong global aspect. Environmental problems in

Third World countries, it is argued, must be examined in a North/South context that

50

shows the structural inequities of global capitalism. At the same time, these studies need
to address the sociocultural variations occurring at the local level that make each case
unique (Brohman, 1996: 307-317). Here again the sensitivity to scale in political ecology
is demonstrated. Without such sensitivity the understanding of historical circumstances
and social driving forces and, therefore, the breath of the social dimension will remain
intangible.

The sociocultural literature review offered here demonstrates the usefulness of
political ecology in understanding the human dimension. Clearly, its multi-scalar, multi-
temporal approach offers a practical framework for studying the complexities of social
driving forces. The review also shows where political ecology is lacking in ecological
understanding, viewing the environment in static terms much the same way biological
scientists view culture. While some social scientists recognize this shortcoming, the
literature review indicates an approach that recognizes and treats both societies and the
environment as dynamic is rare (see chapter 4). Such an approach, using the case study
method and the comparison of case studies to identify general themes and create heuristic
social/environmental models, can contribute immensely to conservation efforts and help
reﬁne the discourse between the social and biological sciences.

Two of the obstacles to furthering this interdisciplinary discourse between the
social and biological sciences are, (1) the static view of society held by biological
scientists and (2) the static view of the environment held by social scientists. These
obstacles have been identiﬁed and addressed in this section and the previous. A third

related obstacle remains to be discussed, however. In the next section, I address this

51

third, and arguably, greatest obstacle—the tendency of biological scientists to view the

human dimension through a neo-Malthusian lens.

Missed Connections: Applying Mono-Causal Explanations to Multifaceted Issues,
The Neo-Malthusian Perspective in the Literature

Whenever a theory of overpopulation seizes hold in a society ruled by a

dominate class, then the subservient classes invariably experience some

form of material, political, economic, and social repression.

—David Harvey

Demographer Ralph Tomlinson wrote that “the history of population theory can
be summarized in three words: pre-Malthusian, Malthusian, and post-Malthusian.” He
also credits Malthus with the being the ﬁrst to consolidate the ideas of population
prevalent at the time into a coherent theoretical system (N euratlr, 1994: 11). The
Reverend Thomas Malthus, an Anglican vicar as well as a classical economist, published
the ﬁrst of his essays on population in 1798 and continued to develop the ideas presented
in it in succeeding editions. Essentially, Malthus worked from the premise that there are
limits to growth where human populations are concerned. He argued that while food
production grows at an arithmetic rate, population grows geometrically. This “natural
law” of populations, he argued, is enforced through positive and negative checks. An
example of a positive check is abstinence, while famine is an example of a negative
check (Glass, 1953: 1-25; Hirnmelfarb, 1984: 100-132; Engrnan, 1991: 11-16).

Malthus’ essays have been both controversial and inﬂuential throughout the last

two centuries. Not only did he set the tone for the population debate, he also deﬁned

poverty for the next half century. It helped that his ideas were acceptable and even useful

52

to early capitalism, as they could be used to justify the exploitation of the poor by the
rich. His writings also greatly inﬂuenced the ideas of Charles Darwin in developing the
theory of evolution, which has become the cornerstone of modern ecological thought.
Darwin maintained that Malthus’ writings gave him an insight into the competition
among members of a population that selected for those with greater ﬁtness. Malthus’
inﬂuence in this case is ironic considering that he developed his ideas within a strictly
Christian framework, thought they applied only to human populations, and denied
evolution. Nevertheless, it is the wedding of Malthus’ and Darwin’s ideas that developed
into Social Darwinism and neo-Malthusianism, the latter of which continues to inﬂuence
ecologists and wildlife managers today, as was pointed out continuously throughout the
ecological literature review (Himmelfarb, 1984: 126-129; Price, 1998: 209-211).
Although p0pular with evolutionary scientists and capitalists, Malthus has not
been without his detractors. One of these detractors, who is at least as controversial and
has had a profound impact on the social sciences, including the development of regional
political ecology, is the classical economist Karl Marx. While not denying the possibility
of a Malthusian scenario in a human population, Marx argued that the question of natural
limits (which for the purpose at hand is synonymous with the terms ecoscarcity and
carrying capacity) is irrelevant. He attacked the way Malthus deﬁned poverty as being
the result of limited room at the table of life. To Marx, it was unemployment, not
fertility, that was the dominant cause of poverty and was, moreover, responsible for high
birthrates (Himmelfarb, 1984: 126-129; Crook, 1996: 174). The host of hmnan misery,

according to Marx, could be traced to the inequities of the capitalist system and the

53

control of the means of production. So the problem to Marx was not one of scarcity, as
Malthus argued, but one of equity of distribution (Harvey, 1996: 145).

In Population and Poverty in Classical Theory: Testing a Structural Model For
India, Nigel Crook presents the results of the comparison of both Marx’s and Malthus’
hypothesis about population growth and poverty. Broad empirical economic and
demographic indices from India were used to create a model to test the hypothesises. The
results of the study clearly showed no signiﬁcant relationship in India between population
growth and poverty and tended to support a Marxist view (Crook, 1996: 173-185).

Another inﬂuential critic of Malthus is Ester Boserup. In Conditions of
Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change Under Population Pressure
(1965), she criticizes Malthus for not taking into account the role of technological
development, and the role of population increase in that development, when considering
limits to growth. While the neo-Malthusians corrected this oversight, they focus on the
negative aspects of technological advancement and assume it can never be sustainable.
In Development Theory: An Analytical Framework and Selected Applications (1996),
she presents six models of cultural development that address these issues. The models
are based on the stages of development experienced by the postindustrial nations
(Boserup, 1996: 508-512).

In these models, she focuses on long-term population change, which in each case
is accompanied by technological developments that enabled the transition to the next
developmental stage. At every step, growth in population or more speciﬁcally increased
population density is required, especially in the industrializing stage, where large

numbers of people for labor are essential. The process of development is a dynamic one,

54

and population is the driving force in all but the sixth model, where the occupational
structure replaces population as the driving force in an electronic society. This last model
describes post-industrial societies where population growth levels off or even declines
due to cultural changes. Though the models are based on the historical stages of
development experienced by the postindustrial societies of today, Boserup maintains that
the models can still be applied to societies that are at either preindustrial levels or in the
process of industrializing (Boserup, 1996: 510-514).

Indeed, Tiffen and Mortimore’s longitudinal case study in Machakos, Kenya
(1930 to 1993) entitled, Malthus Controverted: The Role of Capital and Technology in
Growth and Environment Recovery in Kenya (1994), examines the idea that sustainability
is impossible in an area experiencing population growth. Their ﬁndings show that capital
investment, appropriate technological change, combined with increased population
density results in both a higher standard of living and environmental conservation,
supporting Boserup’s ideas. Moreover, the situation in Machakos is not unique. Case
studies from Nigeria, Indonesia, and throughout the rest of Kenya reﬂect similar ﬁndings
(Tiffen and Mortimore, 1994: 999-1010).

These criticisms in the social sciences not withstanding, it is not hard to
understand the reason for the inﬂuence of Malthus and neo-Malthusian thought in the
biological sciences. As noted above, Malthus’ ideas of limits to growth greatly
inﬂuenced Darwin, whose ideas are the foundation of modem ecological thought. The
concept of carrying capacity born of this union has been useful in understanding the
population dynamics of non-human species. Thus, it has become deeply ingrained in the

biological sciences, which, once again, was demonstrated in the ecological literature

55

review, and the tendency is for ecologists to apply this useful tool for wildlife
management to the human dimension. This application does seem a logical step,
especially if one accepts humans as a part of rather than separate from their environment.
The problem, however, is that simplistic ecoscarcity models that work well with non-
human animals are not applicable to complex human societies. Human populations are
quite different from other animal populations. One herd of buffalo or pride of lions will
behave pretty much the same as another herd or pride, but human populations differ
greatly in their behavior patterns even within the same environment. Along with a vastly
more complex social and political structure, humans also have an immense material
culture that enables us to alter our environment in ways non-human animals cannot.
Additionally, wildlife exists in an essentially closed system, while the human system is
open. That is, wildlife is limited in its options during times of stress. It can migrate, but
it cannot expect aid from other members of its species as humans do especially in the
present global system, which was essentially Marx’s point.

To clearly illustrate the problems with the wholesale application of carrying
capacity to the human dimension, I will turn to two of the leading standard bearers of
neo-Malthusian thought, Paul Ehrlich, who wrote the Population Bomb (1968), and
Garrett Hardin, who wrote Tragedy of the Commons (1968). These two works have been
referred to at the “Bible and epistle” for all those who see population growth as the root
of all evil (Ellis, 1996: 158). Both of these researchers share Malthus' concern for
population numbers and carrying capacity, which they seem to feel are naturally and
inextricably linked together. They are often cited in the ecological literature when the

discussion turns to carrying capacity. In the review above alone, one or the other is

56

discussed by several authors including Terborgh in Requiem for Nature, Salafsky in
Natural Connections, and Olembo in Conservation for the T wenty-first Century.

In The Population Explosion, Ehrlich deﬁnes overpopulation as the condition in
which a population cannot support itself without degrading and depleting the resources of
the enviromnent on which it relies. Carrying capacity, then, is deﬁned as the population
in an area relative to the resources and the environment’s capacity to sustain human
activity. He says, “In short, if the long-term carrying capacity of an area is clearly being
degraded by its current human occupants, that area is over populated” (Ehrlich, 1990: 38-
39). What he fails to take into account is that humans have the unique ability to increase
the carrying capacity of the land through technological development. In such a case, by
Ehrlich’s own deﬁnition, though the population numbers have not changed, the land is no
longer overpopulated. The introduction of one additional variable, technology, renders
the role of population numbers less signiﬁcant. The introduction of a myriad of factors,
such as poverty, social inequity, and lack of opportunity makes it even less 80.
Additionally, under some circumstances, such as inigated farming, a drop in population
levels can actually exacerbate environmental degradation (United Nations Conference on
Desertiﬁcation, 1977). When viewed in this light, the idea of carrying capacity, seems to
have little relevance to human societies.

Ehrlich himself seems to recognize this problem, if not its implications. He
argues that, despite his own deﬁnition, the only way an area can be deemed to be no
longer overpopulated is for population growth to end, which is not only a tautology but
misses the point entirely. It is hard to see how a problem such as wildlife diversity 1088

could be blamed on anything but population pressure from the neo-Malthusian

57

perspective. Ehrlich does admit that aid to peasant farmers and institutional reforms may
also help, but only after ending population growth. What Ehrlich fails to see is that if you
can change the carrying capacity of the land without changing the number of people or if
a population drop results in increased environmental degradation, then too many people
was not the problem in the ﬁrst place or at least not the only problem.

When faced with this dilemma, Ehrlich backtracks and redeﬁnes his deﬁnition of
carrying capacity somewhat by saying, “... overpopulation is deﬁned by the animals that
occupy the turf, behaving as they naturally behave, not by a hypothetical group that
might be substituted for them” (Ehrlich, 1990: 40). His use of the word “animals” is
curious. Culture is one of the few things that clearly differentiates humans from other
animals. Its use in this new deﬁnition implies that culture is irrelevant where carrying
capacity is concerned. However, Boserup's models discussed above show that culture
can and historically has changed carrying capacity through innovation. Tiffen and
Mortimore’s ﬁndings also support the importance of culture.

Part of the problem with applying carrying capacity to human populations lies in
the way it is calculated. For example, Ehrlich calls his formula for calculating
environmental impact “the key to understanding the role of population growth in the
environmental crisis” (Ehrlich, 1990: 58). The equation I=PAT uses Population (P),
which is the population of a given area, multiplied by Afﬂuence (A), which is some
measure of individual consumption, multiplied by Technology (T), which is the
environmental disruption by technology to obtain the needed consumer goods, to
calculate enviromnental impact (I) (Ehrlich, 1990: 58-59, 214-215). While on the surface

this formula seems sound, in reality it depends on three highly subjective variables.

58

These variables are: (1) the land to be included (i.e. the land under cultivation now
versus all possible land that could be cultivated), (2) the yield expected from that land
(i.e. rain fed agriculture versus irrigation and fertilization), and (3) the standard of living
assumed (i.e. subsistence level versus the American standard of living). The assumptions
made when deﬁning these variables can alter the calculated result so greatly as to make it
meaningless. Depending on how these variables are weighted or altered, carrying
capacity estimates can range from 3.6 billon to over 100 billion people for the entire earth
(Neurath, 1994: 41-52). Crook illustrates the absurdity of such calculations when he
says:

The modern neo-Malthusian who regards space rather than food as the

limiting factor can indulge in a reductio ad absurdum and calculate the

time needed to reach a situation when there is ‘standing room only’, not to

mention two or three tiers of demographic stacking. Other scientists have

calculated the requirements for water in various versions of the ‘carrying

capacity’ concept. In the very long run we are all Malthusians, and it

would be absurd to pretend otherwise. But equally, the point is trivial, as

are most extrapolation ad inﬁnitum. One might as well argue that the

tendency of the savings rate to rise with income portends disaster, since by

the time that it has reached 100 percent, consumption will be zero and

everyone will starve. (Crook, 1996: 175)
The ﬂuid nature of natural limits or carrying capacity in human populations, whether you
are looking at global or local populations, is due to our ability to manipulate our
environment and the fact that human societies are not closed systems.

In addition to being the co-bearer of the carrying capacity standard, Hardin also
championed the idea that common ownership of land is universally detrimental to the
environment when populations grow in Tragedy of the Commons (1968). He based his

arguments on the history of the commons in England. Hi8 concept of communal

ownership of land as a purveyor of social ills when combined with population growth is

59

prevalent in the ecological literature (Ciriacy-Wintrup and Bishop: 713-727). There are
two main problems with Hardin’s arguments about communal ownership, however. The
ﬁrst is that he fails to differentiate between commonly owned lands and open access
lands and seems to use the two concepts interchangeably. In reality the two are very
different. Communal ownership implies structured access to lands based on agreed upon
rules of use.

Open access lands, on the other hand, do not share the same protection as
commonly owned lands and their value is often discounted and resources overexploited.
The second problem is that basing his arguments on European failures, he misses the
examples of successful communal ownership from around the world. The reason for this
oversight, aside from its obvious Western bias, is that Harden fails to recognize the role
of mutual cooperation in society and concentrates on competition between individuals
(Berkes, 1989: 70-88; Gibbs et. a1., 1989: 22-32). It should be noted here that the role of
mutualisms between organisms as well as competition is recognized as exceedingly
important to the health of ecosystems by many ecologists, particularly in the ﬁeld of
Conservation Biology (Campa, 1999: personal communication). Hardin’s lack of
historical perspective in Tragedy of the Commons is also disturbing.

Barry Commoner vehemently attacked Hardin and Ehrlich at the 1970 meeting of
the American Association for the Advancement of Science. At this meeting he said,
“Saying that none of our pollution problems can be solved without getting at population
ﬁrst is a copout of the worst kind” (Ellis, 1996: 25 8-259). Commoner argued that the
focus on one single cause and cure for a multifaceted problem was questionable at best

and of little use in understanding the problem. He felt, “They [the neo-Malthusians]...

60

‘read into’ the environmental crisis ‘whatever conclusions their own beliefs suggest’”
(Ellis, 1996: 259-260). Even more disturbing to Commoner than Ehrlich and Hardin’s
mere insistence that population numbers are all important, were the social and political
implications of their ideas, particularly those of Harden, which condemn most of the
world to live at “the material level of barbarism” while the “fortunate minorities live at
the moral level of barbarians.” Likewise, he condemned Ehrlich’s suggestion that
population should be controlled “by compulsion if voluntary methods fail” to be nothing
less than “a program for political oppression” (Ellis, 1996: 260).

Throughout the debate Hardin remained basically silent, but Ehrlich fought
Commoner vehemently. Where as the neo-Malthusians felt population growth was the
great evil, Commoner saw the unrestrained development and misuse of technology,
without proper regard for its environmental impact, as the main problem. Though both
claimed to recognize that they were dealing with a multidimensional situation, each
accused the other of having too narrow a focus. Ironically, they were both correct in this
criticism (Ellis, 1996: 260-262).

Probably due to these attacks on the idea of carrying capacity and the realization,
at least nominally, that culture plays a role in the human dimension, Hardin introduced
the concept of cultural carrying capacity in Cultural Carrying Capacity: A Biological
Approach to Human Problems (1992). In the article he states:

...I propose that we abandon the term carrying capacity in favor of

cultural carrying capacity. As deﬁned, the cultural capacity of a territory

will always be less than its carrying capacity (in the simple animal sense).

Cultural capacity is inversely related to the (material) quality of life
presumed (Hardin, 1992: 20).

61

Although cultural carrying capacity appears to incorporate the idea that culture does have
an effect on carrying capacity, the main thrust of the new concept is still that
overpopulation is the cause of poverty, strife, and environmental degradation. Indeed,
Hardin says so himself when he states that “... the [cultural] carrying capacity approach
results in replacing the concept of a ‘have not’ nation with that of an ‘overpopulation’
nation” (Hardin, 1992: 23). In essence, the terms have changed but the focus remains the
same. Moreover, the deﬁnition of cultural capacity implies a justiﬁcation for
conspicuous consumption by rich nations without directly coming out and saying so. In
fact, it implies that if a population is living within its cultural capacity, there is no
problem with consumption, with which other neo-Malthusians, such as Salafsky (1994)
and Terborgh (1999), clearly disagree.

Those who question the concept of cultural carrying capacity, Hardin claims, are
failing to look at the long run. For example, he attacks the idea that innovation occurs
where the need is greatest by pointing to countries like Ethiopia and saying, “... is
inventiveness at its maximum in such poor countries? Certainly not,” (Hardin, 1992: 21).
Of course, he fails to take an historical perspective, a common neo-Malthusian failing,
and take into account the mitigating factors involved throughout Aﬁica, like colonialism
and its aftermath. Instead, he, like Malthus and Ehrlich, end up blaming the poor for
being poor.

In both Tragedy of the Commons and Cultural Carrying Capacity, Hardin takes
exception to Marx’s idea of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his
needs” (Hardin, 1992: 22). In his view, too much sharing of wealth, whether it be

material wealth or information, is detrimental to a people’s competitive position.

62

According to Hardin, “parochial distribution of resources should be matched by parochial
consumption,” which means that countries do not suffer shortages in supply but rather
“longages in demand.” His answer to ecoscarcity is drastic reduction in population
numbers to the point where mortality is higher than fertility and the modiﬁcation of our
views on inalienable human rights where such drastic reductions are concerned (Hardin,
1992: 10). He seems to have taken Malthus’ parable of the banquet of life very much to
heart where poor nations are concerned, while encouraging wealthy nations to satisfy all
hungers.

Hardin's idea of cultural capacity is quite similar to the idea of effective demand,
as described by David Harvey in Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference
(1996). With effective demand, the power to consume is withheld from the poorest
classes under the auspices of controlling population pressure on the environment, while at
the same time arguing that the wealthier classes should consume as much as possible.
Harvey calls this idea “illogical” and “obscene” in that it seems wholly inconsistent with
population theory (Harvey, 1996: 141 -142). To illustrate the folly of this theory, he
states:

capitalist countries preach to the rest of the world about how the latter's

population growth is putting pressure on the resources while urging their

own upper classes on to an orgy of conspicuous consumption as a

necessary contribution to sustainable growth (Harvey, 1996: 144).

In essence then, Harvey points out, there ends up being one law for the rich and one for

the poor, and the rich do the poor a favor by creating artiﬁcial scarcity before natural

scarcity can get them (Harvey, 1996: 144).

63

While consumption is recognized as a contributing factor to environmental
degradation and wildlife extinctions by ecologists like Terborgh and Salafsky, its role is
down played in favor of the neo-Malthusian population factor. Just to put the issue in
perspective, and show how easy it would be to make a mono-causal argument using
consumption in the industrialized world, let us examine the idea of conspicuous
consumption for a moment. As far back as the 19508 the United States, with only six-
percent of the total world population, consumed 30 to 50 percent of the world’s resources
(Ellis, 1996: 259). This incredible consumption rate has not reduced. On the contrary, it
has increased.

Today the United States and Canada combined consume 20 times more energy
than Africa and twice that of Europe (National Geographic Society, Population and
Resources Map, Oct. 1998). Roughly what this means is that, using Africa as a reference
point, an American baby consumes 75 times more resources than an African baby. In
other words, 16.5 billion Aﬁicans (over twice the present world population) living at the
level they are now would be required to exert as much pressure on the environment as
220 million Americans. Similarly, the industrialized nations, with only 15 percent of the
population, produce approximately 98 percent of the world‘s pollution. The United States
alone produces 45 percent of the total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Given these
ﬁgures, it is hard to argue with Engman when he says, “The unsavory crux of the matter
is that some people stress and strain the ecosystem out of all proportion to their limited
numbers” (Engman, 1991: 21-22). Even if one were to argue with the exact ﬁgures
presented, changing a percentage point here and there, one would be hard pressed to

justify such enormous consumption, let alone argue that overpopulation in the Third

64

World is single-handedly responsible for environmental degradation, extinction, and the
global depletion of non-renewable resources.

Another problem with the neo-Malthusian perspective was presented in chapter 1.
In that chapter, I stated that although population growth is not the only factor that could
be considered as either a social driving force or a proximate cause, population holds a
unique position among causes. This uniqueness should be clear from the preceding
discussion of the neo-Malthusian perspective, which treats population as virtually the
only factor involved in environmental degradation. Although ecologists with a strong
neo-Malthusian bent like Brown warn against assuming a cause and effect relationship
between population growth and environmental degradation (Brown, 1987: 20-37), it has
often been assumed so in practice. In such cases, the result is an ecofallacy where macro-
level observations were used to make micro-level assumptions, as occurred in Rwanda
and elsewhere (Campbell, 1996: 4-5). In such cases, social driving forces and historical
circumstances have been ignored. Essentially, there is no room for either within the neo-
Malthusian perspective.

There are many political and economic reasons that one might adopt a Malthusian
view of the world. From its very inception, Malthus’ ideas found a home among rich
conservatives and the early capitalist economy. It ﬁt in well with and supported the idea
of survival of the ﬁttest and essentially unburdened the rich of any responsibility to the
poor. Today, it can be used for very much the same purposes, to legitirrrize the status
quo, as demonstrated by Hardin’s concept of cultural carrying capacity. In essence, the
neo-Malthusian perspective when applied to human populations is far more political and

economic than scientiﬁc. In fact, given the deﬁnitional problems with carrying capacity,

65

the fact society can alter it in a heartbeat, and the extreme subjectivity of calculating it in
the ﬁrst place, carrying capacity is not scientiﬁcally applicable or useful at all when
studying human societies.

The question becomes then, if this concept is so useless in understanding the
human dimension, why would ecologists like Brown, Salafsky, and Terborgh cling to it
so doggedly when some like Western seem to be able to move beyond it? The obvious
answer is a lack of social understanding and the dynamic nature of culture, but the entire
answer goes beyond the obvious. A large part of the appeal of the neo-Malthusian view
is that it ﬁts so well with the scientiﬁc method. It has measures that appeal to a positivist
outlook, points to a cause in a reductionist manner, and is tried and proven in studying
wildlife populations. With this perspective, there is no reason to examine any time but
the present or any cause but the proximate cause, thus the focus of NGOs like WWF and
NC. The problem is that, as I pointed out above, human societies, particularly where
material culture is concerned, differ ﬁ‘om anything found among other species and are
constantly changing, making factors like historical circumstances and social driving
forces all-important.

I argue that the main reason many ecologists, such as those listed above, examine
multi-faceted problems with what in essence becomes a single factor approach is that
their neo-Malthusian grounding limits their understanding of human societies. This
limitation hinders the further development of the interdisciplinary cooperation called for
by Western in the ecological literature review and Zimmerer and Campbell in the
sociocultural review to address conservation problems. As previously established, such

an approach needs to recognize the value of both quantitative and qualitative data and

66

allow for multiple causes and explanations for multifaceted problems. Recognition of
these elements is essential to understanding the human dimension and, therefore, the
human/environment dynamic. The reluctance to embrace such an approach results in the
kinds of problems discussed with Brown and Terborgh and Salafsky’s schizophrenia.
However, if the human dimension is as important to the future of wildlife as this literature
review demonstrates that it is and the issues involved in conservation are truly
multifaceted, then any approach to conservation that does not move beyond the
Malthusian perspective, seeing both the environment and human society as dynamic, not
only recognizing but treating multifaceted issues as multifaceted issues and examining

factors such as historical circumstances and social driving forces will be unsuccessful.

Research Question and Objectives

Chapter 1 and preceding sections of the literature review have established that the
problems associated with conservation are multifaceted and require an interdisciplinary
approach to solve. The need to further the discourse between the biological and social
sciences to address those problems is demonstrated in the literature of both groups. Also
clear from the literature are the obstacles to be overcome in order to reﬁne
interdisciplinary cooperation. First, there is the need for greater social understanding
among ecologists and the need to move beyond Malthus when looking at human
populations. Second, there is the need for improved understanding of the scientiﬁc
ecology in the social sciences. The literature review demonstrated that both human

cultures and the environment are dynamic. And ﬁnally, it established the need to

67

examine the historical circumstances and social driving forces at work in a study area and
to look to the ﬁiture for contextual understanding.

To address the issues presented in the literature review, I used an approach that
emphasized context through background information gathering in a study area. The
speciﬁc research question I addressed was: what information is required for improved
integrated conservation that incorporates historical circumstances, social driving forces, a
dynamic view of ecosystems, and looks beyond the contemporary? My objective was to
design a framework for understanding the speciﬁc circumstances of a conservation to
answer my question. The result was the Contextual Framework for Wildlife
Conservation, which is presented in chapter 4 with a case study from Kajaido District,

Kenya for illustration.

68

Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY

It is from the earth that we must ﬁnd our sustenance; it is on the earth that

we must ﬁnd solutions to the problems that promise to destroy all life

here. —Justice William 0. Douglas
Origins of the Conceptual Framework for Wildlife Conservation

When I began my course of study, I knew only that I had a strong interest in
wildlife and felt that Geography had much to offer to its conservation. I began my
research by looking at the CBC literature and soon began thinking in terms of designing
an integrated conservation plan for Kajiado District, Kenya. I choose Kajiado (ﬁgure 2)
as my study area for three main reasons. The ﬁrst is its location. Kajiado is adjacent to
Tsavo West National Park and encompasses Amboseli National Park (ﬁgure 3), two of
the most important parks in terms of revenues and wildlife diversity in Kenya (Western,
1994: 15-20; Campbell et. a1., 1999: 5-7; Campbell et. a1., 2000: 7). Additionally,
Amboseli was an important test case in CBC, which was discussed in the literature
review. Second, East Africa in general is home to a wealth of wildlife diversity on a
global scale (Western, 1994a: 15-19; Campbell et. a1., 1999: 6). Third, there is the
district’s history of sweeping socioeconomic change, demographic turmoil, and
human/wildlife conﬂict (Western, 1994a: 15-50; Campbell, 1993: 258-271; Campbell
et. a1., 2000: 3-11). All of these factors will be examined further in the discussion

chapter.

69

 

 

 

 

|Kajiado District, Kenya

 

95° ETHIOPIA
i a
t
UGANDA

 

 

 

   

Klomotors

0 1CD

 

 

 

Figure 2 — Map of the Study Area: Kajiado District, Kenya (OCHA ReliefWeb webpage, 2002).

70

 

 

.° W
i \ in \3‘s --‘ .

Eastern Kaando District
2 , q. r *\ ‘r W i . x
r :\ \

reign, ‘ "*
/ V . '

    
 
  

   
   

 

 

   
   
 

 

—— perennial_streams
seasonal_streams

 
 
  

 

 

Figure 3—Eastern Kajiado District showing Amboseli and Tsavo West National Parks (After Campbell,
2000)

As I studied the conservation and development literature to outline an integrated
conservation plan for Kajiado, the enormous number of variables (political, economic,
social, institutional, and ecological) that would need to be taken into account became
overwhelming. Simply knowing I needed to include an historical perspective, social
driving forces, and trend analysis for planning into the future did not tell me how to

determine the hierarchy of variables and set boundaries for the construction of the

71

conservation plan. Without such a guideline, I knew my plan would run into the same
sorts of problems as previous and present plans (see chapter 4).

Although taking into account the background of a conservation area is a major
component of ecosystem management (Meffe and Carroll, 1997: 347-382), just how
broad temporally and spatially and in terms of subject matter should that background
research be? It seemed that resource management decisions were often made ad hoc in
response to speciﬁc crises. Moreover, decision-makers have to take into account
numerous interests and commonly have limited data (Meffe and Carroll, 1997: 385-415).
However, if a framework existed for determining the relevant background research
necessary to provide the pertinent data and identify where further research is required,
conservation decisions could more easily be made.

From this realization came my research question: what information is required
for improved integrated conservation that incorporates historical circumstances, social
driving forces, a dynamic view of ecosystems, and looks beyond the contemporary? My
objective to design a framework for understanding the speciﬁc circumstances of a
conservation area soon followed. To meet my objective I used the interdisciplinary tools
offered by Geography and Conservation Biology, from which came my theoretical
framework employing political ecology and scientiﬁc ecology, to develop my Contextual
Framework for Wildlife Conservation. The Framework consists of three main points:
the Historical Perspective (Point A), the Contemporary Social Driving Forces (Point B),
and the Future Trends (Point C). Under each of these major points are various sub-

points, ten in all, with associated questions to help guide research.

72

The Framework is designed to help meet the need for contextual planning by
providing an outline for background information gathering. The three major divisions
(Points A, B, and C) are designed to complement each other. The information gathered
in studying the historical circumstances (Point A) is designed to aid in understanding the
contemporary situation (Point B). Likewise, the information gathered from the ﬁrst two
points is designed to identify trends that can facilitate decision making and help with the
allocation of resources into the future (Point C). The questions and sub-points are
designed to be broad enough to apply to conservation areas in general. Because of this
generality, some questions and sub-points will have more relevance to a particular area

than others, as the example from Kajiado in the discussion chapter will show.

Data Collection: Library Research, Personal Communications, and Survey Data
The majority of the data I used to develop the Framework came from my review
of the ecological and sociocultural literature, which was outlined in the previous chapter.
Within the ecological literature, I concentrated on the literature coming out of
' Conservation Biology. Likewise, I concentrated on the literature coming out of
Geography and, to some degree, Anthropology and Sociology for the social perspective.
The reason for concentrating on these sources is their openness to interdisciplinary
cooperation. I also consulted publications from conservation related NGOs, such as
WWF, NC, and the Biodiversity Support program as well as information available on the
intemet and in written form from international bodies, including UNEP (United Nation
Environment Programme) and UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientiﬁc, and

Cultural Organization).

73

To supplement my library research, I visited Kenya during May and early June
2000 to put the literature I have been reading into perspective and to discuss conservation
related issues with Kenyan conservationists who had ﬁeld level experience with the
issues involved. Those I spoke with included Dr. Perez Olindo (Former Director of the
Wildlife Department), Dr. Helen Gichohi (Director of the African Conservation Centre—
ACC), and various employees of the KWS. I also discussed conservation issues and the
human/environment dynamic with MSU faculty who had familiarity with the study area
and/or expertise in conservation.

I further augmented the library and personal communication data I collected with
data from two household surveys conducted in Kajiado. The ﬁrst study in 1977
conducted by the Institute for Development Studies at the University of Nairobi was
comprised of 225 farmers and 167 herders for a total of 392 respondents. The second
study took place in 1996 (funded by the Ford Foundation) was somewhat larger with 559
respondents comprised of 227 herders and 332 farmers. The data from both surveys was
used by permission of the African Conservation Centre (ACC). The papers Interactions
Between People and Wildlife in SE Kajiado District, Kenya (Campbell et. a1., 1999) and
Land Use Conflict in Kajiado District, Kenya (Campbell et. a1., 2000), based on analysis
of the data from these surveys, were invaluable to the understanding of the data and
played a major role in my analysis.

The sampling method used in both cases closely approximates a stratiﬁed random
sampling technique and the study area was broken up into strata ecological gradients and
major land use type. After both the 1977 and 1996 surveys were analyzed, community

workshops were held by the researchers to discuss the survey results with key informants.

74

The purpose of these workshops was to include local people in the research process and
to gain valuable insights into the interpretation of the survey results and to clarify issues
that were indistinct, underestimated, or overestimated (Campbell et. a1., 1999; Campbell
et. a1., 2000).

Along with socioeconomic and demographic questions, these surveys also
included human/wildlife conﬂict questions as well, providing the sort of cross-
disciplinary information I needed. Furthermore, since the two surveys were conducted in
the same study area, employing the same methodology, and had similar numbers of

respondents, they added a longitudinal aspect to my analysis of the conservation area.

Analytical Procedure

Scale, both temporal and spatial, and the adequate representation of stakeholders
were key components in designing the Framework. The library and Internet research
provided global, national, and, to some degree, local level information. The discussions I
had with Kenyan ecologists provided a more personal national level perspective and,
once again to some degree, a local level understanding that was missing from the library
research. Without having visited my study area, my research and analysis would likely
be similar to that of the “arm-chair” anthropologists of the 19th century. Granted my time
in Kenya was brief and my discussions, therefore, not as extended as I would have liked.
Nevertheless, I gained a perspective I would not have otherwise.

The 1977 and 1996 survey data provided both a longitudinal perspective and a
more in-depth view of the local level (a perspective easily discounted or overlooked) than

any of the other sources of data I consulted. I must emphasize that I relied heavily on the

75

papers discussed in the previous section (Campbell et. a1., 1999; Campbell et. a1., 2000)
for my interpretation of the survey data. Although I preformed some analysis (multiple
regression, factor analysis, principal components analysis) on the human/wildlife conﬂict
data, the results were questionable and not applicable to designing the Framework. Being
familiar with both the data and the papers, I could see no value in recreating previously
compiled, reliable data analysis.

The data collected for each of these levels, international, national, and local, were
then broken down into the three points of the Conceptual Framework: The Historical
Perspective (Point A), Contemporary Social Driving Forces (Point B), and Future Trends
(Point C). During the analysis and the development of the sub-points and questions
under each major point, numerous instances of overlap between points were noted and
expected, as one point is designed to ﬂow into the next. Also, holes in the data for
Kajiado, the case study being used to illustrate the Framework, are noted as areas where
additional research is necessary. Once again, a complete outline of the Framework
follows in chapter 4. The short-comings of the Framework, its contributions to
understanding of the human/environment dynamic and the development of the discourse
between the biological and social science, and implications for future research will be

addressed in chapter 5.

76

Chapter 4
DISCUSSION: THE CONTEXTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION

If we wish to ﬁnd any lasting solutions to our problems, we must act at the
root cause. The only cure for present world problems, including that of
the natural environment, is for people to replace ignorance with
knowledge, greed with generosity, and lack of respect for life with
humanitarian values.

—The Dalai Lama

Introduction to the Contextual Framework

The literature review demonstrated the knowledge that conservation and
development are linked has been around for decades and that an interdisciplinary
approach is needed to achieve conservation goals. It demonstrated that ecologists are
becoming increasingly aware of the importance of the human dimension to conservation
strategies and that issues like poverty and social inequity must be addressed to
successfully protect wildlife (Western, 1997; Campbell, 1996; Zimmerer and Young,
1998). Likewise, it was also established that social scientists are expanding their research
into environmental and wildlife studies to better understand human behavior especially in
places like Aﬁica where wildlife plays a prominent role in all levels of society (Campbell
et. a1., 1999; Gibson, 1999). What is equally clear is that African conservation problems
require African solutions, thus the need for local participation (Western, 1997: 43-61), as

I suspect is the case everywhere.

77

The experience of Amboseli National Park in Kenya was presented in the
literature review as an example of an integrated approach to conservation that relied on
CBC (Western, 1994a: 15-52). However, numerous other contemporary and earlier
examples of integrated approaches appear throughout the literature including: Lusigi
(1978), Pratt and Gwynne (1977), Sandford (1983), Anderson and Grove (1987), Western
and Pearl (1989), Western and Wright (1994), Metcalfe (1994), Metcalfe (1997), Uphoff
et. a1. (1998), Zimmerer and Young (1998), Berger (1993), and Ole Parkipuny and Berger
(1993)

Many of these sources were discussed in the literature review and some of the
others are referred to in this chapter. As stated, it is not necessary to present each
individual case, as Amboseli offers a good overview of the issues one encounters when
trying to integrate conservation and development and the progress that has been made
toward addressing those issues. Because of its relevance to the Kajiado, Amboseli is
further examined in this chapter.

The literature reveals that many of the problems plaguing integrated approaches
to conservation and development tend to be reoccurring. These problems include:
political instability, lack of economic security, political corruption, institutional
weakness, land tenure issues, the failure to see wildlife as a political issue, limited or
nominal local participation and beneﬁt, inappropriate development and/or conservation
strategies, and the discounting of the environment (Anderson and Grove, 1987: 1-10;
Khalikane, 1991: 1-15; Western, 1994a: 44-50; Gibson, 1999: 1-20). However despite

the successes thus far achieved, none of the examples I examined has been able to

78

address all the problems facing conservation today or thoroughly plan for those in the
future.

Even the CAMPF IRE program in Zimbabwe, which is considered by many as an
on going example of a successful integrated conservation program (Metcalfe, 1994;
Metcalfe, 1997), is not without its problems. Some researchers feel that instead of
devolving power the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management has
actually extended its control over wildlife and that the reduced levels of poaching may
actually be more closely tied to increased law enforcement than an heightened local
conservation ethic (Gibson, 1999: 110-116, 145-150).

Given the broad concerns facing conservation, perhaps no approach can fully
address them all and foresee every contingency. However, since the issues tend to be
dynamic in nature (Zimmerer and Young, 1998), an approach that treats them as such is
more likely to be adaptable to the particulars of a given study area. This is the way
ecosystem planning views the environment (Meffe and Carrol, 1997: 347-419; Baydack,
Campa and Hauﬂer, 1999) and political ecology views human societies (Blaikie and
Brookﬁeld, 1987; Campbell and Olson, 1991). An approach that addresses both human
and environmental dynamics will require the compilation and analysis of a vast amount
of data and building on the interdisciplinary foundation these approaches developed. To
build on this foundation, the obstacles that limit interdisciplinary cooperation discussed
throughout this thesis need to be overcome. Common ground must be more ﬁrmly
established between the positivist approach of the ecological sciences and the dialectical
approach common in the social sciences and the discourse between the two refined to

fully address conservation issues. With the interdisciplinary nature of the issues facing

79

modern conservation, the importance of furthering this discourse cannot be overestimated
(Campbell, 1998: 292-296; Zimmerer and Young, 1998).

Enlightened approaches to either conservation or development have emerged only
relatively recently. Recall that the conclusions of the Airlie House Workshop in 1993
were that although local participation is essential to conservation the concept is too new
and too many questions remain for simple answers (Western, 1994b: 499-511; Wright,
1994: 524-535). Likewise, Blaikie and Brookﬁeld did not publish their seminal work on
regional political ecology until 1987 (see literature review). The positivist perspective of
ecologists leads them to seek essentially mono-causal explanations for multifaceted
questions. The prime example of this tendency is the importance assigned the human
population factor in the literature. This perspective combined with a static view of the
human dimension simpliﬁes the human half of the human/environment dynamic,
produces conservation designs that are ﬁrmly grounded in the here and now, focus
exclusively on proximate causes, and are, therefore, static (see the literature review,
particularly the missed connections section).

An example of such a static design comes from the NC’s site conservation
plarming approach, which was presented in the literature review (Nature Conservancy,
2000). Likewise, the bioreserve approach of the Man and the Biosphere Program
(MAB), which has included Amboseli National Park since 1992, is essentially static.
While MAB is progressive and tries to address the human dimension, it is ﬁrmly
grounded in the here and which limits the ﬂexibility of any plan (Dyer and Holland,
1988: 635-641; UNESCO, 2001). MAB also bases reserves on ﬁxed political

boundaries designed to preserve wildlife rather than embrace the broader ecological

80

processes (Campa, 2002: personal communications). The frustration that can result from
oversimplifying the human dimension can lead to regression toward a preservationist
position, despite the demonstrated untenable nature of such a position. Some argue this
regression has occurred within WWF with its ecoregion approach, which was also
discussed in the literature review (Campbell, 1999: personal communications).
Exacerbating the problem is that traditionally social scientists offer little direct help to
ecologists in understanding the human dimension because few have deemed wildlife an
appropriate area of study (Gibson, 1999: 5) and tend to view the environment in static
terms (Zimmerer, 1994). These factors underline the reasons for the limited discourse
and the lack of progress in integrated planning.

Static conservation approaches cannot address the multiple spatial and temporal
scales of the human/environment dynamic. One reason is that the human role in a study
area is taken out of context. Societies do not exist in isolation anymore than ecosystems
or the conservation needs of any locale. Historical circumstances (human as well as
natural) must be taken into account to place the contemporary situation in context and
plan for the future. Developing this perspective requires looking beyond the proximate
causes of change to the social driving forces propelling that change. Context is the key to
this perspective and addressing my research question: what information is required for
improved integrated conservation that incorporates historical circumstances, social
driving forces, a dynamic view of ecosystems, and looks beyond the contemporary? To
address this question I developed the Contextual Framework for Wildlife Conservation
(table 1) as an aid to gathering and analyzing the required information.

Table 1 shows the three main points of the Framework: the Historical Perspective

81

 

A Contextual Framework for Wildlife Conservation

 

Point A: The Historical Perspective (Where have we been a '

 

Sub-Points

 

1. Identify the relevant historical time frame for studying the conservation area.

 

I At what point historically do the changes visible today began to occur?
0 What informational resources (historical, ethnographic, palm-environmental, wildlife
monographs, indigenous, etc.) are available to determine the appropriate time period?

 

2. Examine the environmental setting of the conservation area, identifying not just soil and
vegetation types but the ecological processes at work and how they have changed.

Differentiate between anthropogenic and natural factors when possible. (Do not neglect
indigenous knowledge.)

 

- What scientiﬁc and local sources of information are available?

0 What do they tell us about how and why the landscape has changed during the historical
period?

0 Have the natural processes been simpliﬁed and in what way?

 

3. Analyze the human history of the conservation area during the historic period using as
many different sources and perspectives as possible. Pay attention to the scale at which
events are occurring and be careful not to underrepresent the indigenous viewpoint.

 

o What materials are available from historians, social scientists, local sources, etc?

o What cultural changes are observable? What factors are responsible for those changes and
at what scales do they operate?

0 Has the mix of cultures changed?

0 How have the relations between different groups (tribal, ethnic, religious) changed? What
are the factors involved and at what scales do they operate?

0 What is the development history of the conservation area and who beneﬁted? Who did not
beneﬁt? What can we learn from this?

 

4. Examine the native wildlife communities in the study area during the historical period.
Determine the composition and distribution wildlife pomlations and how that has changed.

 

0 Has the composition or movements of wildlife species changed? What factors are
responsible for those changes and at what scales do they operate?

0 What information is available from wildlife biologists and managers? Is there information
on habitat types and changes within those types? Is data available on the historical range of
variability of native wildlife species? What information is available from local sources?

0 What is the conservation history of the study area and what can we learn from it? What

metrics are available to measure the impact of previous plans?

0 Have wildlife interests been included in conservation legislation and policy?

0 If wildlife tourism/utilization has been a factor in the conservation area, where do monies
accrue and how has this impacted wildlife?

0 Are there protected areas (parks, reserves) within or adjacent to the study area? What
policy mm them and what is their relationshij to non-protected areas?

 

5. Examine the relationship between the human and natural history of the conservation area
and the trends that emerge. Pay attention to the role scale plays in this analysis.

 

 

- Historically, what were local attitudes toward the natural world and wildlife? Toward
protected areas? How has the natural world in general and wildlife in speciﬁc been viewed
historically?

0 How have these attitudes effected the relationship between the cultures in the conservation
area with their environment and with wildlife?

0 Have those attitudes toward the environment and wildlife changed? What factors are
involved and at what scales do they operate?

0 What is the relationship between the conservation and development histories and how has
that impacted local people and wildlife?

0 What trends emege from the analysis?

 

Table l— A Contextual Framework for Wildlife Conservation.

82

 

 

Point B: Contemporary Social Driving Forces (Where are we now?)

 

Sub-Points

 

1. Building on the data collected in the historical analysis, identify the proximate causes of
change at work in the conservation area. Pay attention to the scale at which these causes
are operating.

 

o What metrics are available to measure change? What environmental and human tolerance
thresholds are involved?

0 What changes are the result of natural proximate causes (processes)?

0 What changes are the result of anthropogenic proximate causes?

0 What is the degree of severity of the various anthropogenic factors?

 

2. With the proximate causes identiﬁed, focus on those anthropogenic causes negatively
impacting or potentially negatively impacting wildlife. Analyze the economic,
political/institutional, sociocultural, and environmental driving forces associated with those
proximate causes at the local, national, and global levels.

 

0 At what scales do the drivers operate?
0 How do they relate to one another?
0 What metrics are available to measure their impact on the conservation area?

 

3. Relate the analysis of Sub-Points 1 and 2 to conservation issues, such as wildlife
composition and distribution, habitat change and fragmentation, land use changes, and
issues of tenure to identify contemporary trends.

 

0 What are the conservation and development policies/philosophies in effect? Are they
coherent and coordinated between protected and non-protected areas in terms of planning?
What data is available to measure their impact?

0 Who are the stakeholders involved at the various levels from local to global? What is their
relationship to one another? Do all of the stakeholders have a voice in conservation? If
not, who decides conservation questions?

I Who owns wildlife and do those who bear the greatest costs of conservation see equitable
compensation for their burden? If not, where do monies accrue?

 

Point? C: Future Trends (Where hre we going?) I 7 T 7
Sub-Points

 

1. Based on the analysis of Points A and B, identify the main social and ecological trends
occurring in the conservation area. Be careful to differentiate between transitions and
actual trends.

 

0 Taking into account the historically trend extrapolation can be problematic, what is the
likely trajectory of the identiﬁed trends?

0 At what scalc(s) do these trends operate? Are they likely to negatively impact wildlife? If
so, in what way?

 

2. Make conservation recommendations for addressing the negative aspects of these trends
(for the present and into the future). Identify the financial and human resources available
to meet those recommendations. (Avoid becomipg too detailed.)

 

 

- What considerations (e.g. agricultural expansion, urban sprawl) emerge from the analysis
that will need to be addressed in the planning stage? At what scale do those considerations
need to be addressed?

0 What sources of backing, economically and otherwise, are available from international
sources, national, local, NGOs, etc.?

0 Given what has and has not worked in the conservation area in the past, what resource
allocation suggestions (ﬁnancial and human) can be made?

 

Table 1 (Continued)— A Contextual Framework for Wildlife Conservation.

83

 

(Point A), the Contemporary Social Driving Forces (Point B), and the Future Trends
(Point C). Associated with each of these main points are sub-points and under the sub-
points are questions, both of which are designed to help guide the information gathering
process. This chapter examines each of the main points in turn using the case study from
Kajiado to illustrate them. Before beginning this discussion, however, a few general
points about the Framework and my research need emphasis.

First, as established, conservation plans to date have tended to focus on the local
contemporary situation. By organizing the data gathering exercise into a continuum,
encouraging researchers to look both backward and forward, rather than simply through
the window of the present with its limited perspective, the Framework is designed to
capture the dynamic reality, both social and ecological, at work in the conservation area.
Likewise, each Point with its various sub-points brings in both social and ecological
information to examine the relationship between the two. This juxtaposition offers the
potential to reﬁne the discourse between the social and biological sciences. Also, integral
to each point is the emphasis on temporal and spatial scale.

Second, although my program of study was interdisciplinary, the majority of my
experience lies in the social realm (Geography, Anthropology, and History). Therefore, I
am qualiﬁed to discuss the human aspects of conservation than the ecological. That
being said, my background is sufﬁcient to incorporate an evolutionary view of
ecosystems, emphasizing the importance of understanding and maintaining ecological
processes, into the Framework. However, this component will need further reﬁnement

before ﬁeld study is undertaken.

84

Third, I must emphasize that the Framework is by no means offered as a quick ﬁx
for conservation problems. No complete conservation plan will emerge ﬁom its use,
although the general shape may and the issues to be incorporated into a plan should
appear. Similarly, the Framework will not provide a recipe for the implementation of any
plan derived from its use. Instead, the Framework is designed to be a framework to
facilitate an understanding of the complexities (social and ecological) involved in a
conservation area and a tool or database for assembling and analyzing the information
needed for that understanding. It is not designed to simplify the complexities involved

but rather to help clarify them in context with one another.

Point A: The Historical Perspective

Historical circumstances are what bring us to the present. The Historical
Perspective, then, incorporating natural and human history is Point A of the Framework.
Before one can understand the present condition and circumstances of a conservation
area, one must ﬁrst examine the historical events that created them. Of course, the
relevant historical circumstances and time period will vary for each study area, as well as
the sources available to examine them. In any case, the sources that must be consulted to
obtain the most complete picture of the past go beyond what is commonly thought of in
the West of as history. Beyond the offerings of historians, the work of geographers,
anthropologists, archeologists, sociologists, and the oral traditions of local people must be
examined, as well as the work of wildlife biologists, ecologists, and others. It is possible
that some data will have to be collected ﬁrst hand to ﬁll in gaps and help prevent

obtaining a skewed perspective, which will likely require stakeholder input.

85

The contradictions that will inevitably emerge between sources must be examined
with a critical eye. No authority should be accepted or dismissed out of hand,
particularly where indigenous sources are concerned, if for conservation to succeed it
must succeed at the local level (Western, 1989c; Western and Wright, 1994; Gibson,
1999). The purpose of the information gathering at Point A is not to write a history of the
conservation area in the academic sense, because that is only part of the historical
perspective. On the contrary, the over arching purpose is understand how the present
situation in the area came to be from as many perspectives and at as many scales as
possible. What people believe happened or the way events are perceived by different
groups can have as much or more inﬂuence on their behavior as what actually happened
(Sahlins, 1976: 55-125). Additionally, the natural history of the conservation area must
be put into the mix, with particular attention given to the way people in the past
interacted with wildlife and the enviromnent (Cronon, 1996: 23-56). This point in the
Framework asks, “Where have we been?”. What should emerge from the answer to this
question is a picture of social and ecological trends that can aid in explaining
environmental and cultural conditions observable in the conservation area today. The
Historical Perspective, Point A, with its ﬁve sub-points and guiding questions, is shown
in table 2 below.

The discussion that follows will present an historical perspective for Kajiado
using the elements listed in table 2. However, as the Framework is based a broad
literature review and designed for conservation areas in general, some of the guiding
questions under the sub-points are more pertinent to Kajiado than others. The discussion

begins by concentrating on the human aspect and examines the pre-colonial, colonial, and

86

 

A Contextual Framework for Wildlife Conservation

 

Point A: The Historical Perspective (Where have we been .7)

 

Sub-Points

 

1. Identify the relevant historical time frame for studying the conservation area.

 

0 At what point historically do the changes visible today began to occur?
0 What informational resources (historical, ethnographic, palm—environmental, wildlife
monographs, indigenous, etc.) are available to determine the appropriate time period?

 

2. Examine the environmental setting of the conservation area, identifying not just soil and
vegetation types but the ecological processes at work and how they have changed.

Differentiate between anthropogenic and natural factors when possible. (Do not neglect
indiggrous knowledge.)

 

o What scientiﬁc and local sources of information are available?

0 What do they tell us about how and why the landscape has changed during the historical
period?

0 Have the natural processes been simpliﬁed and in what way?

 

3. Analyze the human history of the conservation area during the historic period using as
many different sources and perspectives as possible. Pay attention to the scale at which
events are occurring and be careful not to underrepresent the indigenous viewpoint.

 

o What materials are available from historians, social scientists, local sources, etc?

o What cultural changes are observable? What factors are responsible for those changes and
at what scales do they operate?

0 Has the mix of cultures changed?

0 How have the relations between different groups (tribal, ethnic, religious) changed? What
are the factors involved and at what scales do they operate?

0 What is the development history of the conservation area and who beneﬁted? Who did not
beneﬁt? What can we learn from this?

 

4. Examine the native wildlife communities in the study area during the historical period.
Determine the commsition and distribution wildlife populations and how that has chagged.

 

0 Has the composition or movements of wildlife species changed? What factors are
responsible for those changes and at what scales do they operate?

0 What information is available from wildlife biologists and managers? Is there information
on habitat types and changes within those types? Is data available on the historical range of
variability of native wildlife species? What information is available from local sources?

0 What is the conservation history of the study area and what can we learn from it? What

metrics are available to measure the impact of previous plans?

0 Have wildlife interests been included in conservation legislation and policy?

0 If wildlife tourism/utilization has been a factor in the conservation area, where do monies
accrue and how has this impacted wildlife?

0 Are there protected areas (parks, reserves) within or adjacent to the study area? What
policy governs them and what is their relationship to non-protected areas?

5. Examine the relationship between the human and natural history of the conservation area
and the trends that emerge. Pay attention to the role scale plays in this analysis.

0 Historically, what were local attitudes toward the natural world and wildlife? Toward
protected areas? How has the natural world in general and wildlife in speciﬁc been viewed
historically?

0 How have these attitudes effected the relationship between the cultures in the conservation
area with their environment and with wildlife?

0 Have those attitudes toward the environment and wildlife changed? What factors are
involved and at what scales do they operate?

0 What is the relationship between the conservation and development histories and how has
that impacted local people and wildlife?

0 What trends emerge from the analysis?

Table 2—Point A of the Contextual Framework for Wildlife Conservation.

 

 

 

 

87

 

post-colonial history of the district. Then the environmental setting and
wildlife/conservation history will be brought into the picture. The reason for this division
is case of explanation and should not be seen as trying to compartmentalize the different
aspects of the human/environment dynamic at work in the district. The synopsis at the

end of the historical analysis of Kajiado relates the discussion back to table 2.

Pre-Colonial, Colonial, and Post-Independence History

The conditions observable in any geographical area at any given point in time are
based on what has come before. Therefore, ancient history is as important as recent
history for an overall understanding of the progression of events. Seen in this light, the
selection of a “relevant” historical time period on which to base your historical
perspective is subjective. On the other hand, I am concerned with conservation in the
Framework and the increasing role of the anthropogenic factor in the human/environment
dynamic involved with rapid environmental change that impacts wildlife. Under these
criteria, a brief review of the literature clearly shows the greatest change, in terms of
magnitude and breath, for all of Africa including Kajiado begins in the colonial period.

Archeological evidence based on ceramic and faunal analysis and pale-
environmental evidence based on pollen analysis and climatic studies indicate that East
Aﬁica has been stable for at least the past 2600 years. During the this time period,
herding has been the dominate human occupation. The consistency in the faunal
assemblage and climatic analysis further indicate that this occupation had no detrimental
impact on wildlife or the environment and that hunting coincides with times of

environmental stress. The earliest ethnographic literature from the nineteenth century

88

supports this evidence. Stability in the region lasted until the beginning of the colonial
period, when indigenous economies and linkages became disrupted, environmental
degradation due to human activity became widespread, and wildlife populations were
devastated (Collett, 1987: 129-139). The argument for the impact of colonialism can be
expanded to encompass all of Africa south of the Sahara in the past 200 years. Boserup
makes clear that one cannot hope to understand Africa’s cultural and environmental
situation without examining the history and policies of the colonial period (Boserup,

1981: 144-145). For Kenya, this timeframe begins in the late nineteenth century.

The Pre-Colonial and Colonial Periods

In the following discussion, I will examine the policies, actions, and attitudes of
the colonials in Kenya in order to help explain the historical context of present day
Kajiado. This examination, however, will only explain part of that context. An
examination of the actions of indigenous peoples within the parameters set by
administrative policies and actions is also necessary to understanding the changing and
oﬁen contradictory social conditions in Kajiado (Kituyi, 1990; pp. 225-231). Thus, the
historical perspective for Kajiado will be presented from the standpoint of opposing or
competing interests: colonial versus native, local versus national, farmer versus herder,
and, when wildlife is brought into the picture in the next section, human versus wildlife.
This approach requires brieﬂy delving into Maasai history prior to the colonial period in
order to put their interactions with the colonial government and later with the

independent government in context.

89

Pastoralists have occupied East Aﬁica for at least the past 4000 years and the
archeological record for the past 2600 years is good. It indicates they have placed little
pressure on their environment or on wildlife throughout this tirneframe. The Maasai
represent the most recent group of these nomadic pastoralists. Originally
agropastoralists, the linguistic evidence indicates the ﬁrst Maa speaker migration entered
the Rift Valley about 1600 AD with others following (Collett, 1987: 130-137). The
specialized pastoral economy present at the beginning of the colonial period did not
appear until the seventeenth century. As it developed, Maasai hegemony spread during
the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Galaty, 1993: 61-85).

The Maasai world was highly ethnocentric and divided into people of cattle and
people who are without. At the same time, this rigidity is tempered by the ease with
which a non-Maasai could become a person of cattle, such as owning cattle or joining a
Maasai age-set. Thus, Maasai ethnicity was somewhat ﬂuid prior to the colonial period
(Spear, 1993a: 120-133; Waller, 1993a: 226-248) and based more on cultural or
ideological identity than geographical boundaries or political demarcations (Kituyi, 1990:
36-37). The Maasai eschewed farming and largely still do, and wealth and social
relations were based on cattle not land. Still, needing agricultural products especially
during the recurrent droughts in East Africa, they evolved a complex economic and social
structure that included trade and symbiotic relations with farmers and hunter-gatherers to
form the overall regional economy (Kituyi, 1990: 37-44, 51-59; Spear, 1993b: 1-24).
Although they kept a standing military and had a ﬁerce martial reputation, they

maintained mostly peaceful relations with Dorobro hunters and gatherers and Kikuyu,

90

Chagga and other Bantu and Niolotic agriculturalists with whom they shared the region
(Kituyi, 1990: 37-44, 55-59).

The only neighbors they had frequent clashes with were a group of agropastoral
peoples who collectively became known as the Kalenjins. The reason for these clashes
was direct competition for resources, as the Kalenj ins needed access to rangeland
themselves. In fact, the whole purpose in maintaining a standing army was to protect
Maasai access to needed resources, not to occupy land in the EurOpean sense of political
domination. Cattle had value, not land, and mobility was a major survival strategy in a
region prone to drought. The military protected that mobility and the access to the
resources that supported the pastoral economy it brought with it. By the same token,
boundaries were quite ﬂuid in the pre-colonial period. They were established by a
complex economic (based on trading, kinship, stock associations) and military
relationship among the Maasai and with their neighbors and ﬂuctuated according to the
resource needs of cattle production (Kituyi, 1990: 33-44, 37-44, 55-59).

lntemally, Maasai society is broken down into a section/tribe or olosho, with the
plural being iloshon (constituted by a group of neighborhoods), the neighborhood (a
group of bomas), the boma (a group of households), and the household. All the Maasai
iloshon together constituted what was understood by the Europeans to be Maasailand
before colonization. An olosho ranged over an area that encompassed all necessary wet
and dry season resources for their cattle. Land was communally owned and cattle, as
indicated, were the basis and goal of production, as well as forming the social foundation

of Maasai society, and were individually or household owned. Access to resources for

91

the maintenance of herds was controlled at the neighborhood level (Kituyi, 1990: 33-44,
114-115; Campbell, 1993: 259-264; Kimani and Pickard, 1998: 202-204).

Maasai society is highly patriarchal and women are traditionally accorded little
formal say in its workings. Males are divided into ﬁve age-sets, spamring ten-year
intervals, which can be thought of as rungs on a ladder that each cohort climbs as they
age. The age-set system deﬁnes the relations between the different age-groups through
institutions such as patronage, marriage, and stock associations. Likewise, within each
rung are speciﬁc rights and obligations, which increase with age, as does wealth. The age
structure provided the basis for the gerontocracy that decides disputes and enforces
tradition through a Council of Elders, often using group cohesion as a litmus test.
Although the Maasai recognized individual wealth before the colonial era, they also had
taboos against avarice and ostentation (Kituyi, 1990: 144-122, 138-150, 161-177, 205-
209; Galaty, 1993: 79-83; Kimani and Pickard, 1998: 202-204).

The arrival of the colonials completely disrupted the-socioeconomic structure of
Maasai East Africa, eliminating some aspects like the military but only altering others
with time. This is the reason the present tense is used at times in the preceding
paragraphs, to show institutional and other aspects of Maasai society that continue today,
though often in an altered form. A combination of the competition between colonial
powers, epidemics, drought, and internal strife weakened the Maasai in the late
nineteenth century, allowing the British to build a railroad from Mombasa to Uganda and
to designate the land it passed through as a protectorate and later a colony in 1920
(Galaty, 1993: 61-86; Spear, 1993b: 9-14; Trench, 1993: 1-18, 68-70). The Treaty of

Berlin in 1895 allowed the division of what would become Kenya and Tanzania between

92

the British and the Germans. Prior to any negotiations with the Maasai, the British
immediately claimed the area around Nakuru as crown lands, as Kenya was slated to be a
settler colony. However, extensive European immigration never occurred and, as a
result, Kenya has the same development issues as most African countries today (Kituyi,
1990: 44-46; Berger, 1993: 6-7).

Aside from securing imperial interests against the Germans, this initial alienation
was justiﬁed, as latter annexations would be, largely on the grounds of poor land use on
the part of the Maasai. A stereotype of them as bellicose and non-productive, shunning
anything to do with trade or agriculture prevailed in the colonial mind despite any
evidence to the contrary. They felt an obligation to put the land to good use, protect
settled agricultural tribes from the predatory Maasai, and bring the “gift” of colonialism
to the region. Similar justiﬁcations would be used to alienate land for wildlife as well
(Collett, 1987: 137-144). Despite the designation of Maasailand as inviolate with its
development to be leﬁ up to the Maasai themselves, the 1902 Special Districts Ordinance
made clear that colonial policy from the start was to demilitarize and settle the Maasai
and at least convert them to ranching, if not make them agriculturalists (Collette, 1987:
137-144; Campbell 1993: 260-264).

More alienations before and during the period known as the “Maasai Moves”
(1903-1913) eventually pushed the herders onto a southern reservation that basically
covers the present Narok and Kajiado Districts. These alienations reduced their territory
to less than 10 % of its pre-l 890 extent and saw the single greatest losses of land for the
Maasai. In the end, some 7000 square miles of territory were lost, along with

immeasurable pastoral resources (Kituyi, 1990: 44-46.).

93

At the same time they were protecting agriculturalists by demilitarizing the
Maasai, the colonials were also annexing the best agricultural land for their own use,
forcing indigenous farmers to move elsewhere including eventually Kajiado and
beginning a process of agricultural expansion. The migration of farmers into Maasai
territory has historical precedent prior to the colonial arrival. The difference between
prior migrations and those wrought by the demographic upheavals of the colonial period
is their duration and magnitude, which the herder society could not absorb or defend
against with the loss of its military strength (Kituyi 1990: 46-51). This process of
agricultural expansion that began in the colonial period continues today increasingly
impacting herder access to resources and has been a continuing source of conﬂict and
ethnic strife in the district (Kituyi, 1990: 102-108; Campbell, et. a1., 2000: 3-5).

Two other important changes followed the demographic upheavals besides the
spread of agriculture. First, there was the colonial policy of settlement and control,
against which the Maasai held fast to their traditions, demonstrating the remarkable
adaptability and tenacity that has marked their history. However, conﬁnement to a
reservation created ﬁxed boundaries on Maasai territory for the ﬁrst time and served to
isolate them from other groups with which they traditionally interacted. The combination
of isolation and the persistence of traditional lifeways helped solidify Maasai ethnicity
(Kituyi, 1990: 33-35, 46-51; Spear, 1993a: 124-132; Spencer, 1993: 156). Second, the
demographic shifts combined with the isolation (brought on by ﬁxed boundaries and
limitations to movement and trade) cut the Maasai off ﬁ'om the traditional regional
economy, whose importance to the pastoral economy was discussed above. Thus, there

was a need to replace the access to agricultural products lost with these changes. This

94

need would eventually contribute to the spread of agriculture among the Maasai
themselves. Before this shift occurred though, alienation from traditional exchange
modes brought socioeconomic changes on top of and related to the demographic changes.
These changes included the introduction of the market principle, institutional changes,
changes in tenure and changes within Maasai society itself (Kituyi, 1990: 46-51, 59-70,
85-95, 138-150, 161-177; Campbell, 1993: 260-264).

Based largely on their stereotype of pastoralists in general, the colonials felt that
the Maasai had an irrational afﬁnity for cattle. This afﬁnity, in the colonial mind,
resulted in poor range management and oversized herds that threatened the environment.
As the Maasai began to recover from the epidemics that had decimated their numbers and
livestock, overgrazing was noticed and the views on herder irrationality were reinforced.
As a result, colonial policy became aimed at encouraging the Maasai to raise cattle for
commercial sales. The integration of a market economy into Maasai society, they felt,
would reduce the number of cattle, lessen the overgrazing, and solve the environmental
degradation problem (Collett, 1987: 137-144; Campbell, 1993: 260-264). These
policies, of course, ignored the loss of resources and mobility to the Maasai during the
moves and the fact their pastoral economy thrived for hundreds of years without
degrading the environment.

The policies of the colonial government aimed at bringing the Maasai into
commercial ranching in Kenya were largely as ineffective as similar attempts to alter
herder lifestyles were throughout Africa (Kimani and Pickard, 1998: 201-202). The
problem was not that the Maasai would not sell meat to the colonial market. It was that,

with the colonial emphasis on agricultural development, pastoralists experienced

95

increasingly deteriorating terms of trade and did not receive a fair price for cattle. The
prices for agricultural goods rose dramatically compared with that of livestock and there
was little incentive for the Maasai to sell. Moreover, Maasai elders also put limits on
sales, as well as discouraging any entrepreneurial activities that would be detrimental to
community welfare (Kituyi, 1990: 59-64, 73-81).

Nevertheless, the introduction of the market principle combined with the
disruption of traditional linkages did lead to some changes. A limited amount of cattle
were sold at livestock auctions and dairy products sold in the markets order to obtain
cash. Cash was then used to pay for needed agricultural goods and the heavy taxes
leveled on the Maasai by the colonial government. Since 1900, the Maasai had become
increasingly dependent on agricultural products as it became cheaper for them to get their
caloric intake from grain than livestock. As for the high taxes, along with being intended
to make the colony self-sufﬁcient, they were intended as another encouragement for the
Maasai to trim their herds. As the market principle became increasingly entrenched in
Maasai society and the importance of agricultural products and cash likewise increased,
land also began to take on added importance. The gradual shift from land as a resource
for cattle production to land as a commodity is arguably the most signiﬁcant role these
factors played in the development of the district (Kituyi, 1990: 59-64, 73-81; Campbell,
1993: 258-264).

Farmers began migrating into Maasailand in ever increasing numbers as the
colonials displaced them. At ﬁrst the government encouraged these migrations, seeing
the farmers as exemplars of proper land use to the Maasai and in some cases, even though

they had no right to settle them without consent, alienated further tracts from the Maasai

96

to accommodate them. This alienation was not simply an arbitrary decision on the part of
the white colonials, though. Colonial agents of agricultural tribes played a signiﬁcant
role in this alienation, which fostered not only the Maasai distrust of the government,
already entrenched since the last alienations, but ethnic rivalry as well (Campbell, 1981a:
42-50; Campbell, 1981b: 214-224; Collett, 1987: 141-142; Kituyi, 1990: 44-51). These
migrations lead to conﬂict between herder and farmer over resources and environmental
degradation of such a degree that a Declaration of Emergency was declared in 1952 that
resulted in the expulsion of thousands of farmers from Kajiado (Campbell, 1993: 262).
Nevertheless, with independence the migration of agriculturalists would begin again and
agriculture would even spread to the Maasai themselves, beginning with intermarriage
with members of farming communities, leasing land to tenant farmers, and progressing to
actual Massai cultivation (Kituyi, 1990: 90-102).

Another goal of the colonial government, along with settling the Maasai and
bringing them into a market economy, was to replace communal with individual tenure.
They viewed communal tenure as being as environmentally dangerous as the pastoral
lifestyle, with its afﬁnity for cattle, that embraced it. After World War II, they set about
trying to create an African landed middle class through a rural development program that
included an extension aspect. The next step came in 1954 with the implementation of the
Swynnerton Plan, which made individual tenure ofﬁcial. In Kajiado, the Swynnerton
Plan introduced the individual ranch (IR) as a limited experiment. As the name implies,
[Rs offered individual tenure to select Maasai on large tracts of some of the best land in
the district. It also provided the owner with investment options and access to the market

economy not previously possible, which the government hoped would further

97

commercial ranching. On the other hand, despite the new investment options, traditional
inhibitions to individual gain limited investment (Migot-Adholla, 1981: 48-49; Ngutter,
1981: 28-30; Kituyi, 1990: 67-70, 95-98, 161-187).

Although the ranching policy failed to completely reshape Maasai society, it
presented a real challenge to traditional Maasai values toward cattle and territory for the
ﬁrst time, as ownership of land became a means of individual advancement (Campbell,
1993: 262-263). With this challenge also came the notion of trespass, and the beginnings
of unequal accumulation and resource exploitation seen today. Also, it led to the issue of
tenure becoming one of the main sources of conﬂict in Kajiado (Kituyi, 1990: 197-205).

The institutional, economic, and demographic changes discussed above combined
to increasingly change the structure of Maasai society into the post-independence period.
For example, with these new conﬂicts and social relations came the option to use
governmental judicial recourses. This option challenged the traditional conﬂict
resolution institutions of the Council of Elders and the gerontocracy in general, whose
emphasis on social cohesion rather than purely individual rights left them ill-equipped to
deal with these changes and the new types of conﬂict they brought (Kituyi, 1990: 114-
122, 197-223). As I will explain below, the judicial system and its manipulation have
come to play an important role in the changing socioeconomic structure of Kajiado
(Galaty, 1999; Galaty and Ole Munei, 1999). The seeds of change and conﬂict planted
in the colonial era came to fruition in independent Kenya. At the state level, these
changes would translate into a national identity and, at the local, a new basis of social

identiﬁcation and territorial claims (Kituyi, 1990: 46-51).

98

The Post-Independence Period

Some have argued the colonial world was simply reconﬁgured into the
developing world (Feet and Watts, 1996: 17-22) and others go further by arguing that the
imposition of the market economy disguises the destruction of traditional systems under
the guise of development (Galaty, 1999: 2-6). In any case, there seems to be somewhat
of a continuum of the colonial world into the post-colonial at least in Aﬁica. Several
independent Aﬁican governments continued many of the policies of their former colonial
overlords and often maintain closer ties with them than with their regional neighbors.
After achieving independence in 1963, the newly formed one party Kenyan government,
with a Kikuyu president (Kenyatta) and a Kalenj in vice president (Moi), was among
those that retained many of the same policies and attitudes of the colonial period,
particularly where pastoralists and wildlife are concerned. Some signiﬁcant policy
changes did occur though in such areas as land redistribution, where Euro-centric policies
were abolished and farmers expelled during the Emergency were allowed back into
Kajiado (Ngutter, 1981: 31-32; Collett, 1987: 141-144).

Due largely to the continuation of colonial policies, post-independence
development programs in Kenya have had a decidedly settlement and agricultural bias.
Their goals, like those of the colonial government, have been to settle the nomads and
expropriate lands for agriculture when necessary. The objectives included agricultural
development in semi-arid areas. On the other hand, while developing Maasai agriculture
was given lip service, little ofﬁcial action was really taken. Nevertheless, agriculture did
spread among the Maasai, as mentioned previously, through the diffusion of the market

principle and the group ranch (GR) program. Still, traditional taboos tempered that

99

spread, as evidenced by the fact that most farmers in the Kajiado continue to be non-
Massai (Campbell, 198 1 a: 39-41; Kituyi, 1990: 95-98).

The GR program is one of the most signiﬁcant examples of the independent
Kenyan government’s development goals. Although GRs were based on the IR example
from the colonial period, they emphasized group rather than individual tenure. Groups
actually began registering land in 1964 (as IRs), but the 1968 Land Adjudication Act and
Land Group Representatives Act legitimized the process of the conversion of rangeland
into private property and claims were granted to groups with traditional rights to these
lands (Kituyi, 1990: 67-70). The division of communal lands was handled through
Kenya Livestock Development Program (KLDP), with the assistance of the World Bank.
Under this program, groups composed of Maasai heads of household could jointly
register lands. Likewise, males over the age of eighteen were registered as GR members.
A group ranch constitution mandated that GRs be managed by elected committees. In
keeping with Maasai tradition, members herded collectively but cattle remained
individually owned (Campbell, 1993: 264-269; Kimani and Pickard, 1998: 204-205;
Galaty and Ole Munei, 1999: 68). Through this process of adjudication, by 1981 77.18%
of Kajiado and 36.8% of Narok was privatized as either GR or IR land, which has
translated into a reduction in the communal resource base (Kituyi, 1990: 67-70;
Campbell, 1993: 264-269).

There were two problems with the GR program ﬁ'om the start, aside from the
reduction of communal resources to which I will return shortly. The ﬁrst problem was
the opposing objectives of the government and the Maasai upon entering into the

program. The government, as in the past, sought to reduce stock levels and environmental

100

pressure by promoting commercial ranching and to increase the Maasai economic
contribution to society. In short, their objective was integrate the Maasai into Kenyan
society and bring them further into the market economy. An additional related goal was
to prevent herders from acquiring individual holdings of insufﬁcient size to be
ecologically viable (Kimani and Pickard, 1998: 204-205). Ironically, the sub-division of
the GRs is resulting in exactly these sorts of nonviable individual holdings (Kituyi, 1990:
67-70; Kimani and Pickard, 1998: 208-210). The Maasai objective, on the other hand,
was to protect their pastoral subsistence economy. They saw the GR program as a way to
do this by preventing further losses of territory to farmers and wildlife (Kimani and
Pickard, 1998: 204-205).

The second problem is ecological and has to do with the way the boundaries were
drawn for the GRs. Although they were supposed to comprise the traditional grazing
land of the owners, in reality they were often insufﬁcient in size to be self-sustaining. In
fact, of the fourteen original GRs only six encompassed both wet and dry season grazing
lands (Kimani and Pickard, 1998: 204-205). This miscalculation of environmental
realities resulted in herders falling back on traditional relationships and crossing GR
boundaries during times of drought to gain access to vital resources outside a speciﬁc
ranch (Campbell, 1993: 260-269). However, the subdivision of the GRs, which followed
relatively close behind their creation, combined with the spread of agriculture is
threatening this traditional recourse and the environmental integrity of the land the GRs
were designed to protect (Kimani and Pickard, 1998: 208-210; Galaty and Ole Munei,

1999: 68).

101

Calls for sub-division of the GRs began in the 19705 for four main reasons
beyond the two initial problems listed above. First, the committees elected to manage the
ranches proved to be generally inefﬁcient and corrupt. Second, people felt they needed
individual titles in order to obtain loans and only those household heads who originally
registered the land actually held title to it (Kimani and Pickard, 1998: 204-205). Land
ownership offered two perceived advantages, collateral for loans and investment
protection against defaulting (Kituyi, 1990: 95-98). Third, another generation of Maasai
had come of age and wanted GR membership, which was not provided for in the GR
constitution (Kimani and Pickard, 1998: 204-205). Growing numbers of young Maasai
began ﬁnding themselves in the position of having cattle but no legal claims to land
(Campbell, 1993: 266-271). Fourth, there was the perceived threat of further land grabs
due to increased immigration into the district and creation of additional parks and
reserves since independence (Kimani and Pickard, 1998: 204-205).

GR subdivision began informally far in advance of ofﬁcial sanction. In fact, the
government initially opposed GR subdivision on ecological grounds, although it would
change its position for two reasons. First, the GR constitution allowed for the dissolution
of ranches, which is essentially synonymous with sub-division. Second, contradicting the
policy objectives listed above for creating the GR program, there was a strong desire,
carried over from the colonial period, for all tenure to be individual (Kimani and Pickard,
1998: 204-205). With this desire in mind, President Moi called for an end to group
holdings in Kenya in 1985, ignoring the environmental reasons for forming such holdings

in the ﬁrst place (Galaty, 1999: 2-6). The only proviso for subdivision was that

102

individual holdings not be too small to be ecologically viable (Kimani and Pickard, 1998:
205-208).

Ofﬁcial sub-division began in 1984 with no clear governmental policy in place or
forthcoming. Seven GRs started undergoing sub-division at that point and by 1996 the
number had risen to twenty-four. One study showed that individual holdings have
averaged between 100 and 150 hectares (ha) historically. It also showed that, through
time, the number of holdings has increased while the size of those holdings has
decreased. The results of the study bring the ecological viability of many holdings into
question, particularly as agricultural spread has accelerated since subdivision began
(Kimani and Pickard: 205-208). I will return to the question of the ecological viability of
individual holding in a moment, but ﬁrst I will examine the subdivision process in more
detail.

The lack of national level policy direction left the basic questions of sub-division
unanswered. These questions include: who should be eligible to receive individual
holdings, how much land to a lot to each individual once it has been decided who will get
land, and who will answer these questions? Several sources have addressed the complex
issue of GR sub-division including: Kimani and Pickard (1998), Kituyi (1990), Galaty
(1999), Galaty and Ole Munei (1999), Campbell (1993), Campbell et. a1. (2000).
Generally speaking, with no clear guidelines in place the GR committees began
answering these questions on their own and often arbitrarily. Not surprisingly, charges of
favoritism and impropriety followed and the courts became involved. In at least one
case, the courts forced the committee to divide land in a more equitable manner.

However, this precedent is not the norm. In fact, GR subdivisions have moved

103

increasingly toward being decided more by the courts than the legislators. Moreover,
since cases often end up tied up in court, committee decisions tend to stand (Galaty and
Ole Munei, 1999: 68-69).

Along with the increasing involvement of the court system, another related trend
is that many subdivided individual holdings are being sold, usually for economic and
ecological reasons. Those with less money and poorer land are selling to those who are
better off. The result has been that land is being consolidated into fewer hands,
landlessness is becoming a concern, and disparity is spreading between Maasai
households in not just wealth but education and opportunity as well (Kituyi, 1990: 154-
161). Of greater concern to some researchers is the fact that an increasing amount of land
is being sold to non-Maasai. By 1996, 7% of the total area of the GRs was owned by
non-Maasai, which I will return to below. What is important to note here is that a
number of these sales appear legally questionable, returning to the issue of judicial
involvement in subdivisions and lack of policy direction (Galaty and Ole Munei: 68-70).

Many of the concerns about legal impropriety come from the fact that patronage
politics has been a factor in the subdivision process and subsequent sales of individual
holdings because many local politicians need the support of non-Maasai in the district.
Additionally, state level corruption and inﬂuence pedaling have played a role in the
subdivisions and sales, as powerful individuals and groups inside and outside Maasai
society manipulate the legal system for their own ends. Corporate entities as well, with
strong political ties and international backing, are sometimes involved in these purchases.
Ethnic rivalry has been an increasing factor, as agricultural tribes, who make up a

component of each group discussed in the previous sentences, seek to ﬁirther their own

104

interests in the district. The result of all this legal maneuvering in a vacuum of policy
direction by different interests, especially with corruption as an added factor, has been
that land grabs have trumped land reform and the uncertainty that exclusive tenure was to
alleviate has instead increased. Some researchers feel that this result represents a very
real threat to the majority of the Maasai community (Galaty and Ole Munei, 1999: 68-
70).

Having examined the policy and legal problems that have plagued subdivision, I
will now return to the issue of the rapid agricultural expansion that has also accompanied
the GR breakups and the question of ecological sustainability that goes along with it.
Agriculture has spread through the district in two main ways. The ﬁrst way is through
non-Maasai agricultural groups moving into Kajiado. As stated, a signiﬁcant amount of
subdivided land is being sold to non-Maasai, and those who have purchased land are
mostly farmers (Kimani and Pickard, 1998: 208-211). In addition to those owning land, a
signiﬁcant number of immigrant farmers in the district lease Maasai land, on which they
have no legal standing. Their tenure status, incidentally, ﬁrrther complicates sub-division
(Campbell et. a1., 2000: 6-8). Second, cultivation has spread through its adoption by the
Maasai, beginning with intermarriage with agricultural tribes and leasing to tenant
farmers and, since the 19705, through direct involvement with cultivation. Historically,
agriculture has been so controversial among the Maasai that wars have even been fought
over it. Until recently, although farming was present, it was not widespread because of
the ideological taboo against it. However, the need for agricultural products has slowly

eroded traditional barriers to some degree (Kituyi, 1990: 85-89).

105

As a result, agriculture increasingly became seen as a viable diversiﬁcation option
to avoid food shortages, particularly among those with smaller holdings, where research
shows pastoralism may not be economically or ecologically viable. Remember also that
as subdivision has continued, the number of holdings has increased and the size of
holdings has decreased. Interestingly enough, the same research shows that cultivation is
rarely a viable alternative to cattle in the district (Kimani and Pickard, 1998: 205-210).
The problem is that there is also strong evidence that small-scale farming (less than 2 ha)
is not a viable, economically or ecologically, either and resorting to this option may in
fact demonstrate the economic non-viability of many Maasai. Moreover, while large-
scale agribusiness concerns (10 or more ha) and medium size farms (2 to 10 ha), both of
which are beyond the means of most Maasai, may offer substantial short-term proﬁts,
their long-term ecological sustainability is also highly questionable (Kituyi, 1990: 102-
107)

Long-term viability or not, agriculture has spread rapidly especially in the past
two decades. Along with herding and ecotourism, which more will be said about below,
it is now one of the three major land uses in the district, as well as the leading industry in
Kajiado. However, with agriculture has come fencing, increased settlement, land cover
change, and ever increasing herder/farmer conﬂict (Campbell et. a1., 2000: 4-5). The
fencing that has happened already and is likely to follow continued sub-division and the
spread of agriculture, causes ﬁagmentation of the rangeland that threatens pastoralists
and wildlife alike by hampering the mobility that is necessary to the success of both. The
threat to the latter I will discuss in the next section. As for the former, fencing threatens

the de facto communal style grazing that has continued throughout the GR era, even on

106

subdivided lands. The restricted mobility fencing brings will diminish this coping option
and further limit herder access to resources if not eliminate it entirely in some cases.
Cultivation and settlement expansion also reduced both wildlife habitat and the
communal resource base (Kimani and Pickard, 1998: 208-210). Also, with only so much
good land with access to water available, resource competition between farmers, herders,
and wildlife has increased steadily since the colonial period (Campbell et. al., 2000: 3-6).
This conﬂict along with the questionable sustainability of agriculture, especially on small
holdings, has lead some researchers to argue that present trends indicate possible social,
ecological, and economic disaster in the future (Kimani and Pickard, 1998: 208-210).
More alternatives are available to the Maasai besides herding and cultivation,
however, through the entrenchment of the market principal. Just as the legal institutions
of the state have impacted traditional conﬂict resolution, which I discussed in the
previous section, the entrenchment of the market principle has brought changes and
options as well (Kituyi, 1990: 59-64, 111-123). Among those options are: selling milk
and dairy products (which is mostly done by women), acting as a middleman in the
livestock trade, shopkeeping (limited by education and initial investment), butchering,
ranching (a limited option due to the large investment required), and wage labor (the
extent of which is limited by education and other social aspects) (Kituyi, 1990: 76-81).
The tourism industry also offers an avenue for economic diversiﬁcation to the
Maasai. In fact, ecotourism is the second largest industry in Kajiado, next to cultivation
(Campbell et. a1., 1999: 6) and brings the most foreign exchange into Kenya (Berger,
1993: 14-16). Ecotourism and agriculture have far outstripped herding economically in

the district. On the other hand, of the three major land uses in the district, only herding

107

has been historically shown to have long-term sustainability. In spite of its historical
record though, its sustainability comes into question if mobility and communal tenure are
taken out of the picture. Of the remaining land uses, agriculture and ecotourism, studies
show only tourism has the potential to be sustainable and that, ecologically, herding and
wildlife are the best land uses for Kajiado (Western and Thresher, 1973; Collett, 1987:
144-146; Lindsay, 1987: 156-158; Kimani and Pickard, 1998: 210-211; Galaty, 1999:
1-2). However, as I will explain in following sections, the ecotourism industry and
wildlife have different interests that need to be addressed in order to insure their
sustainability.

The preceding historical discussion of Kajiado demonstrates the complexities
involved with the dramatic socioeconomic and demographic changes impacting the
district, beginning in the colonial period and continuing into post-independence Kenya.
Emerging from this complexity is ever increasing conﬂict as opposing interests contend
with one another: colonial against indigenous, farmer against herder, tribe against tribe,
local against national, rich against poor, national against international. Land use and land
tenure issues, ethnic rivalry, and corruption at all levels feed the conﬂict. At this point, I
will add an additional layer to the complexity and conﬂict in order to complete the
historical examination of the human/environment dynamic in Kajiado, wildlife and
conservation. In the next section I present a brief description of the environmental setting
and then discuss the conservation history of Kajiado and human/wildlife relations in the

last section.

108

Environmental Setting and Conservation/Wildlife History
Environmental Setting

According to paleo-environmental studies, the climate in East Aﬁica has
remained relatively stable for at least the past 2600 years including its propensity for
periodic droughts, as previously indicated (Collett, 1987: 130-136). Kajiado District is
dominated by bushed grassland and falls mostly into Ecological Zone V (Western, 1994a:
19), with some areas falling into Zones III and IV. Most of the GRs are found in Zone V.
Rainfall is erratic and Kajiado, in the rain shadow of Kilimanjaro, experiences less
rainfall, 400mm, than Narok District to the west (Kituyi, 1990: 25-26, 154-156).
Permanent water and dry season grazing make Kajiado a good wildlife area. The District
can be divided into three main essentially self-contained ecosystems, the Athi-Kapiti
ecosystem in the north near Nairobi National Park, the Ewaso-Ngiro ecosystem in the
southeast, and the Amboseli ecosystem. The ﬁrst two ecosystems are fed by rivers
(Croze, 1977: 36-37). The closed basin of a former Pleistocene lakebed, on the other
hand, deﬁnes the Amboseli ecosystem. The basin offers the only permanent water in the
area through springs fed by runoff from Kilimanj aro. Amboseli has a diversity of
wildlife greater than that of Tsavo, even though it is several times smaller, due to the
complex soils, vegetation, springs, and swamps (Lindsay, 1987 : 150-151; Western,
1994a: 19-20;). The ecosystem is deﬁned by seasonal wildlife migrations of large
herbivores, which were traditionally shadowed by Massai herders for hundreds of years.
The basin also encompasses Amboseli National Park, the only national park within the

district. Along with its rich wildlife diversity, Amboseli is important from the standpoint

109

of human/wildlife conﬂict and as an example of integrated planning (Western, 1994: 15-

23).

People and Wildlife Prior to the Colonial Period

Within this environmental setting and against the sociocultural background
presented above, the history of wildlife and conservation can be viewed in terms of
opposing interests, just as the human history of the district. Many of the same issues that
confront the socioeconomic realm, beginning in the colonial era and accelerating into the
post-independence era, also confront the ecological realm. Issues such as land use,
tenure, ethnic strife, the fragmentation of the landscape, and the competition for resources
they bring impact human/wildlife conﬂict as much as herder/farmer conﬂict. Along with
the obvious opposition of human versus wildlife, there is also opposition between groups
over the control of, access to, and the value of wildlife. These interests include: colonial
versus indigenous, state versus local, conservation versus exploitation, national versus
international, farming versus tourism, and so on, adding a political dimension to the
ecological in conservation (see Gibson (1999) in the literature review).

To be clear, when I use the terms “opposing interests” and “human versus
wildlife,” 1 am not speaking in terms of choosing between humans and wildlife, as in an
either or situation. The fatuous nature of such a dichotomy completely ignores the facts
involved and is a myth whose demise cannot come soon enough, as the literature review
made clear (see Western, 1989a; Meine, 1992; Terborgh, 1999). On the contrary, I use
these terms to discuss stakeholder interests, including wildlife interests, that may or may

not be in opposition but certainly need not cancel each other out. Remember that it was

110

also established in the literature review that one of the greatest challenges to conservation
is balancing the short-term economic needs of people with the long-term survival of
wildlife (Pearl, 1989: 221-225).

In the following pages I will discuss the history of conservation in Kenya in
general and Kajiado in speciﬁc since the beginning of the colonial period. I have broken
up the discussion into ﬁve time periods, excluding this pre-colonial one, based on
Berger’s (1993) four eras, which cover up till 1987. To these four I add an additional era
that I call the KWS period, covering 1987 to the present.

As stated, the archeological record strongly indicates that pastoralists in East
Aﬁica have placed little pressure on their environment in the past 2600 years. This
evidence applies to wildlife as well, based on faunal analysis showing a continuation of
the mix of species over the last two and one half millennia. The record shows hunting
occurred only during times of severe drought. The archeological record agrees with the
historical records of the ﬁrst Europeans to encounter the Maasai (Collett, 1987: 129-137).
These records indicate the Maasai were not hunters except under certain circumstances
(Thompson, 1887). Instead, the Maasai had a benign relationship with wildlife, seeing
them as “second cattle.” As I said, the herders shadowed the migratory wildlife through
their wet season/dry season movements, in patterns that are often indistinguishable from
those of wildlife (Western and Kioko, 1977: 43-49; Western, 1994a: 21-23). In fact, as
discussed in the literature review, Western and Gichohi argue herders have. become an
integral part of the savanna ecosystem, which is healthier with a mix of both wildlife and

cattle than either alone (Western and Gichohi, 1993).

111

Conservation Prior to 1945

As discussed in the human history section, the colonials brought a stereotype of
the Maasai with them when they came into Kenya. Along with seeing them as backward
and warlike, they also saw their pastoral economy as a threat to wildlife, despite the fact
they generally did not hunt and were coexisting with wildlife quite well when the
colonials arrived. Human/wildlife conﬂict basically was conﬁned to farmers at this time.
Nevertheless, the perceived threat of pastoralism to wildlife, which the Europeans largely
wanted to preserve for their own exploitation, added impetus to the desire to settle the
Maasai and bring them into a market economy. Likewise, the perception of pastoralism
as a poor land use became a justiﬁcation to alienate land for wildlife as well as farming
(Collett, 1987: 147-144).

Berger calls the era from 1900 to 1945, the “Pioneering Protection” era. This era
saw an onslaught against East Aﬁican wildlife by Europeans (Berger, 1993: 8-9). Unlike
the Maasai, most of the Europeans who initially came to East Aﬁica during this period
were hunters (MacKenzie, 1987: 41-42). Although they did have a devastating impact on
wildlife, the Europeans arrived in the interior of East Aﬁica later than elsewhere in
Africa, so their impact was less than in places like South Africa (Western, 1997: 46-51).
Colonial farming and settlement adversely impacted wildlife to a large degree, as well
(Berger, 1993: 8-9). Another factor besides the late arrival of the colonials that helped
preserve Kenyan wildlife was the regulations on hunting beginning in 1898 (Casebeer,
1975: 2). These regulations were supported internationally by a conference held in

London in 1900 resulting in the Society for the Preservation of Fauna of the Empire in

112

1903, whose efforts were largely responsible for the creation of the Game Department in
Kenya (Berger, 1993: 8-9).

Along with the Game Department, which enforced hunting regulations, some
early game reserves were established. Among them was the Southern Reserve set up
under the Special Districts Ordinance of 1902 (discussed in the previous section as
granting inviolability to Maasailand in perpetuity) and expanded in 1911 by treaty with
the Maasai. This reserve incorporated the Amboseli ecosystem, sparing it from hunting
and settlement (Western, 1994a: 15-19). Although, the Game Department protected
wildlife, it had limited authority and there was no regulation of land use (Casebeer, 1975:
11-16). Interest in conservation grew as tourists increasingly came to Amboseli to view
wildlife rather than shoot them and Kenyan authorities began to look at American-style

national parks by the end of the “Pioneering Protection” era (Berger, 1993: 8-9).

Parks and Reserves (1945-1962)

The greatest alienation of land from the Maasai since the “Maasai Moves” (1904-
1913) began in 1945. When all was said and done, this second wave cost the Maasai
another 7000 square kilometers of irreplaceable resources (Kituyi, 1990: 44-46). The
alienation was due to a policy shift from utilization to preservation and resulted in the
National Parks Ordinance of 1945. This legislation grew out of colonial and
conservationist alarm over growing livestock numbers and human population growth
(Western, 1994a: 15-19). Likely though, the stereotype of pastoralists as a threat to
wildlife and the feeling of a moral obligation to dilute that threat on the part of

conservationists and the colonial government were factors as well. In truth, the real

113

threat to wildlife came more from colonial agricultural expansion than any other source
(Collett, 1987: 137-144).

The ordinance gave National Park Trustees the power to set aside land for
national parks and complete authority over that land, its use, and the people and wildlife
on it. It also gave them limited authority over national reserves (Casebeer, 1975: 11-16).
The main difference between the two was that the national parks were exclusively for
wildlife, while the national reserves allowed limited use by indigenous people. Both fell
under the purview of the newly created National Parks Service. The Game Department,
which remained a separate entity, was responsible for all areas outside the parks,
including agricultural land and, along with the county councils, game reserves as well
(Berger, 1993: 9-10).

In keeping with the nineteenth century European notion of subjugating nature, the
parks were designed to be pristine bastions of ecology. On the other hand, land outside
protected areas was open to unlimited exploitation. The idea of sustainable use was not
considered at this point (Berger, 1993: 9-10). The problem with the idea of parks as
ecological islands, as ecologists now know, is that they are too small for many large
mammals (Western and Wright, 1994: 1-12). The ability of these animals to disburse is
necessary for ecosystem maintenance and recovery, especially in wet/dry season climates
like that in Kajiado (Croze, 1977: 36-3 7). Also, since it is likely that most wildlife lived
outside the parks then as they do today (65 to 80%), a land use policy of unlimited
exploitation was exceedingly dangerous to their continued survival (Kimani and Pickard,
1998: 208-210). Thus, there is the need for conservation beyond parks (Westem and

Wright, 1994: 1-12).

114

Most of the parks created by this ordinance were on former Maasai land including
Nairobi and the two Tsavos. There was an attempt at annexing Amboseli as well, but
stiff resistance saw that it was only designated as a national reserve in 1948, and it was a
violation of the 1911 treaty that created the Southern Reserve to do even this. The
Maasai saw this action as an impending land grab, and in independent Kenya their
concerns would be justiﬁed (Western, 1994a: 15-19). To ease tensions, as Amboseli
grew as a tourist destination, the warden and the National Parks Director proposed
revenue sharing. Except for some money given to the county council, this proposal was
rejected (Berger, 1993: 38-41). Because of these exclusionary wildlife policies, locals
felt they had no stake in the protected areas. By the same token, their resistance,
especially that of the Maasai, cemented colonial prejudices that they were untrustworthy,
as well as conﬁrming the idea of parks as islands, prompting Berger to dub this era
“Preservation through Parks” (Berger, 1993: 9-10). Much to the consternation of the
Parks Department, the British, in a conciliatory gesture, gave complete control of
Amboseli to the Kajiado County Council in 1961 (Lindsay, 1987: 152-156).

The new wildlife land use brought by the 1945 National Parks Ordinance
increased human/wildlife conﬂict and now with herders as well as farmers, due to the
increased competition for resources. With this change also came a change in the
relationship between the Maasai and wildlife. There began to be a shift from the
traditional benign tolerance to one of animosity and even, at times, open hostility as
human/wildlife conﬂict steadily increased into independent Kenya. As stated in the

literature review, Amboseli would become the most controversial of Kenya’s parks and

115

reserves largely because of the degree of such conﬂict (Western, 1994a: 15-23;

Campbell et. a1., 1999: 13-26).

The Transition from Colony to Country (1963-1977)

Just as many economic and development policies were continued in the post-
independence period, the preservationist and exclusionary wildlife policies were
continued as well. That these policies in particular were carried over is especially
interesting in light of the fact that pro-independence factions had used public outrage at
them to gain support for their cause. Gibson argues that this ironic turn of events came
about not because of the effectiveness of these policies, but, rather, the fact that they
proved to be an economic boon and a strong political tool in the system of patronage
politics that developed after independence (Gibson, 1999: 1-18). Stereotypes about
pastoralists were passed on with these policies too, as evidenced by the continuation and
expansion of the parks that segregated people from their former environments (Collett,
1987: 144-146). At the opening of this era, there were 4 national parks and 6 game
reserves. By its end, the numbers had increased to 16 parks, 21 national reserves, 11
nature reserves, 2 marine parks, 2 marine reserves, and 2 game parks (Berger, 1993: 11-
16). Even Amboseli had land set aside and was designated as a park in 1974, as the
Maasai had feared. This action met with stiff resistance from the Maasai in the form of
attacks on wildlife. As discussed in the literature review, their resistance clearly
demonstrated that while the government could set aside land, the fate of the wildlife was

up to the people who lived with them (Western, 1994a: 30-36).

116

Even though there was not a clear break with the past, several changes came
about in this era of “Utilization without Management” (Berger, 1993: 11-14). Possibly
the most important change was the passage of the Wildlife (Conservation and
Management) Act in 1976 that allowed for local wildlife utilization, the creation of the
Wildlife Conservation and Management Department (WCMD), and a compensation fund
for death and destruction due to wildlife. All these changes were based on the growing
realization the wildlife management needed to be coordinated inside and outside the
parks and that wildlife must pay its way (Mbuvi, 1977: 34-35; Ochoki, 1977: 21-22;
Berger, 1993: 11-14).

Prior to the passage of the Wildlife Act, research had already begun on local
consumptive wildlife utilization in Kajiado through the Wildlife Management Project
(WMP). The types of consumptive utilization examined included: hunting (Kenya Game
Department, 1973), harvesting (Swank et. a1., 1974), live capture, and game ranching.
Although there were some technical successes and an enormous amount of ecological
data was collected, there were numerous problems that hampered the program. Those
problems included poaching, increased immigration into the district, and poor
management by the WCMD, which meant poor communication with Maasai. Despite the
switch to a more participatory approach using workshops in the last year of the program,
administrative and political problems kept the report generated by the WMP from being
endorsed and the recommended follow up program ﬁ'om being funded. A sharp decline
in wildlife populations due to poaching brought calls from conservationists for a ban on
all utilization. In 1977, a presidential ban on hunting was issued that ended virtually all

wildlife utilization in Kenya (Berger, 1993: 11-14). The feasibility of the non-

117

consumptive option of wildlife tourism was also examined in this period as well. Of all
the options available, ecotourism, by far, showed the most actual and potential economic
returns (Western and Kioko, 1977: 43-49; Thresher, 1976).

There are several reasons for the problems of the WCMD in the WMP that would
continue into the next period and eventually lead to its replacement by the KWS. The
WCMD was formed by combining the National Park Service and the Government Game
Department under one agency to manage lands inside and outside the parks, which made
sense. Unfortunately, there was a rivalry between the two departments, which were
largely European and African respectively. This rivalry carried over into the new agency.
Moreover, the government hardly put overwhelming support behind conservation. The
result was no clear policy guidelines for issues like poaching, personnel were poorly
trained, there was poor interagency and intraagency cooperation, and corruption became
the norm. Additionally, the law enforcement bias within the WCMD was not conducive
to public outreach, and locals were no more ready to trust authorities (Berger, 1993: 11-
14).

Given the problems with utilization and the WCMD, it should not be surprising
that the compensation that the Wildlife Act provided ran into administrative problems
and did not function efﬁciently either. For example, while the act provided for direct
compensation through committees, it did not provide for the committees themselves
(Ochoki, 1977: 21-22). Similarly, while it provided for local utilization there were no
resources or institutions available to implement a CBC program (Berger, 1993: 1 1-14).

Despite these shortcomings and amid the sweeping changes of the GR program

discussed in the human history section, plans were laid during this period for the CBC

118

program in Amboseli. Actually, a version of the plan that would eventually be
implemented was in place in 1969, after the District Council abandoned the reserve with
the announcement it would become a park. Unfortunately, the Maasai’s justiﬁed fears of
annexation caused this initial plan to be discarded, as they looked to group ownership for
security. Had Amboseli been incorporated as a GR in the early 19705, it would likely
have gone the way of the adjacent Namelok Swamp, which was drained and became
mostly farmland in a decade. Fortunately for the ecosystem, Western, along with the
Ministry of Livestock Development and the World Bank, was able to keep a single large
GR around Amboseli and institute the ﬁrst phase of the CBC program in 1977 (Western,

1994: 23-36).

Wildlife Extension and Community Based Participation (1 977-1 98 7)

The period from 1977 to 1987, which Berger calls the era of “Mining the Parks”,
saw many interesting developments in conservation in Kenya. During this period
tourism, which depended not just on the parks but the wildlife in them, expanded and
became a major source of foreign exchange in Kenya and remains so (Berger, 1993: 14-
16). At the same time poaching, both subsistence and commercial, was rampant and
attacks on tourists occurred as well (Kock, 1995: 242-243). In contrast, the ﬁrst two
phases of the Amboseli CBC program were also implemented during this era (Western,
1994a) and a wildlife extension program (WEX) was implemented in Kajiado (1948-
1987) (Berger, 1993). While the two programs overlapped, they were never explicitly

linked (Lindsay, 1987: 162-163).

119

These revolutionary conservation programs and the expanding tourism aside,
wildlife remained a low priority of the national government during this era. In spite of
the clear economic importance of wildlife viewing, out of 29 ministries the Ministry of
Wildlife and Tourism received the ﬁfth smallest budget, well below Livestock and
Agriculture. Low investment in this important industry exacerbated the problems with
WCMD already listed, meant little public outreach or education occurred, and resulted in
unchecked tourism taking its toll on wildlife and the ecology (Berger 1993: 14-16). An
explanation for this seemingly incongruous situation comes from Gibson (see literature
review). He argues factional politics and the desire to control wildlife played a greater
role in wildlife legislation than conservation concerns or sustainability of the tourism
industry. In the end, it took conditions deteriorating to a level where this lucrative
industry was seriously threatened for Moi to take action (Gibson, 1999: 1-18, 154-160).

The situation for wildlife was grim across Kenya in the 19708 and 19805.
However, poaching and animosity toward wildlife was considerably lower around
Amboseli. As discussed in the literature review, Western cites the lower poaching levels
and improved attitudes as major successes of the CBC based Amboseli Development
Plan. The ﬁrst two phases of this plan fall within the period being discussed here, as I
said. The program was previously discussed in the literature review, but 1 must
necessarily expand on that discussion in order to clarify the conservation history of
Kajiado.

The CBC approach to conservation went against the protectionist ethos that still
prevailed within the conservation community at this time and was interdisciplinary in

nature, combining conservation and development. The Amboseli program sought to

120

balance conservation costs and beneﬁts at the local level. It also took into account the
historical relationship between the Maasai and their environment and with wildlife. A
land use study indicating that tourism, not cultivation, was the best alternative to herding
in the district was used as well. With these points in mind, the plan tried to address the
conﬂict that shifted Maasai attitudes from benign to hostile where wildlife were
concerned, their socioeconomic concerns and distrust of authorities, as well as the distrust
of locals by authorities and governmental antipathy toward conservation (Western,

1994a: 18-19, 22-29)

Both Phase 1 (1977-1981) and Phase 2 (1982-1987) of the program saw a lowered
incidence of poaching, as stated, and an increase in the total biomass. The second phase
increased outreach to the Maasai through self-help conservation programs aimed at
helping diversify the local economy. Most of the problems with these two phases came
from the national level. Among those problems were: the water pipeline promised to the
Maasai to compensate for lost grazing land in the park was built but not maintained and
grazing fees paid to the Maasai were discontinued after a few years. Corruption and
nepotism at all levels and administrative and communication problems with the WCMD
were also factors, as was the lack of broad involvement of the Maasai in planning. These
problems and others lead to a breakdown of the initial cooperation between the
government and locals (Berger, 1993: 38-41; Western, 1994a: 36-42).

During the second phase of the Amboseli program, the WEX program was
introduced into Kajiado in 1984. Its intent was also to link conservation and
development by taking into account the needs of all stakeholders (Berger, 1993; pp. 1-

14). The goals of the program were to reduce the negative aspects of development and

121

 

build new institutions and opportunities for participation in conservation through
community empowerment within existing legislation. One assumption of the program
was that local contribution depends on participation and that people will contribute if
they beneﬁt. Another assumption was that for more equitable, sustainable and workable
conservation, and the easing of wildlife conﬂict, local lead in management was required.
To achieve its goals, the program employed an interactive education approach to create a
dialogue between WEX personnel and local people to solve problems (Berger, 1993: 47-
59).

The program was based in the Loitokitok socio-ecosystem. It considered the
economic signiﬁcance of tourism an important but under developed economic alternative
in the district. The problem was that tourism dollars accrued at the national level and
locals saw little beneﬁt from wildlife conservation. This situation was unfortunate since
land use studies demonstrated that herders and wildlife used land as a single unit while
other land uses fragmented the landscape. Clearly, pastoralism was wildlife friendly
where agriculture and modern ranching were not. An additional concern was that the GR
program was ecologically unsustainable and eroded traditional ties (Berger, 1993: 25-38).

A preliminary survey showed wildlife issues to be the primary local concerns.
The issues included: conﬂict with wildlife, conﬂict with wildlife authorities, and the lack
of beneﬁts from tourism and its negative cultural impact. Secondary concems were the
overuse of resources and ethnic conﬂict. Using workshops to facilitate dialogue on these
concerns, the program helped to develop local solutions. Also, understanding that action
must follow discussion, WEX personnel became involved with various projects such as

the Rombo Irrigation Project (Berger, 1993: 65-108).

122

An evaluation of the program revealed that it successfully facilitated participation
overall. For instance, safari camps and other community conservation initiatives to bring
in tourist dollars were planned and acted on. Also, community/agency communications
improved and the workshops helped avoid the Loitokitok GR breakup due to ecological
concerns. More importantly, agency diagnosis and action moved to become local
diagnosis and action. The main problems encountered were an education gap, conﬂict
between age-set and group members in general, politics, getting full local representation
in the workshops especially where women are concerned, and the logistics of reaching

outlying areas (Berger 1993: 111-145).

The K WS (1987 to the Present)

Threats to the tourism industry from poaching, attacks on tourists, and the
inability of the WCMD to deal with these threats lead to presidential intervention in
1987. As an institution, the WCMD had been disastrous for wildlife, evidenced by its
performance in Amboseli and inability to deal with the poaching problem. The agency
was a scandal not only nationally but internationally as well. The lack of funding and
control over ﬁmds, lack of accountability, corruption, and nepotism that weakened this
institution were addressed by setting up the KWS, its replacement, to be run by an
independent board of trustees with control over its own revenues and expenditures. The
plans for this parastatal replacement institution that would emphasize participation began
in 1988. In 1989, the formation of the KWS was announced, along with Richard
Leakey’s appointment as its ﬁrst director. In 1990, it formally replaced the WCMD.

Although initially controversial in its own way, Western argues that the replacement of

123

the WCMD with the KWS was in large part responsible for the turn around in Amboseli
and successes beginning to outweigh failures in Phase 3 of the CBC program (1987-
1992). (Western, 1994a: 42-48; Western, 1997: 247-251).

Although he did not have a background in wildlife, Leakey possessed several
skills needed for the directorship of the ﬂedgling KWS, including: wide renown, a record
of challenging corruption, ﬁmd raising skills, and above all presidential support (Western,
1997: 247-251). This support would allow him enormous autonomy, but at the same time
cripple him in the political backlash from the way he used that autonomy to bypass the
established bureaucracy (Gibson, 1999: 108-110). Another problem was that he brought
with him the same preservationist approach and paternalistic attitude toward herders that
had plagued conservation plans previously (Western, 1994: 42-48; Western, 1997: 247-
251). His approach and attitude were reﬂected in the early policies of the KWS, which
he organized in a paramilitary manner and ran independently of the Kenyan bureaucratic
apparatus (Leakey and Morell, 2001: 137).

During his tenure, Leakey concentrated on the parks and did little in the area of
human/environment relations. He felt CBC was tantamount to welfare and opposed
direct payment of compensation, which, he rightly pointed out, had been abused in the
past. Beneﬁts were to be spread in the form of public works and revenue sharing and
support for tourism activities, the latter two of which would come sometime in the future.
Revenues from the parks, to him, were for wildlife only (Leakey and Morell, 2001: 121-
133, 138—141, 287-287). Even the Protected Areas and Wildlife Service (PAWS)
community outreach project was initially run in a very top down manner concentrating

more on infrastructure for tourism than anything else (Leakey and Morell, 2001: 292-

124

294). One management plan in particular he advocated, to fence all the parks (Leakey
and Morell, 2001: 201-211), was fortunately not implemented and would have been
ecologically disastrous if it had been (Western, 1994a: 42-48) and clearly showed his
preservationist philosophy.

Leakey’s aggressive approach and the international ban on ivory essentially
shutdown commercial poaching (Western, 1997: 262-263). There is good evidence,
however, that subsistence poaching has continued (Kock, 1995: 262-263). As I said
though, the same approach that brought an end to poaching also brought him into conﬂict
with the Kenyan political system he had sidestepped. With the elimination of
commercial poaching and corruption achieved, there was a need to move toward CBC,
which he resisted (Western, 1997: 262-263). Leakey resigned as KWS Director in 1994
amid pressure to change his approach (Leakey and Morell, 2001: 278-287). He was
replaced by Western who began to shift the focus of the agency toward CBC (Western,
1994a: 42-48), which has slowly continued into the present.

Despite the initial biases of the agency, the formation of the KWS was
instrumental in reestablishing a dialogue between the government and the Maasai that
had broken down at the end of Phase 2, largely due to problems with the WCMD, in the
third phase at Amboseli. At the outset though, it took written threats of fencing ﬁ'om the
Maasai to force the KWS to keep its promises once that dialogue began, while Leakey
was still director. Actually, the actions of Maasai leaders in this matter can be seen as a
positive impact of CBC as they applied political pressure instead of spearing wildlife.
While compensation still did not match costs, this shift indicates Maasai attitudes appear

to have changed toward wildlife at some level. This change can also be seen in the

125

limited break up of at least one GR because of concern over wildlife dispersal and the
formation of a wildlife association and game scout program when KWS progress was
deemed by locals as too slow to act. It is also signiﬁcant that the CBC approach did more
to curb poaching in Kajiado than increased enforcement did in the rest of the country and
that the integrity of the ecosystem remained intact and wildlife populations stable
(Western, 1994a: 42-48).

As with Phases 1 and 2, most of the problems with Phase 3 come from the
national level and include all the problems previously listed. Another concern throughout
all the phases was that only a limited number of Maasai actually participated in the
program (Western, 1994a: 44-50). Even though outreach occurred to a far greater degree
than in the Amboseli program (Lindsay, 1987: 161-165) and, therefore, probably
impacted a broader range of the society, limited participation was also a problem in the
WEX program, which was discussed in the previous era (Berger 1993: 111-121). What
this limited representation may mean is that most Maasai still do not feel they are
beneﬁting from conservation, which will be discussed further under Point B where
analysis from the 1977 and 1996 survey data will be introduced (Campbell et. a1., 1999;
Campbell et. a1., 2000). If a clear link between beneﬁts and wildlife conservation is yet
to be made (Western, 1994a: 44-50) and if participation and contribution are linked to
beneﬁts (Berger, 1993: 47-49), then, although the Amboseli and WEX programs made
tremendous headway in moving beyond stereotypes and preservationist folly, many
challenges to integrated conservation still remain. These challenges come from the

Opposing interests operating at various scales and effecting wildlife and the ever-

126

changing socioeconomic realm in Kajiado, where some beneﬁt from change and most do

not.

Historical Trends in Kajiado and the Conceptual Framework

The thread that weaves its way through the entire discussion of the cultural and
wildlife history of Kajiado is conﬂict born of the interaction of opposing forces. It took
the form of conﬂict over resources between herders and farmers, which has an ethnic
aspect to it as tribal groups are deﬁned by livelihood to a large degree. It also took the
form of conﬂict between farmers and wildlife, which has likely always occurred but has
grown steadily as cultivation has spread to areas never farmed before and to the Maasai
who previously did not embrace it. Furthermore, the constriction of herder mobility and
competition for resources, beginning in the colonial period, lead to conﬂict between
herders and wildlife, which did not exist previously.

The examination also demonstrated that conﬂict has occurred between locals who
bear the costs of wildlife conservation and policymakers who wrote conservation
legislation from preservationist, paternalistic, and agricultural biases that led to land
annexations and mutual distrust. In the colonial period, this conﬂict was mostly between
white and African, but in independent Kenya it also takes on an ethnic aspect because of
tribal afﬁliations in the government. And ﬁnally, it was demonstrated that conﬂict has

occurred between the international community, the national government, and locals over

the control of wildlife.

127

All these conﬂicts were tied to the intense demographic and sweeping
socioeconomic changes that occurred in the district over the last century and can be seen
in the trends that emerge from the historical discussion. These trends are:

(1) Land use change, especially the spread of agriculture and the concerns about

fragmentation that come with it

(2) Land tenure change, such as the shift from communal to group ownership and
the subsequent break up of the GRs that impacts land use change.

(3) The ethnic mixing that has occurred due to demographic upheaval in the
colonial period and the subsequent migrations of farmers into the district.

The historical analysis of Kajiado is summarized and directly related to the sub-points of
Point A below:

0 Sub-Point 1 deals with determining the relevant time period for study. Clearly
from the historical discussion, all the conﬂict described either began or has
become increasingly intense since beginning of the colonial period in the late
nineteenth century. Along with the conﬂict, the impact of the anthropogenic
factor on the enviromnent has also increased.

0 Sub-Point 2 then examines with the environmental setting and changes to it
that may have occurred during the relevant historical period. As discussed,
the East Aﬁican environment has remained essentially stable for the past 2600
years. The changes that have occurred in the historical time period have
threatened ecological sustainability through several factors. For example, the

spread of agriculture in a semi-arid region with limited arable land and the

128

impediment of herder and wildlife migratory patterns are associated with
environmental degradation.

0 Sub-Point 3 analyzes the human history of the study area. In examining
Kajiado since the late nineteenth century, the theme of conﬂict clearly
emerges. This theme is reﬂected in the interactions of opposing interests that
has lead to the dramatic socioeconomic and demographic changes seen in the
district.

0 Sub-Point 4 moves research into the conservation and wildlife history of the
study area. Analysis for Kajiado demonstrated that the same forces impacting
the sociocultural realm were also impacting the landscape. Likewise,
socioeconomic and demographic changes impacted wildlife as well.

- Sub-Point 5 analyzes the interrelationship of Sub-Points 2 through 4 and the
trends that emerge. In Kajiado, and I suspect elsewhere as well, the human
and wildlife histories were shown to be intertwined and inseparable. It is only
for the ease of data assimilation and discussion that these sub-points are
divided in the Framework. The historical discussion for Kajiado makes clear
that one cannot discuss either half of the human/environment dynamic without
discussing the other. With this in mind, it should be clear that the trends of
land use change, land tenure change, and ethnic mixing are as much concerns

of conservation as they are development.

One ﬁnal point must be made before moving to the contemporary discussion.

Beyond the limitations to my research previously stated, there is one additional

129

shortcoming with the development of the historical perspective presented here. Virtually
the entire human sided of the historical discussion focuses on the Maasai in Kajiado. The
problem is that the ethnic make up of the district is no longer homogenous, and, in truth,
maybe should not be characterized as such since the end of the colonial period. Since
that time the district has seen a 13% grth rate in population, of which only 2.2% was
due to natural grth (Berger, 1993: 25-31). As of 1996, the Maasai made up only 60%
of the total population in the district (Campbell et. a1., 2000: 6-8). A better understanding
of the circumstances of other ethnic group whose interests are almost certainly different

from the Maasai can only increase our understanding of conﬂict in the district.

Point B: Contemporary Social Driving Forces

The purpose of a detailed historical analysis is to establish context for the
contemporary situation in a study area. Without a historical perspective, one is trying to
view a dynamic progression, occurring at different scales through time, in a single
snapshot that is likely to provide only misleading idiosyncrasies that are likely to lead to
static and preservationist conservation approaches that may temporarily treat symptoms
without understanding the disease. Similarly, looking at proximate causes without
looking at the drivers of those causes is likely to produce the same results.

Proximate causes were deﬁned in the introductory chapter in anthropogenic terms
as the immediate human action taking place that is seen as directly causing environmental

change (Stern, et. al. 1992: 67-75). This deﬁnition needs some fiuther clariﬁcation,

130

however. Naturally occurring proximate causes of change, such as drought or
regeneration processes in savanna ecosystems associated with migratory herbivores, exist
as well, and are distinguished by the lack of direct human action (Young and

Zimmerer, l 998: 327-340). These non-human related proximate causes are the natural
processes at work on the landscape.

Anthropogenic proximate causes are further distinguished from the natural
processes by the rate and frequency of disturbance, as well as the kind of disturbance that
alters the natural disturbance processes or introduces previously unknown disturbances.
Within this distinction, of course, there are different degrees of anthropogenic change.
For instance, off-road vehicle use and livestock grazing are classiﬁed by Zimmerer and
Young as low-to-moderate types of disturbance that occur chronically and have visible
impact over years to decades. The spread of agriculture and settlement, on the other
hand, are classiﬁed as intense disturbances that have profound impact in a relatively short
time period (Zimmerer and Young, 1998: 6-19).

Although I distinguish between natural and anthropogenic proximate causes, the
two are often intertwined and at times indistinguishable (Zimmerer and Young, 1998: 6-
19), as herder and wildlife migration patterns have been historically in East Africa
(Western and Gichohi, 1993: 269-281). This example shows that in reality the separation
of human and natural causes is artiﬁcial, as humans are part of their environment
(Zimmerer and Young, 1998: 6-19). While on the one hand, the Maasai inﬂuenced the
environment historically without compromising its sustainability (low-to-moderate
impact), on the other, their activities, as with previous pastoralists in the region, are such

that they are part of the natural regimen (Berger, 1993: 23-25). In essence then, the

131

relationship between human and natural proximate causes of change exists on a
continuum ﬁom almost fully natural (i.e. wilderness) to almost fully human (i.e. cities)
(WinklerPrins, 2002: personal communication).

Nevertheless, the anthropogenic factor has been clearly linked to rapid and
negative environmental change that has resulted in plant and wildlife declines in recent
history (Zimmerer and Young, 1998: 6-19). The historical discussion clearly
demonstrated this was the case for Kajiado. While it is necessary to understand both
natural and anthropogenic causes of change and true that the two are not mutually
exclusive, it is the degree of impact associated with the latter that requires the distinction
and focus on anthropogenic proximate causes (Stern et. a1., 1992: 44-75; Zimmerer and
Young, 1998: 3-26). The distinction made, I refer to anthropogenic proximate causes as
simply proximate causes in the following discussion unless otherwise noted.

The identiﬁcation of the proximate causes in the present is the point where
conservation approaches traditionally begin and end their information gathering.
Examples of these approaches, such as site conservation planning (NC) and ecoregion
planning (WWF), were presented in the literature review. The MAB guidelines indicate
the bioreserve approach would act similarly (Dyer and Holland, 1988: 635-641). The
reasons for this present oriented, short-term focus have been discussed throughout this
thesis and include the oversimpliﬁcation of the human dimension, and the prevalence of
neo-Malthusian thought among ecologists (see the literature review for a detailed
discussion of each of these factors). These approaches are designed to achieve short-run,
attainable conservation goals, but they tend to lack a broad historical perspective and

therefore understanding of the complexities of the present. Even the most progressive

132

approach that addresses only proximate causes is likely to result in a crisp but overly
simpliﬁed conservation program that will attain limited success at best because it does
not address the bigger picture.

The immediate and the short-term are important, but they only address a selection
of the issues facing a conservation area. The goal of a conservation plan should be to
address all the issues involved, to assemble all the pieces of the conservation puzzle. The
missing pieces of the contemporary puzzle are found in the historical perspective and the
contemporary social driving forces at work in the study area. Social driving forces are
deﬁned as the economic, political and institutional, sociocultural, and environmental
forces operating at the local, national, and global levels driving the proximate causes
observable in a conservation area. In other words, social driving forces are the indirect
causes of change (Stem, et. a1. 1992: 75-93).

The inclusion of environmental driving forces under the deﬁnition of social
driving forces requires further explanation. While it may seem that environmental
drivers should be treated as a separate category, I argue that the interrelated nature of the
cultural and environmental factors in the human/environment dynamic applies to the
relationship between the drivers of change as well. 1 demonstrate in the following
discussion of Kajiado that environmental drivers inﬂuence economic,
political/institutional, and sociocultural driving forces as much as these in turn inﬂuence
the environment.

Both proximate causes and social driving forces are important for understanding
the human/environment dynamic at work in a conservation area but particular attention

must be paid to social driving forces. Because they tend to be more subtle and harder to

133

deﬁne, social driving forces are often overlooked or seen as peripheral to the immediate
problem being observed. Such oversight could contribute to present based, static
conservation approaches. While identifying the proximate causes of change is necessary
to accurately assess immediate levels of environmental impact from different types of
human activities (Stern et. a1., 1992: 92), contextual understanding of the contemporary
setting in a study area requires analysis of the social driving forces at work. For these
reasons, I emphasized the drivers of change in the Framework and designated Point B,
Contemporary Social Driving Forces (table 3).

Point B of the Framework asks the question, Where are we now? As table 1

shows, this point consists of three sub-points. These sub-points are presented in an

 

Point B: Contemporary Social Driving Forces (Where are wernaw?)

 

Sub-Points

 

1. Building on the data collected in the historical analysis, identify the proximate causes of
change at work in the conservation area. Pay attention to the scale at which these causes
are operatgg.

 

o What metrics are available to measure change? What environmental and human tolerance
thresholds are involved?

0 What changes are the result of natural proximate causes (processes)?
0 What changes are the result of anthropogenic proximate causes?
0 What is the degree of severity of the various anthropogenic factors?

 

2. With the proximate causes identified, focus on those anthropogenic causes negatively
impacting or potentially negatively impacting wildlife. Analyze the economic,
political/institutional, sociocultural, and environmental driving forces associated with
those proximate causes at the local, national, and ﬂbal levels.

 

0 At what scales do the drivers operate?
0 How do they relate to one another?
0 What metrics are available to measure their impact on the conservation area?

 

3. Relate the analysis of Sub-Points 1 and 2 to conservation issues, such as wildlife
composition and distribution, habitat change and fragmentation, land use changes, and
issues of tenure to identify contemporary trends.

 

o What are the conservation and development policies/philosophies in effect? Are they
coherent and coordinated between protected and non-protected areas in terms of planning?
What data is available to measure their impact?

0 Who are the stakeholders involved at the various levels from local to global? What is their
relationship to one another? Do all of the stakeholders have a voice in conservation? If
not, who decides conservation questions?

0 Who owns wildlife and do those who bear the greatest costs of conservation see equitable
compensation for their burden? If not, where do monies accrue?

 

 

 

Table 3—Point B of the Contextual Framework for Wildlife Conservation.

134

illustration of the contemporary situation in Kajiado, which will build on the foundation
laid in historical discussion. The proximate causes of change at work in the district are
identiﬁed ﬁrst. With these immediate causes identiﬁed, the drivers of those causes are
discussed and contemporary trends impacting conservation identiﬁed. Then the
contemporary picture of Kajiado is tied back to the speciﬁc sub-points of Point B.

As before, some of the guiding questions under the sub-points are more pertinent
to Kajiado than others, due to the intended general application of the framework. Also,
survey information from the 1977 and 1996 (see methodology chapter) augments the
library data to help clarify the contemporary picture. The information presented from this
data is synthesized from the analysis presented in, Land Use Conﬂict in Kajiado District,
Kenya (Campbell et. a1., 2000) and Interactions Between People and Wildlife in SE.

Kajiado District, Kenya (Campbell et. a1., 1999).

The Proximate Causes of Change in Kajiado

Out of the overarching theme of conﬂict that emerged from the historical
perspective for Kajiado, the most important type of conﬂict to conservation is
human/wildlife conﬂict. As determined, this conﬂict largely began with colonial policy
that carried over into the independent Kenyan government that disrupted indigenous
lifeways and linkages including those with wildlife. That is not to say other types of
conﬂict do not impact wildlife as well. A prime example is the spearing of wildlife in
Amboseli after the government announced the area’s annexation in 1971 (Western,

1994a; pp. 30-36). On one level, this example shows conﬂict between local people and

135

national authorities over the control of resources, but indirectly it is still human/wildlife
conﬂict.

Most likely such linkages could be made between all types of conﬂict in the
district. Additionally, all conﬂict is related in one way or another to the major trends of
land use change, tenure change, and ethnic mixing that also emerged from the historical
discussion.

Given these factors, the question becomes what are the proximate causes of the
changes reﬂected in these trends and the theme of human/wildlife conﬂict and what
threat do they pose to sustainability? Although I am emphasizing those proximate causes
with negative impacts in this question, 1 need to make clear that not all agents of change
are negative, some are benign or beneﬁcial. The best example of a beneﬁcial proximate
cause of change in Kajiado is herding, which studies indicate is integral to savanna
ecosystems and has proved sustainable for thousands of years (Collett, 1987: 130-136;
Western and Gichohi, 1993: 269-281).

The most obvious answer to the above question about the proximate causes of
change at work in the district is agriculture, which ﬁts under the deﬁnition of a high
impact agent. As established, agriculture is one of the three main land uses in the district,
with herding and ecotourism being the other two. In the historical discussion I
demonstrated that the spread of agriculture is propelled by tenure changes and ethnic
mixing (Kituyi , 1990; pp. 90-98). The threats this spread presents to wildlife and
pastoralists were also examined and include: fragmentation, cover change, and land
degradation (Kituyi, 1990: 202-208; Kimani and Pickard, 1998: 208-210; Western,

1994a: 28-30). An Additional threat is water pollution due to pesticide and fertilizer

136

runoff that can harm wildlife, livestock, and humans. Concern over this particular threat
is increasing in the district according to the 1996 survey data (Campbell et. a1., 1999: 40-
44).

An agent of change related to the spread of agriculture is the spread of human
settlement. It too ﬁts under the deﬁnition of a high impact agent of change. Several
researchers have noted that as agriculture and market economies have grown settlement
has also expanded (Campbell, 1981a: 39-50; Campbell and Migot-Adholla, 1981: 5-10;
Kimani and Pickard, 1998: 205-208). Although I suspect some of the settlement
expansion may be tied to the growth of tourism, the literature indicates agriculture is the
prime impetus of settlement growth. For that reason, I place this agent under a broad
defrnition of agricultural expansion.

While agriculture appears to be the main high impact proximate cause of change,
low-to-moderate causes are at work in Kajiado as well. For instance, along with the
concerns over water quality, there is water loss due to a pipeline that diverts up to half the
ﬂow of the Nolturesh River to the Nairobi area. This loss of precious water threatens
farmers, herders, and wildlife in this semi-arid region where the 1996 survey data
indicates that land with access to water has become the primary concern of local people
(Campbell et. al, 2000: 6-7).

Another low-to-moderate disturbance factor is ecotourism. It was pointed out in
the historical discussion that unchecked tourism has taken its toll on both wildlife and the
ecology of Kajiado in the past (Berger, 1993: 14-16; Western, 1997: 169-179). At
present, off-road driving in search of wildlife occurs regularly. Such activities can

damage the fragile soils and create habitat fragmentation at a variety of spatial scales.

137

Also, tourists have been known to harass wildlife, which can be detrimental to some
already endangered species like the cheetah who require solitude for hunting and
reproduction (Olindo, 2000: personal communications; Gichohi, 2000: personal
communications; Otte, 1991: 377-383).

Although ecotourism is not considered a consumptive wildlife use like hunting or
cropping, the short-term economic concerns of the industry can outweigh long-term
wildlife concerns. This dichotomy of interests can make the industry detrimentally
impact the very wildlife it depends on for survival (Campa, 1999: personal
communications). The examples of off-road driving and wildlife harassment support this
assertion. Such contradictory concerns are not tied exclusively to the private sector.
Some researchers argue that the relationship between parks and wildlife suffers from the
same dichotomy as well. For instance, one of the controversies over parks is whether
their role is to be bastions of diversity, playgrounds for tourists, or somewhere in-
between (Hales, 1989: 139-144). Given the fact that it was the loss of revenues not
concern for wildlife that drove Moi to form the KWS to address the poaching problem
(Gibson, 1999: 1-18, 154-160), I include the parks with the tourism industry under a
broad ecotourism land use.

Although other proximate causes of change may exist in Kajiado, these are the
main factors that emerge from the literature. Before addressing the driving forces behind
these causes, I emphasize that it is with the identiﬁcation of proximate causes that the
information gathering process often ends and goal identiﬁcation and planning begins
(Nature Conservancy, 2000). However, historical discussion made clear the complexities

that underlay the spread of agriculture and grth of the ecotourism in the past. The

138

examination of the social driving forces propelling the proximate causes below makes

clear that the historical complexity has not lessened in contemporary Kajiado.

The Social Driving Forces at Work

Galaty argues that land conﬂict at the local level represents a battleﬁeld for
institutional and policy issues of national and international scope (Galaty, 1999: 1-2).
Add to this driver, the economic, sociocultural, and environmental drivers involved and
the ability to explain change in a conservation area will be vastly improved. With
improved understanding, there is the possibility for improved planning. In the following
discussion of social driving forces, 1 will examine the drivers of the proximate causes
listed above, concentrating the spread of agriculture because of its severity. I have
divided the social driving forces into four categories to simplify discussion and analysis,
as I did with the human and wildlife/conservation historical examination. As with the
components of the historical analysis, the categories of driving forces should be thought
of in terms of an interacting whole. Strict compartmentalization of the elements involved
oversimpliﬁes and limits understanding of the contemporary situation, just as it does the
human/environment dynamic (Campbell et. a1., 2000: 6). Not surprisingly then, there is
overlap between the driving forces, just as there is overlap between Points A and B of the

Framework.

Economic Drivers

The economic drivers at work in Kajiado allowed large (10 ha or more) and

medium scale (2 to 10 ha) agriculture (Kituyi, 1990: 102-107) and wildlife tourism

139

(Berger, 1993: 25-31) to become the fastest growing most proﬁtable industries in the
district, leaving herding far behind. Although other investment options existed and still
do (Kituyi, 1990: 76-91), these two industries were and are the most proﬁtable.
Increased market access to and demand from the Nairobi and European markets and
economic liberalization, are the main economic incentives for the growth of the
agriculture industry (Campbell et. a1., 2000: 6-7). Also, the softening of traditional
prohibitions to cultivation and its growing perception as a viable economic alternative to
herding by the Maasai have also aided in its success (Kimani and Pickard, 1998: 208-
210). By the same token, international interest in wildlife viewing since the 1930s
(Berger, 1993: 8-9) and national interest since independence (Olindo, 2000: personal
communication) have driven the growth of ecotourism, as have market changes,
expanded air travel, and a tourism friendly infrastructure (Leakey and Morell, 2001: 28-
31). Another factor operating locally has been community outreach through the CBC
program in Amboseli, the WEX program of the mid-19805 and programs provided by the
KWS since 1994 (Berger, 1993; Western, 1994a).

The problem is that the economic interests of these two industries conﬂict with
each other. Whereas ecotourism depends on wildlife, wildlife poses a growing threat to
the agricultural industry (Berger, 1993: 31-38). As both have expanded, this conﬂict has
increased, reinforcing the escalating human/wildlife conﬂict (Campbell et. a1., 1999: 5-9).
The expansion of agriculture into swamps and riparian zones interferes with the
movements and access to resources of both wildlife and herders, which impacts the
ecotourism industry (Kimani and Pickard, 1998: 208-210). On the other hand, increased

investment in cultivation increases the cost of crop damage by wildlife. Farmers expect

140

to be compensated for these damages, but as of yet, no compensation is offered to herders
or the ecotourism industry for the loss of resources and mobility due to agriculture.
Comparisons of the 1977 and 1996 survey data support that this conﬂict is growing and
that most local people interviewed expect it to continue (Campbell et. a1., 2000: 5-6).

Another problem that faces the ecotoruism industry is that proﬁts still accrue at
the national and international level (Berger, 1993: 41-42). Despite continued efforts to
spread beneﬁts through encouraging the local tourism industry, such as wildlife viewing
on the Oldoniyo, Irnbirikani, and Kimana GRs, beneﬁts have had a limited distribution
(Berger, 1993: 134-135). Survey results show that only 5% of farmers and 6% of herders
in 1977 and 17% of farmers and 8% of herders in 1996 reported receiving
wildlife/tourism money (Campbell et. a1., 2000: 6—7). If it is true that conservation
depends on local contribution and acceptance and that contribution is tied to beneﬁts
(Berger, 1993: 47-49), then these percentages could point to a serious problem for the
ecotourism industry and likely tend to make the agriculture alternative more appealing.

Finally, the economic viability of both industries depends on land holding size
locally, national political conditions, and international market forces. Small holdings
(less than 2 ha), especially those that are not adequately watered, are not economically
viable for agriculture (Kituyi, 1990: 102-108). Ironically then, the GR sub-division
related to agricultural expansion appears detrimental to this land use, given the tendency
for the number of holdings to increase and their size to decrease since sub-division began
(Kimani and Pickard, 1998: 205-208). On the other hand, research shows small holdings
are not economically viable for ecotourism either, although they are for subsistence

wildlife utilization (Wambuguh, 1998: 204). Also because of the export orientation of

141

both industries, the economic condition and tastes of international markets (tied in part to
national conditions such as political stability) can impact their economic viability

(Campbell et. a1., 2000: 6-7).

Political/Institutional Drivers

Political and institutional drivers are very much tied to the economic incentives
that have provided for the grth of the agriculture and ecotourism industries. Also, a
lack of policy coordination is largely responsible for the competition between the two
industries, helping to explain human/wildlife conﬂict in the district. For example, the
agricultural and settlement bias prevalent in Kenyan development policy (Kituyi, 1990:
95-98) and the spread of free market econorrrics, which is tied to international neoliberal
politics, is propelling the subdivision of the GRs and has also provided the economic
incentives for the grth of the agricultural industry (Galaty, 1999: 1-6; Galaty and Ole
Munei, 1999: 68-69). At the same time, the national government with its preservationist
bias (often under pressure from the national and international conservation community) is
setting policy pertaining to wildlife conservation and access, impacting the ecotourism
industry without reconciling the conﬂicting interests of the agricultural industry.

Based in part on political expedience and corruption (Gibson, 1999: 1-18) and in
part on prejudices carried over from the colonial period (Collett, 1987: 144- 146), the
preservationist bias of the Kenyan government hinders the development of the
ecotourism industry at the local level. The strict control over wildlife by national
authorities limits local access to the beneﬁts of this valuable resource despite the efforts

of the Amboseli Program, the public outreach and revenue sharing of the KWS (Western,

142

1994: 44-50) and the WEX program (Berger, 1993), a follow-up to which was never
frmded. The 1977 and 1996 survey data noted above supports this analysis (Campbell et.
a1., 2000: 6-9). Nevertheless, with the support and pressure of the national and
international conservation community, ecotourism has spread beyond the parks to some
degree (Berger, 1993: 154-16).

As indicated from the historical perspective, policy and economic drivers are not
the only drivers at work where agricultural spread is concerned. Due largely to a lack of
policy direction, the courts (institutional drivers) have become increasingly involved in
the sub-division of the GRs since the late 19808. Interests both inside and outside Maasai
society, from local to national and international, are manipulating the judicial system for
their own purposes to the detriment of the majority of Maasai. Many of those beneﬁting
from the lack of policy direction, often under questionable circumstances, are non-Maasai
farmers, a situation that propels agricultural expansion and ethnic rivalry (Galaty and Ole
Munei, 1999: 68). These changes are especially concerning since wildlife and herders
use land as a single unit and farmers tend to carve up the landscape, which results in
fragmentation that is economically detrimental to herders and ecologically threatening to
wildlife (Berger, 1993: 31-3 8; Kimani and Pickard, 1993: 208-210).

Local level institutions work to mediate both these economic and policy
initiatives, especially where market and agriculture policies are concerned (Kituyi, 1990:
73-75, 153-154). However, the outcome of the conﬂict resulting from the actions of
these opposing policy/institutional forces from the local, national, and international levels
has changed the structure of Maasai society, which will be discussed below. Given the

impact of policy/institutional and economic drivers, coordination and regulation of action

143

will be required to stem the threats from ever expanding agriculture. Additionally, more
inroads will need to be made to spread the beneﬁts of ecotourism more equitably among
those who bear the greatest costs of conservation (Campbell et. a1., 1999: 29-32, 39-44;
Campbell et. a1., 2000: 6-8). I will examine possibilities for addressing these problems

under Point C.

Sociocultural Drivers

The opposition between national and international policy/institutional factors and
economic factors and local institutions has altered the fabric of Maasai society and has
resulted in human/wildlife conﬂict. These alterations listed under Point A include:
challenges to the Council of Elders and gerontocracy by the courts and the market
system, the shift from communal to group and individual tenure, the rise of women’s
groups, decline in the institution of moranhood (the ﬁrst rung of the age-set ladder), and
conﬂict within and between age-sets. The opportunities available for individual gain that
came with these political/institutional and economic changes have allowed growing
differentiation of wealth, investment and education in Massai society. Primary among
those opportunities has been agricultural investment. As discussed, a growing
dependence on agricultural products and the casing of traditional taboos on farming have
moved many Maasai toward some level of involvement in agriculture (Kituyi, 1990: 90-
95, 113-122).

Table 4 shows the results of conﬂict analysis from the 1977 and 1996 survey data.
During the period between these surveys, note that not only increased conﬂict but new

conﬂict followed the growth of agriculture (Campbell et. a1., 1999; pp. 26-27). More

144

signiﬁcantly, the table shows that most of the types of herder/wildlife conﬂict have

emerged since the beginning of the GR sub-division and the spread of agriculture among

the Maasai. Consider as well that 1977 conﬂict has increased along side the new forms

of conﬂict that have developed. Finally, the table shows that most respondents still feel

they see few beneﬁts from conservation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOT SIGNIFICANT IN 1977 cat crops
EQUAL FREQUENCY 1977-1996: =eat crops=
REDUCED FREQUENCY 1977-1996: italic
INCREASED FREQUENCY 1977-1996: all other entries
_ HERDERS FARMERS WILDLIFE
HERDERS grazing on crops Sale of land Eat crops
access to grazing Payment of rent Predation
trampling crops Trampling of crops Bother people
one has too many . Access to grazing Spread of disease
animals
spread of disease Access to water Trample crops
theft of crops Cattle eat crops Access to grazing
grazing on individual Access to land Access to water
land '
access to water
theft of animals
FARMERS grazing on crops Access to water =Eat crops=
trampling crops Cattle eat crops Trample ems
one has too many Trampling of crops Bother people
animals
theft of animals =Access to land= Spread of disease
theft of crops Access tograzirg Predation
grazing on individual Payment of rent _ Access to grazing
land
access to water Sale of land Access to water
access to grazing
spread of disease
BOTH WUF and compensation
for damage not great
and “creamed” by the
chiefs

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4 — Reported Conflict Between Land Users: 1977 and 1996 (in order of frequency of report in

1996) (Reprinted from Campbell et. a1., 1999)

145

 

The new types of conﬂicts in table 4 reﬂect disputes with which the traditional
dispute resolution systems are ill-prepared to deal (Kituyi, 1990: 114-122), which Galaty
argues has lead to prominence of the court system in deciding matters such as the GR
subdivisions (Galaty, 1999: 1-13). Unfortunately, illiteracy and misunderstanding of
modern legal systems on the part of the Maasai has lead to the court’s manipulation by
special interests to the social and economic detriment of the majority of Maasai society
(Galaty, 1999: 1-13). Many of these interests come from outside Maasai society to take
advantage of the economic opportunities and the haphazard nature of GR subdivision. As
of 1996, 7% of the total GR territory was owned by non-Massai (Kimani and Pickard,
1998; 205-208).

These acquisitions since subdivision began in 1984 and non-Massai migrations in
general into the district since independence have resulted in two important changes in
what is still considered Maasailand. First, Maasailand cannot be thought of as a
homogeneous community. Other ethnic groups and rivalry between ethnic groups related
to the land and resource competition and ownership must be considered in any
conservation or development planning. Second, that the agricultural spread these
migrations brought and the subsequent entrenchment of cultivation in Maasai society
have played an enormous role in present conservation concerns (Campbell, 1981b: 225-

236; Kituyi, 1990: 46-49; Campbell, 1993: 264-265; Campbell et. a1., 2000: 8).

Environmental Drivers

As explained, environmental drivers are included under the heading contemporary

social driving forces because they not only impact but are impacted by economic,

146

political/institutional, and sociocultural drivers through complex and sometimes
indistinguishable relationships (Campbell et. a1., 1999: 34-38). The description of the
environmental setting given in the historical discussion describes the study area as mostly
bushed grassland in which there are three main permanently watered ecosystems (Croze,
1977: 36-37). In the entire district, only 20% of the land is arable (Von Der Goltz, 1977:
23-33).

Within these environmental constrains humans and wildlife survived for
thousands of years. F aunal evidence in the archaeological record indicates that for at
least the last 2600 years, until the colonial period, there was extensive species stability.
That is, the evidence indicates that herding, the primary land use during this period, had a
long record of sustainability and coexistence with wildlife prior to the colonial period
(Collett, 1987: 130-136; Western, 1994a: 20-23). Furthermore, the evidence argues that
a combined herding/wildlife land use is more beneﬁcial to savanna ecosystems than
either alone (Western and Gichohi, 1993: 269-281). Today herding is in increasing
competition with ecotourism and agriculture. Farmers have migrated into the district and
land has been set aside for wildlife, increasing competition for resources and leading to
human/wildlife conﬂict. This competition combined with the disruptions of traditional
herder coping systems such as mobility has also lead to the sustainability of herding
coming into question (Kimani and Pickard 1998: 208-210; Campbell et. a1., 1999: 13-26;
Campbell et. a1., 2000: 3-6).

The environmental realities of the district have made competition for resources
between land use types increasingly intense. The spread of agriculture has altered and

fragmented the landscape (Berger, 1993: 31-38; Kimani and Pickard, 1998: 208-210)

147

and lead to the loss of wildlife diversity, the decline of woodlands and native plants, soil
degradation, and the decline of water quality (Campbell et. a1. 1999: 34-3 8). As stated,
ecotourism too has had an impact as well, though not to the degree of agriculture in
general (Berger, 1993: 14-16). I use the phrase “agriculture in general” here because I
feel at this point it is important to note that not all agricultural activities are incompatible
with herding and ecotourism. In some cases, Maasai farmers still allow dry season
grazing, which can help maintain the ﬂexibility of both herders and wildlife. Such
herder/wildlife compatible cultivation should be encouraged (Campbell, 1981a: 51-58).
Nevertheless, the biophysical realities make widespread agriculture in general
unsustainable, particularly in poorly watered areas and when fencing denies access to
resources by herders and wildlife. Such factors threaten to alter the ecology of the district
through land degradation, threaten the future of wildlife and, as a result, the ecotourism
industry (Kituyi, 1990: 102-208; Western, 1994a: 23-28; Kimani and Pickard, 1998:
208-211). While parks offer some sanctuary to wildlife, they are simply not large enough
to insure the long-term survival of many species (Western and Wright, 1994: 1-12;
Terborgh 1999: 17-22). In fact, according to Western, “Conservation never provides a
ﬁnal solution, only a temporary reprieve for wildlife” (Western, 1997: 158-159).
Aspects of the changes in habitat and wildlife composition in Kajiado in the past
twenty years may be being reﬂected in tables 5 (herders) and 6 (farmers) below, which
show the shift in the species involved in human/wildlife conﬂict between 1977 and 1996.
Unfortunately, researchers did not collect information on the genus and species of the
animals involved in the conﬂicts reﬂected in these tables. In some cases, such as lions

and elephants, I could have surmised that information. However, in other cases, such as

148

antelope, the number of possible species that could be involved prohibits supposition.

Under these circumstances, I did not extrapolate on the survey data. Other information

 

.T‘T-W‘ﬁ‘ T_‘r' a ' (w
. . t .l' '4‘ ' ~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i (A L: 1977 1996
SPECIES N = 53 (32%) N = 97 (75%)
Buffalo 70 37
Lion 62 36
Elephant 43 62
Antelope“ 28 62
Leopard 26 3S
Wildebeest 9 19
Zebra 9 24
Hyena 0 60
Monkey 0 38
Baboon 0 33
Porcupine 0 4
Wild dog 0 3
Giraffe O 3
"Antelope include smaller antelope such as Grants and Thompson’s
gazelles, and impala. df = 12. X’ of 96 is signiﬁcant at the .001 level.

 

 

Table 5—Wildlife Species Involved in Herder-Wildlife Conﬂict (by

percent of those reporting conﬂict (Reprinted from Campbell et. a1. 1999)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL MAASAI NON-MAASAI
1977 1996 1977 1996 1977 1996
WILDLIFE N=l37 N=223 N=53 N=112 N=84 N=100

SPECIES 461%) (75%) (60%) (80%) (62%) (70%)
Buffalo 84 25 83 25 85 24
Antelgre 74 77 64 79 80 74
Elephant 57 66 58 64 56 67
Monkey 32 39 23 42 38 38
Wildebeest 20 17 23 18 18 16
Giraffe 19 11 ’ 24 14 15 6
Lion 10 8 25 ll 0 5
Hyena 6 27 15 42 0 l4
Leopard 6 14 13 19 1 10
Zebra 4 33 6 37 2 31
Porcupine l 27 l 30 l 24
Baboon 0 23 0 24 0 22
Wild Dog 0 13 0 14 O 10

 

 

MAASAI 1977-96

 

TOTAL 1977-96 df = 12. X2 of 210 is signiﬁcant at the .001 level

(if = 12. X2 of 98 is signiﬁcant at the .001 level

NON-MAASAI 1977-96 df = 12. X2 of 126 is signiﬁcant at the .001 level

 

Table 6—Wildlife Species Involved in Farmer-Wildlife Conﬂict: 1977 and 1996 (by percent of those
reporting) (Reprinted from Canrpbell et. al. 1999).

149

 

not included in the study was the time of year in which the conﬂict occurred and the
location of those conﬂicts.

Although the 1977/1996 survey data provides a wealth of information for
studying human/wildlife conﬂict, it is unfortunate that this additional data was not
included. Species identiﬁcation would have allowed examination of the habitat
requirements, range, and behavior of the different species involved in conﬂict. This
analysis could lead to the identiﬁcation of indicator species that could aid in explaining
the changes shown in the tables. Likewise, information on the time of year that conﬂicts
occurred and geographic information placing incidents in relation to protected areas
could add to that explanation (Campa, 2002: personal communication).

Working with the information available, table 5 shows the greatest conﬂict
occurring between herders and buffalo and lion in 1977, but in 1996 conﬂicts with those
species have been virtually halved, while conﬂict with hyena, monkey, and baboon,
nonexistent in 197 7, has risen dramatically. Likewise, in table 6 in the columns of
combined Maasai and non-Maasai farmers, conﬂict with buffalo has dropped
considerably, while conﬂict with species like hyena and leopard, and even more
signiﬁcantly smaller animals like porcupine and wild dog have risen dramatically. The
rise in conﬂict with smaller animals is signiﬁcant for two reasons. First, since they are
not “charismatic” species, farmers are not likely to be compensated for the damage they
cause (Campbell et. a1., 1999: 34-39). Second, as species that may more easily co-exist
with humans as the habitat for other species is reduced, conﬂict with them is likely only

to increase (Olindo, 2000: personal communications).

150

Contemporary Trends in Kajiado and the Conceptual Framework

The historical perspective should ﬂow into the contemporary perspective. Not
surprisingly many elements are common to both perspectives in Kajiado including the
theme of conﬂict. Also, the three main trends that emerged from the historical discussion
emerge from the contemporary discussion. However, based on the addition of the
contemporary analysis these trends require somewhat further assessment. The updated
trends are:

(1) Land use change due to the proﬁtability of agriculture and ecotourism and
cover change due to agriculture.

(2) Land tenure change and the almost inevitable break up of the GRs.

(3) Continued ethnic mixing and the ensuing rivalry between groups.

The contemporary analysis of Kajiado is summarized and directly related to the sub-
points of Point B below:

0 Sub-Point 1 asks the researcher to identify the proximate causes of change at
work in the conservation area, to separate natural ﬁ'om anthropogenic causes,
and rate their degree of impact. To summarize the preceding discussion, the
three major land uses in the district, agriculture, ecotourism, and pastoralism
were identiﬁed as proximate sources of change impacting the environment to
some degree.

0 Sub-Point 2 then asks the researcher to take those anthropogenic causes of
change with negative or potentially negative impacts and examine the social
driving forces behind them. For Kajiado, research indicates that agricultural

expansion is the primary negative proximate cause of change at work (Kimani

151

and Pickard, 1998: 208-211) and that ecotourism was involved as a low-to-
moderate negative disturbance factor (Berger, 1993: 14-16). Herding was
shown to be sustainable and even beneﬁcial historically (Western and
Gichohi, 1993: 269-281).

These proximate causes were then related to the economic,
policy/institutional drivers that propelled the grth of both agriculture and
ecotourism and limited that of herding (Campbell, 1993: 264-269). A lack of
policy coordination was shown to be partly responsible for the conﬂict that
has also grown between agriculture and ecotourism. Wildlife is at the center
of this conﬂict as farmers see wildlife as a threat to their livelihood and
ecotourism depends on it (Berger, 1993: 31-38; Gibson, 1999: 154-160).

An additional institutional/policy factor involved in the expansion of
agriculture is the increasing involvement of the court system in the GR
subdivision process. The result of that involvement has been that land is
being consolidated into fewer hands and increasingly those of non-Maasai
farmers (Kituyi, 1993: 154-156; Kimani and Pickard, 1998: 205-208; Galaty
and Ole Munei, 1999: 68). Similarly, the fact that monies from ecotourism
tend to accrue at the national and international level is a barrier to expansion
of this industry at the local level (Berger, 1993: 41-42), which could increase
the agricultural incentive.

The sociocultural drivers involved include national level interests
interacting with local institutions to change Maasai society. The primary

example of this change is the diversiﬁcation of agriculture into Maasai society

152

(Kituyi, 1993: 90-95). Also, the migration of non-Maasai farmers into the
district has fed ethnic rivalry (Campbell et. a1., 2000: 8).

Environmental drivers combine with the other categories of drivers to
bring agricultural sustainability into question. Environmental realities also
make clear the very real threat agriculture presents to wildlife, herders, and the
ecotourism industry (Kimani and Pickard, 1998: 208-211).

Sub-Point 3 guides researchers to synthesize the information gathered from
Sub-Points 1 and 2 and relate it to conservation issues to identify trends. My
analysis of the literature and the 1977/1996 survey results indicates that
stakeholders from all levels with competing interests are involved in the
district. These stakeholders include herders and farmers, both Maasai and
non-Maasai tribal people, the KWS, policy makers, national and international
interests including conservation NGOs and wildlife.

Furthermore, issues of land tenure and poor policy coordination has
colored the interaction between stakeholders and increased conﬂict. In
addition, the fact that ecotourism dollars tend accrue at the national and
international level and that local people are not beneﬁting to a signiﬁcant
degree has increased conﬂict as well. The result is that those who bear the
greatest costs are receiving the least beneﬁts (Berger, 1993; Western, 1994a;
Campbell et. a1., 1999; Campbell et. a1., 2000).

At least part of the reason for this inequity is tied to higher level
economic and political biases. To some degree, the historical distrust between

the local and national levels is a factor as well (Collett, 1987: 144- 146;

153

Western, 1994: 44-50; Gibson, 1999: 1-18). If this situation does not change
and human/wildlife tensions ease and agriculture expansion continues to be
the more appealing option locally, the parks may become the only refuge for

wildlife, as inadequate as that refuge may be.

One ﬁnal issue must be addressed before continuing on to the ﬁnal point of the
Contextual Framework. I argued in the literature review that population has often been
noted as a major, if not the only, factor involved with negative environmental change.
Even some of the latest research coming out of the natural resources ﬁeld still reﬂects
this opinion (see Wambuguh, 1998: 30-36). However, population growth played little
role in either my historical perspective or contemporary discussion. Where it does, it is
seen as a sociocultural driver in terms of migration and ethnic mixing, involved with the
spread of agriculture and ethnic rivalry and is put in context with the other drivers at
work. To make an argument that human population grth is a proximate or ultimate
cause of change in Kaj aido not only ignores the complexities involved but also requires
an estimation of carrying capacity. The problems with determining carrying capacity for

human population were discussed in the literature review and do not need reiteration.

Point C: Future Trends

From the information gathered at Point A and Point B, general social and
ecological trends can be identiﬁed and recommendations for planning can be made, along

with suggestions for resource allocation. It is possible that, as with Kajiado, the trends

154

identiﬁed will not ﬁt into distinct ecological and social categories but, rather, will be an
interrningling of both. Point C takes the historical perspective and the contemporary
analysis and asks the question, where we are going?

The uncertainty of planning into the future, particularly where the human
dimension is concerned, has been noted previously and is certainly not being downplayed
here. Even with the best information, uncertainty can never be completely alleviated. It
is a factor that will have to be accepted with integrated approaches (Campbell, 1998: 281-
301). However, in order to plan for the future some general trend extrapolation is
necessary (Western, 1989b: 12-25). The contextual emphasis of the Framework is
designed to allow researchers to view the human/environment dynamic as a dynamic or
continuum, rather than through a single contemporary window.

Although ecosystem management does emphasize context in planning (Meffe and
Carroll, 1997: 385-414), the oversimpliﬁcation of the human dimension that tends to
occur limits ﬂexibility (Gibson, 1999: 1-19; see also the missed connections section of
the literature review). The addition of an extended historical perspective and analysis of
social driving forces incorporated into the Framework helps avoid such
oversimpliﬁcations of either side of the human/environment dynamic. In doing so, the
Framework can potentially alleviate uncertainty to a greater degree than other
approaches, making it particularly useful to the mission statement design, goal and
objective identiﬁcation, and adaptive planning aspects of the ecosystem management
planning process (Meffe and Carroll, 1997: 385-414).

When identifying the trends that will impact conservation in the future, care

should be taken to differentiate them from transitions. Transitions represent a change of

155

state, as from a colony to an independent state. A trend, on the other hand, represents a
general directional movement, such as the shift from communal to group to individual
tenure. A transition can become a trend, if say successive administrations replace one
another in a chaotic manner, indicating a trend toward instability. Likewise, a transition
could be of long duration. For example, although many African countries have been
independent for decades, a good argument could be made based on neo-colonialism that
many are still in a state of transition from colony to state. So simply relying on duration
of time (transitions are short-term and trends are long-term) is not reliable. Nor is the
difference purely semantic. Instead, the difference has to do with trajectory, as trends are
broad directional changes within the environment or society (Campbell, 2000: personal
communication).

The Framework with its contextual emphasis and the identiﬁcation of trends at
each point from past to present to future will help differentiate transitions ﬁ'om trends
where static approaches that look at only one point in time cannot. With these factors in
mind, table 7 presents Point C of the Framework with its two sub-points and guiding
questions.

The discussion that follows will address the sub-points and questions of Point C by
continuing the case study from Kajiado. Although I make general recommendations for
planning targets and resource allocation, information on speciﬁc funding resources was
beyond the scope of my research, so that aspect of this Point will not be addressed for
Kajaido. The discussion is broken into three parts: analysis of the major trends in

Kajiado impacting conservation, recommendations and resource allocations to address

156

those trends, and a conclusion directly relating the analysis of the study area to the sub-

points.

 

Point C: Future Trends (Where are we gory?)

 

Sub-Points

 

1. Based on the analysis of Points A and B, identify the main social and ecological trends
occurring in the conservation area. Be careful to differentiate between transitions and
actual trends.

 

0 Taking into account the historically trend extrapolation can be problematic, what is the
likely trajectory of the identiﬁed trends?

0 At what scale(s) do these trends operate? Are they likely to negatively impact wildlife? If
so, in what way?

 

2. Make conservation recommendations for addressing the negative aspects of these trends
(for the present and into the future). Identify the ﬁnancial and human resources available
to meet those recommendations. (Avoid becoming too detailed.)

 

o What considerations (e.g. agricultural expansion, urban sprawl) emerge from the analysis
that will need to be addressed in the planning stage? At what scale do those considerations
need to be addressed?

0 What sources of backing, economically and otherwise, are available from international
sources, national, local, NGOs, etc.?

0 Given what has and has not worked in the conservation area in the past, what resource
allocation suggestions (ﬁnancial and human) can be made?

 

 

 

Table 7—Point of the Contextual Framework for Wildlife Conservation.

General Social and Ecological Trends

Returning to the case study from Kajiado, the three main trends that emerged
from the contemporary analysis are:

(1) Land use change due to the proﬁtability of agriculture and ecotourism and

cover change due to agriculture.

(2) Land tenure change and the probable continued subdivision of the GRs.

(3) Continued ethnic mixing and rivalry between tribal groups.
Keeping in mind that all of these trends are tied to the overarching theme of conﬂict, I
add human/wildlife conﬂict as a fourth trend. The reason for this addition is to set this
form of conﬂict apart from other forms such as land use conﬂict in order to focus

analysis. As I said before though, while this may be the main form of conﬂict where

157

conservation is concerned, it is related to and impacted by many of the other forms of
conﬂict in the district. Therefore, the general theme of conﬂict should be kept in mind.

Similarly, as argued under Point B, all of these trends are related, have ecological
as well as social aspects and implications, and cannot be looked at in isolation. The
discussion of the relationship of these trends to agricultural expansion as the main
proximate cause of change and the social driving forces propelling it make this clear.
Also, the continuity of trends from the historical to the contemporary to the future trend
analysis should not be surprising considering everything builds on what has come before
and the dynamic and contextual emphasis of the Framework.

Since the various aspects of these trends have been discussed under the previous
points, I will only highlight certain points here and concentrate on their implications for
conservation. Prior to the colonial period, the major land use in the district was herding
and the sustainability of that land use is basically agreed upon (see Berger, 1993;
Campbell, 1993; Western, 1994a; Kimani and Pickard, 1998;). Over the past century
though, two other competing forms of land use, agriculture and ecotourism, have
emerged in the district, economically eclipsed herding, and bringing overall sustainability
in the district into question (Campbell, 1993: 264-271; Kimani and Pickard, 1998: 208-
210). Given the discussion of driving forces under Point B, there is every reason to
believe that conﬂict between land use types and between humans and wildlife will
continue (Campbell et. a1., 2000: 3-6).

It should be clear from the historical and contemporary discussions that with land
use change has come changes in land tenure. The relationship between these two trends

is complex, and each in turn drives the other. Both policy and the lack of policy have

158

played a role in these changes, as have local factors (Campbell et. a1., 2000: 6-9). As
previously discussed, prior to the colonial period. land tenure among the Maasai was
communal and cattle were the source of wealth. Through a series of changes including
among other factors the introduction of individual tenure with the Swynnerton Plan and
group tenure through the GR program, traditional tenure and the role of land itself have
changed (Kituyi, 1990: 67-70, 95-98, 161-187; Campbell, 1993: 259—269). The GR
program showed the agricultural and settlement bias of policy makers but was also
designed to serve an environmental purpose in making sure landholdings were of
ecologically viable size. For reasons, including the differing objectives of the
government and the Maasai, this program was a failure and almost immediately calls for
subdivision began. The result has been that the very ecologically nonviable small
holdings the program was to prevent are increasingly appearing (Kimani and Pickard,
1998: 205-208).

Lack of policy direction is largely to blame for the chaos of subdivision as the
courts increasingly decide land allotments. Tribal interests have become involved in
these litigations, amid allegations of corruption and judicial manipulations, which has
added ethnic tensions to the subdivision process. Unless a more equitable process
emerges, ethnic tensions are liable to rise as more non-Maasai move into the district
under the questionable status quo (Galaty, 1999: 1-6; Galaty and Ole Munei, 1999: 68-
70). Agriculture too has spread under the current process, as farmers move into the
district and the Maasai adopt cultivation. Where it has spread, fragmentation and
alteration of the landscape has occurred. Research shows that as agriculture spreads this

ﬁagmentation will continue, with fencing becoming more and more prevalent (Kimani

159

and Pickard, 1998: 208-211). Agricultural expansion and the resulting fragmentation of
the landscape threaten both wildlife (and thereby ecotourism) and herders alike who use
the landscape as a single unit (Berger, 1993: 31-38). The competition for resources
drives conﬂict including human wildlife/conﬂict (Campbell et. a1., 2000: 3-11). Finally,
the environmental realities of this region could spell ecological disaster, including
wildlife extinctions, if present trends continue (Western, 1989a: xi-xv).

Given the historical perspective, the present trends could lead in one of two
directions. First, the tendency for allotments from the GR subdivision to increase in
number and decrease in size could continue. If this occurs, all the evidence indicates that
agriculture will continue to spread, which means continued fragmentation and increased
chance of severe land degradation (Campbell, 1993: 266-271; Kimani and Pickard, 1998:
208-210), such as desertiﬁcation (United Nations Convention to Combat Desertiﬁcation,
1994). Equally concerning is the likelihood that the estimated 65 to 80% of wildlife that
exist outside the parks will be severely diminished and some species will disappear. For
those in the parks, being cut off from dispersal areas by the fragmentation process will
threaten the genetic viability of many species and degrade the environment (Kimani and
Pickard, 1998: 208-210). It cannot be emphasized enough that the parks are simply not
big enough for many species and that such conservation represents merely a temporary
reprieve for wildlife (Western and Wright, 1994: 1-12; Western, 1997: 155; Terborgh
1999: 17-22).

The other tendency is for the small nonviable holdings to be bought up by larger
concerns. The result has been that land is being consolidated into fewer hands and

landlessness has increased (Campbell, 1993: 266-271; Kituyi, 1990: 154-156). This

160

outcome could become an increasing source of conﬂict as more land is consolidated into
non-Maasai hands (Kimani and Pickard, 1998: 205-208) and, with the questionable
activities of the legal system in these consolidations, ethnic tensions could erupt (Galaty,
1999: 1-6; Galaty and Ole Munei, 1999: 68-70). Based on historical precedent, ethnic
conﬂict could spill over on wildlife and disaffected Maasai could return to aiding
poachers (Berger, 1993: 11-16). Though the numbers of small holdings would be
reduced, agriculture and fragmentation are likely to continue to expand given that most
migrants are agriculturalists and the continued entrenchment of cultivation in Maasai
society (Kimani and Pickard, 1998: 208—210; Galaty and Ole Munei, 1999: 68-70). On
the other hand, with fewer stakeholders, coordinated land use planning might be easier,
which would beneﬁt wildlife and ecotourism (Campa, 2000: personal communication;

Campbell, 2000: personal communication).

Recommendations and Resource Allocation

Either scenario above is possible and has historical precedent (Campbell, 1993:
266-271). Flexible planning requires preparing for either situation, as well as watching
for unforeseen developments. Land use studies indicate a mix of wildlife and herding is
the best land use for Kajiado (Berger, 1993: 23-25; Western and Gichohi, 1993;
Western, 1994a: 28-36). Research also shows that agriculture, although proﬁtable, is
ecologically inappropriate for most of the district (Collett, 1987: 136-146; Kituyi, 1990:
102-108; Campbell et. a1., 2000: 3-11). Given the threat to wildlife and pastoralism from
agricultural expansion, it has been suggested that the GR system should be maintained,

its management improved, and measures taken to secure land against alienation by non-

161

Maasai. This suggestion is based on research showing that the type of land use should
match the type of land holding. For wildlife and herders, the communal or at least the de
facto communal grazing occurring now beneﬁts both, where fragmentation due to
agricultural expansion does not (Kimani and Pickard, 1998: 208-211; Galaty and Ole
Munei, 1999: 68-70). On the other hand, as I noted earlier compatible cultivation does
occur in the district. Since it is unlikely that agriculture will halt altogether in Kajiado,
this practice, in which farmers allow herders to graze in the dry season would help to
keep ecosystems open and should be encouraged (Campbell, 1981a: 42-59; Kimani and
Pickard, 1998: 208-211).

In any case addressing or altering present trends will require action and changes at
several different scales. Clearly policy and economic change and coordination is called
for at the national level (Campbell, 1981a: 58-59). However, the case studies presented
in Reasons for Hope (Krishna et. a1., 1997) and Reasons for Success (Uphoff et. a1.,
1998) of “successful” community based initiatives for change show that successful
approaches often come from outside the community and the state bureaucracy and, if
properly handled, become self perpetuating. These cases usually use an approach
combining top down and bottom up implementation methods to achieve goals (Uphoff et.
a1., 1998; pp. 1-10). Such approaches have worked in Kajiado in the past.

The successes of the WEX program in Kajiado in the 19805 provide an example
of the effective use of this sort of approach. Working directly with locals numerous
conservation initiatives were established and their inﬂuence was felt at higher levels. The
program assumed equitable, sustainable, and workable conservation and development

requires a strong local role in wildlife management. Both the literature review and the

162

discussion in this chapter support this statement. The WEX program found that local
people in Kajiado consider education to ﬂow both ways and soon agency diagnosis and
action were replaced by local initiative. It was also found, though, that local ecotourism
enterprises often required external support (Berger, 1993: 47-49, 111- 145). Supporting
enterprises like the Kimana Wildlife Sanctuary is important to developing ecotourism at
the local level. The signiﬁcance of such enterprises is likely reﬂected by the fact that
Kimana GR members had the most positive response toward wildlife of any GRs
surveyed in 1996 and had the highest number of respondents claiming beneﬁt from
tourism (Campbell et. a1., 1999: 22-23).

The CBC program at Amboseli also achieved inroads where local initiative was
concerned and even impacted national level policy (Western, 1994a: 44-50). Along with
positive environmental results such as migratory routes staying open, the inﬂuence of
both programs helped mitigate the GR subdivision on at least two ranches (Berger 1993:
111-145; Western, 1994a: 42-48). Given the historical evidence, a CBC approach
combined with a wildlife extension program based on the examples above could prove
quite effective and accomplish more than either did alone (Lindsay, 1987: 161-165). One
problem that plagued both programs and was reﬂected in the survey data, though, is that
most local people were not participating (Berger, 1993: 111-121; Western, 1994a: 44-
50). Easing human/wildlife conﬂict will require addressing this inequity.

Before addressing this problem though, I wish to revisit the issue of the
relationship between wildlife and ecotourism. For reasons already discussed, 1 have
argued the tourist industry and the park/reserve system tend to focus on the economic

aspects of wildlife, and I have, therefore, grouped both under the ecotourism land use.

163

Under the policy of wildlife paying its way, the costs of conservation are largely paid for
by tourism (Leakey and Morrel 2001: 278-287). The problem is that tourism is
vulnerable to international economics. A prime example of this vuhrerability comes from
the oil crisis of the 19705. When the tourist market did not grow as expected the
government was ﬁnancially unable keep its promises to locals, which helped to delay the
positive impacts of the program (Western, 1994a: 36-39). Perhaps the terrorist attacks on
the United States and the subsequent war in Afghanistan in 2001 will have a similar
impact on the tourist industry worldwide.

The point is that neglecting to plan for such downturns in the ecotourism industry
could lead to wildlife failing to pay its way. To mitigate this vulnerability and counter
the underlying economic focus of ecotourism, Campa suggests introducing a strictly
wildlife land use into the district. Whereas parks and reserves serve a dual purpose, in
terms of tourism and conservation, and tourism is largely economically motivated, this
new land use would be strictly for the beneﬁt of wildlife, on whose viability the
ecotourism industry depends (Campa, 2000: personal communications).

However, given the intense land use competition in the district, the question is
how to implement such a program let alone pay for it? The answer to this question may
come from two recent articles, The Cost-Eﬂectiveness of Conservation Payments (Ferraro
and Weaver, 2001) and Global Habitat Protection: Limitation of Development
Interventions and a Role for Conservation Performance Payments (Ferraro, 2001).

These papers argue that the direct payment to landowners for wildlife conservation is
more cost-effective and streamlined than the more common indirect support of eco-

ﬁiendly enterprises. It results in a clear-cut connection between conservation and beneﬁt

164

(Ferraro, 2001: 2-3, 7-8; Ferraro and Weaver, 2001: 1-3, 7-17), as opposed to the indirect
linkage that has been common with revenue sharing in Kenya (Western, 1994a: 44-48).

Cost/beneﬁt analysis for the district going back to the 19705 supports this
approach (Thresher, 1976). While Kenya has developed the Wildlife for Development
Fund (WDF) to compensate for wildlife damages and the KWS has a revenue sharing
plan (Koch, 1995: 242-243), the results of the 1977-1996 survey data indicate beneﬁts
have not reached the majority of local residents (Campbell et. a1., 2000: 6-7). In 1994,
Western wrote that some of the GRs were considering disbursing tourist dollars to their
members (Western, 1994a: 48-50), but I could ﬁnd no data that indicate this is actually
taking place.

In any case, the method of direct payment discussed in these papers is different
from any of the present or previous methods of beneﬁt sharing used in Kenya. Based on
successful examples from both Western and non-Westem countries, this method creates
contractual agreements with landowners who conserve habitat for pay. It is not a
disbursement. If the contract is not met, the landowner is not paid. Under such a
program using a cost/beneﬁt analysis, those bearing greater cost, such as those in
dispersal areas near parks or reserves or having more land, would be paid
commensurately (Ferraro, 2001: 2-3, 7-8; Ferraro and Weaver, 2001: 1-3, 7-17). Many
aspects of this method are in line with those advocated during the planning for the
Amboseli program (Thresher, 1977: 38-43).

Returning to the need to expand beneﬁts among local people, a direct payment
approach could not only pay for the wildlife land use, supporting conservation during

economic downturns, but also return more beneﬁts to local people as a payment for a

165

vital service. This payment would make them partners in conservation, make the cost to
beneﬁt ratio more equitable, and, in turn, could ease human/wildlife conﬂict. Returning
to the two possible outcomes of the trend analysis, under the ﬁrst scenario of extreme
fragmentation, a program combining CBC/wildlife extension with direct payment could
help keep wildlife dispersal areas open, given Berger’s argument for the connection
between conservation and beneﬁts (Berger, 1993; pp. 47-49). Likewise, based on the
impact of the WEX and Amboseli programs on local initiative, under the second scenario
of land consolidation, this approach combining extension with direct payment could
allow small landholders to retain their land, see wildlife beneﬁts, and lessen the problem
of landlessness. Because of expanded beneﬁts, such a program could make ecotourism
more attractive to locals and perhaps slow agricultural expansion and its negative social
and ecological impacts.

There are certain concerns with the direct payment approach, however. First,
such a program could be difﬁcult to implement under a group tenure system.
Mechanisms would need to be in place to insure everyone entitled to payment receives it.
If the payment process is not clear and enforceable, this approach could actually
accelerate subdivision, as individuals compete for payments. Second, the problems with
the court’s involvement with subdivision describe above and land consolidation by
outside interests will need to be overcome for the same reason. Third, given the history
of previous programs, political opposition can be expected. Finally, there is the issue of
where the money for such a program would be found.

As I said, unfortunately, the identiﬁcation of funding resources is beyond the

scope of my research. However, if the industrialized world feels conservation is

166

important, it should be willing to pay its share in the cost of conservation, and that share
goes beyond the tourist dollars it brings in. Given the examples ﬁ'om sites, such as Costa
Rico, where direct payment programs have been implemented, NGOs needing to show
short—term results to donors could do so, without losing sight of long-term goals (Ferraro
and Weaver, 2001: 1-3, 7-17). If these concerns could be overcome, a combination of
CBC/wildlife extension to support local ecotourism enterprises (based on the examples
presented in this chapter), the introduction of a wildlife land use, and a direct payment for
conservation plan could address the negative aspects of the trends discussed at the
begimring of this chapter and ease htunan wildlife conﬂict.

I must state here again that the Framework is not designed to immediately result
in a conservation plan. It is a framework and database to aid understanding so that a
dynamic conservation plan may be constructed. The recommendations presented here are
based on an almost exclusively literary analysis of Kajiado and are simply that,
recommendations. Once the initial data is assembled, as it is here for Kajiado, the next
recommended step should be to approach the stakeholders involved, particularly the local
stakeholders. Using a workshop method similar to that used during the WEX program
(Berger, 1993) or by Campbell (1987) will allow a researcher to hone the Framework and
correct any misconceptions. Involving locals in each step of the process after the initial
information gathering, from planning to implementation has been shown to be very
effective in garnering the local support necessary for successful conservation (see

Campbell, 1987; Berger, 1993; Krishna et. a1., 1997; Uphoff et. a1., 1998).

167

Future Trends in Kajiado and the Conceptual Framework

Three main trends were identiﬁed in Kajiado from the historical analysis, land use
change, tenure change, and ethnic mixing. An overarching theme of conﬂict was also
identiﬁed. This analysis was carried into the contemporary analysis, where the trends
and theme of conﬂict were reﬁned to reﬂect the additional information presented there.
Human/wildlife conﬂict was segregated from the overall theme of conﬂict in Point C and
included as a fourth trend in order to focus analysis. Two possible future scenarios for
Kajiado emerged from this analysis, fragmentation (many landholders) or consolidation
(few landholders) of the landscape (see Sub-Point 1 below).

Several recommendations were offered to address the problems of agricultural
expansion and GR subdivision, the underlying economic focus of ecotourism, and the
1977/1996 survey results indicating wildlife beneﬁts still accrue at the national and
international level (see Sub-Point 2 below). The combination of these recommendations,
it was argued, could address either scenario from the trend analysis, the threat from
agricultural expansion, and ease human/wildlife conﬂict. Possible problems with the
suggested recommendations include the same political problems experienced by
programs in the past and concerns about implementing a direct payment plan in an area
where tenure is not ﬁrmly established. It was also suggested, based on successes in other
study areas, that a combination top down/bottom up approach to planning using the
information garnered from the Framework analysis might be most effective in Kajiado
(Berger, 1993; Western, 1994a; Krishna et. a1., 1997; Uphoffet. a1., 1998).

The following relates the trend analysis for Kajiado back to the sub-points under

Point C:

168

Sub-Point l asks the researcher to identify the major trends at work in a study
area and their likely consequences for conservation. The examination of the
social and ecological elements of the four trends identiﬁed indicated that
agricultural expansion represents the primary social and environmental threat.
Its continued expansion combined with GR subdivision is likely to lead to one
of two possible outcomes, both with historical precedent. The ﬁrst outcome
presented the problems of fragmentation and degradation associated with the
tendency toward more and smaller landholdings and limited land use
planning. The second presented the parallel tendency toward land
consolidation into fewer and often non-Maasai hands and the social unrest that
might result (Campbell, 1993: 264-271).

Sub-Point 2 then guides the researcher to take this trend analysis and make
recommendations for planning and resource allocation. It also guides research
toward identifying funding resources, which I did not do for the reasons
previously stated.

First, it was noted that national economic and policy coordination is
called for (Campbell, 1981a: 58-59), but suggested, based on precedent, that
the initiative for change could come from outside the political system and at
the local level (Krishna et. a1., 1997; Uphoff et. a1., 1998).

Second, a CBC/wildlife extension program based on the successes of
previous programs in Kajiado was recommended to increase local outreach,
encourage local participation and input, and support local ecotourism

enterprises O3erger, 1993; Westem, 1994a).

169

Third, the introduction of a wildlife land use, which does not rely on
the tourist market, was recommended (Campa, 2000: personal
communications). This new land use could be paid for and beneﬁts spread to
local people through a direct payment program, in which contracts are made
with landowners to conserve habitat (Ferraro, 2001; Ferraro and Weaver,

2001).

Review of the Contextual Framework for Wildlife Conservation

In the introductory chapter lists of the greatest threats facing wildlife from three
prominent ecologists were presented. Terborgh’s list consisted of “over population,
inequities of power and wealth, exhaustion of natural resources, corruption, lawlessness,
poverty, and social unrest” (Terborgh 1999: 17). Western listed the “Evil Quartet” of
land use practices (habitat fragmentation, the over-utilization of resources, ecological
disruption, and the introduction of exotic species) as the greatest threats (Western, 1989:
32). Salafsky list two factors, “the deep underlying threat of ecological collapse latent in
the ticking time bombs of human population growth and expanding consumerism”
(Salafsky, 1994: 448-449).

Notice that these lists consist of what are essentially proximate causes of change
and that population is the only factor mentioned more than once. Given the extensive
examination of the problems associated with the neo-Malthusian perspective and hmnan
societies in the literature review, it seems unnecessary to comment further on the

prominence this factor, except to state that my analysis indicates it is but one factor

170

among many. However, the emphasis on the population factor combined with the
proximate nature of the most of the factors on these lists can oversimplify the human
dimension, as demonstrated throughout this thesis.

Focusing on proximate causes without understanding the drivers of those causes
is analogous to treating the symptoms of a disease without understanding the origin of the
disease itself. Where conservation is concemed, diagnosis of the disease requires looking
at the issues involved in context. It requires accepting that both human societies and the
environment are dynamic and related and treating them as such. Treating a disease that
threatens native wildlife communities and not just the symptoms of it requires taking an
historical perspective and analyzing the contemporary social driving forces underlying
the outwardly visible proximate causes of change. My research suggests that ignoring or
simplifying these two factors represents at least as great a threat to the future of wildlife
as any factor listed above. Western stated that conservation is only a temporary reprieve
for wildlife (Western, 1997: 157). Perhaps the oversimpliﬁcation of the circumstances of
a conservation area that can result from not fully taking these factors into account in
planning is part of the reason for this situation.

The Framework incorporates an historical perspective and an analysis of the
drivers of change to aid in providing a contextual view of a conservation area and in
evaluating trends. Because it encourages looking forward as well as backward, the
Framework can potentially enable planners to take a more active role in the fate of a
conservation area, instead of simply focusing on the present and reacting to events.
Instead of viewing a study area almost exclusively through the window of the present,

focusing on the visible proximate causes, it encourages one to look at the

171

human/environment dynamic as a dynamic and take a broader perspective of the all the
complexities involved.

Figure 4 shows relationship between the three main points of the Framework and
one possible application to management planning. It is a combination top down/bottom
up approach and is offered as an alternative to the more top down approaches to
ecosystem management (Meffe and Carroll, 1997: 385-415) that one could argue still
prevail even with a CBC approach (Western and Pearl, 1989; Western and Wright,
1994). Such an argument depends, of course, on how participation is deﬁned (Little,
1994: 347-370). Nevertheless, most researchers are likely to agree effective bottom up
input in planning is far from a mainstream approach. As stated, the Framework will not
offer a speciﬁc conservation plan, but, as a ﬁ'amework for understanding and a database,
its use may point to holes in your data and offer resource allocation and planning
suggestions. Nor will the Framework explain how to implement a plan once it is
designed, although clues to answering this question are likely to appear

Evidence from Kajiado and the case studies of successful community-based
initiatives presented in Reasons for Hope (Krishna et. a1., 1997) and Reasons for Success
(Uphoff et. a1., 1998), stakeholder involvement in every step of the process, especially at
the local level, can increase the chances of success. This recommendation is reﬂected in
the diagram above, which shows The Historical Perspective (A) and its examination and
trend identiﬁcation ﬂowing into the Contemporary Social Driving Forces (B). At Point B
the proximate causes of change and the drivers of those causes are identiﬁed and trends

ﬂowing from past to present are further explored. Finally, the understanding gained at

172

 

.wESEE “condoms—.32 £553 98 :ozatomcoo 8:33 new 3.52688"— 325800 05 503:5 9:80:23— uEBmem 251... 0.53...

 

M553..—
Saar—8.80

 

 

 

¢

 

«MESM 2: can «a»:
meegeeoEEeooc 9:583
eoumtomeeo reﬁne—PE .N
airmen m
can < .Eem co woman mecca
303280 2.3 308 .8050 ._

3.5:. 9.3:...—
"U «ﬁe.—

 

 

A

 

 

_

 

 

A 322.3%

 

 

 

«$8: 9: man can:
$92.28 < E8.— co meme—:5

m can _ 350995 823. .m
x83 3 88°C w£>te Eoew .N
owes—t he momsao Bagxei .—

nouaeu «53.5

Eoem Eugen—£350

"m .5...—

 

 

a

 

 

«5.3 m3 9:3 as:
3 =82»; 9:223; .
bee; assessooézeza .
weEom _ScoE:ee_>cm .
boa:— caEaz .

BEE 2:: 333%: .

—‘NMVV3

9592.93.— 33.82:.—
u< use.—

 

 

173

Points A and B ﬂow into the Future Trends (C), where the likely trajectory of the
identiﬁed trends is examined and conservation recommendations are made.

Once the information has been initially assembled within the Framework, the
diagram shows that stakeholder input could be used to reﬁne the analysis. To be clear,
while all stakeholders are important, local stakeholders are being emphasized for reasons
discussed through out this thesis. This reﬁnement could be achieved, particularly at the
local level, using the workshop method that has been effective in the district in the past
(Campbell, 1987; Berger, 1993; Campbell et. a1., 2000). After the reﬁning phase, the
diagram shows that local involvement should continue into planning. Such involvement
can help maintain ﬂexibility, as locals may tune into changes that need to be taken into
account before those outside the community are aware of them. Furthermore, indigenous

knowledge can bring solutions not previously envisioned (Berger, 1993: 111-145).

174

Chapter 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This we know: the earth does not belong to man: man belongs to the

earth...All things are connected like the blood which unites one family...

Whatever befalls the earth, befalls the sons of the earth. Man did not

weave the web of life: he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the

web, he does to himself

—Chief Seattle

Thesis Review

The research question examined in this thesis was: what information is required
for improved integrated conservation that incorporates historical circumstances, social
driving forces, a dynamic view of ecosystems, and looks beyond the contemporary? To
address this question my objective was to design a framework to aid in understanding the
speciﬁc circumstances of a conservation area. To meet this objective I developed the
Contextual Framework for Wildlife Conservation. As the name suggests, the Framework
emphasizes context and is a research guide and tool for assembling data on a speciﬁc
study area. It incorporates the sensitivity to scale (temporal and spatial) and emphasis on
driving forces found in political ecology (Feet and Watts, 1996) with the dynamic view
of ecosystems found in Conservation Biology (Meffe and Carroll, 1997: 1-39). The
follow chapter review summarizes how I addressed my research question and objective.

The introductory chapter established the relevance of conservation concerns in the

contemporary world and presented lists of the greatest threats facing the future of

wildlife. These lists, taken from the writings of leading ecologists, were composed

175

 

exclusively of human-related factors. From these lists it was argued that an
interdisciplinary approach is required to secure the future of wildlife. It was noted that
some biological and social sciences have recognized the connection between
conservation and development and that numerous integrated projects have been and are in
place. Despite the progress made in interdisciplinary cooperation, these projects tended
to achieve only limited success and were often plagued by many of the same problems. I
stated the main reason for these reoccurring problems was that the discourse between the
biological and social sciences is still immature. Two main obstacles to this maturation
are: (1) the static view of human societies prevalent in the ecological literature and the
related inﬂuence of neo-Malthusian thought and (2) the static view of the environment
held by many social scientists and their historical lack of interest in wildlife studies
(Campbell, 1998: 292-296; Zimmerer and Young, 1998: 2-5; Gibson, 1999: 1-18).

The Framework was then brieﬂy introduced as an approach to addressing the
conservation concerns listed and to help reﬁne the discourse between the social and
biological sciences. The study area I used to illustrate the Framework, Kajiado District,
Kenya, was also introduced. My theoretical perspective, which came from the
framework for understanding provided by political ecology and the evolutionary view of
ecology, as understood in Conservation Biology, was also discussed.

Chapter 2 presented the literature review and built on the foundation laid in
chapter 1. It was divided into four sections. The ﬁrst examined the pertinent ecological
literature. The growing understanding among ecologists of the need to incorporate the
human dimension into conservation planning was emphasized. On the other hand,

examples of where ecologists oversimpliﬁed the human dimension were also presented,

176

as was the prominence of neo-Malthusian thought. The second section presented the
relevant sociocultural literature, emphasizing that human/wildlife studies are beginning to
be considered a legitimate area of research for social scientists. The usefulness of
political ecology as a tool for such study and an overall understanding of the
human/environment dynamic was also emphasized. Two criticisms of political ecology
were also examined: (1) the lack of scientiﬁc rigor and (2) the lack of scientiﬁc ecology.
The conclusion was that political ecology could beneﬁt from greater ecological
understanding.

The third section of the literature review examined the problems with applying
neo-Malthusian scenarios to human societies. In speciﬁc, it examined the impracticality
of applying simplistic ecoscarcity models that rely on the concept of carrying capacity to
complex human societies. An historical perspective is taken and literature is presented
from both sides of the Malthusian debate. The conclusion was that, while neo-
Malthusian theory is useful in studying wildlife populations, it offers little insight into the
human dimension. It results in the oversimpliﬁcation of the variables involved and
inhibits the expansion of the interdisciplinary discourse vital to conservation. The ﬁnal
section of the chapter formally presents my research question and objective.

The methodology chapter, chapter 3, followed the literature review and described
the development of my research question, objective, and the Framework. A description
of Kajiado, the study area used to illustrate the Framework, was given as well. My data
sources and analytical procedure was also presented. The bulk of my data came from

reviewing from the social and ecological literature available from library, intemet,

177

governmental, and NGO sources. Additional sources included informal discussions with
Kenyan conservationists, and previously collected survey data from Kajiado.

The discussion chapter formally presented the Framework in detail. The three
main points of the F rarnework, the Historical Perspective (Point A), the Contemporary
Social Driving Forces (Point B), and the Future Trends (Point C), were discussed with
their accompanying sub-points and questions. An analysis of Kajiado is used to illustrate
each of the three main points in turn. Throughout chapter 4, the importance of the ﬂow
from one point of the Framework to the next for contextual understanding is stressed.
This ﬂow is illustrated by synthesizing different perspectives to develop an historical
analysis of Kajiado and carrying the trends that emerged from that analysis into an
analysis of the contemporary driving forces inciting the proximate causes of change
visible in the district. The analysis from these two points is then used to analyze the
possible trajectory of contemporary trends into the future. The role of the Framework as
a tool for understanding and aid to planning is underlined. It is emphasized that the
Framework is not designed to immediately result in a conservation plan. A suggestion
for a top down/bottom up approach is presented as one way the Framework can be used
to aid in planning.

The strengths and weaknesses of the Framework and the need for further research
are discussed in the following section. Subsequent to this examination, I return to issues
concerning the integration of conservation and development focusing on the development
side of the equation. This ﬁnal section emphasizes the importance of political ecology
with the addition of scientiﬁc ecology as a tool for understanding the human/environment

dynamic and increased interdisciplinary cooperation.

178

Contextual Framework: Strengths and Weaknesses

One of the most challenging aspects of conservation planning is that each study
area is unique. Unless the contemporary circumstances are viewed in context, aspects of
these circumstances are likely to be overlooked or misunderstood. The Framework is
designed to provide a systematic way of gathering the information needed in each case so
that this context can be better understood. It is designed to provide the background
analysis needed for enlightened conservation approaches such as ecosystem management
(Meffe and Carroll, 1997: 385-415). Context is essential to such approaches (Meffe and
Carroll, 1997: 347-3 82, 419-476) and the multi-perspective historical analysis,
examination of the social driving forces at work, and trend analysis for planning into the
ﬁrture incorporated into the Framework can help illuminate this context.

Although the particulars of each study area will vary, there will always be
historical circumstances that inﬂuence the contemporary situation, in which driving
forces are operating at various spatial and temporal scales. The speciﬁcs of the study
area that these circumstances and forces create will be identiﬁable in trends that can be
analyzed. The potential for the Framework to sort out the particulars of any given
conservation area is its greatest strength.

Also, because of its general design and case speciﬁc emphasis, information
gathered using the Framework could be used to compare conservation areas with similar
circumstances. From this comparison it may be possible to make generalized statements
about the human/environment dynamic to an intermediate level (Zimmerer and Young,

1998: 1-26). Moreover, the parallels noted by such comparisons could then be used to

179

 

streamline the information gathering process, which would in turn help facilitate
planning.

Additionally, the Framework is designed to offer a “long-term” approach to
conservation. 1 use the term “long-term” grudgingly, as it is so subjective. What
constitutes long-term within a study area depends on the needs of that study area and can
also vary with aspects of those needs. Also, trends can change and today’s contemporary
situation can soon become tomorrow’s historical perspective. Therefore, long-term when
applied to the Framework means that, if the prescription for consistent updating is
adhered to, it could be used to monitor the changes in a study area and help maintain the
ﬂexibility of whatever conservation plan is in place.

The main problem with the Framework, of course, is that it is completely
untested. At this point it is purely an intellectual construct based largely on a literature
review, with the addition of a few other sources. To be anything more than “armchair
conservation,” it needs to be tested in the ﬁeld. A study area, such as Kajiado, will have
to be selected and data beyond a review literature review will need to be gathered using
the Framework. Once the information gathering process is complete, the usefulness of
the Framework as an aid to constructing a new conservation plan or updating a plan
already in place can be evaluated. Such a pilot study would require extensive
interdisciplinary cooperation. When I speak of such cooperation, I do not mean a person
or group from one discipline incorporating some useful ideas from another discipline. On
the contrary, I mean direct cooperation and collaboration between experts from different

disciplines to address a common problem.

180

Another potential problem is the design of the Framework itself. I took great care
in developing the three main points, sub-points, and questions of the Framework to draw
attention to important issues that may be going on in a conservation area, without forcing
research in a speciﬁc direction. Unfortunately, the distinction between guiding and
coercing can be ﬁne and may become blurred. No human endeavor is valueless, not even
science. No matter how objectively I worded all the components of the Framework,
aspects of my own background and biases undoubtedly inﬂuenced its design. I do not
exist out of context either. As those biases emerge, adjustments may need to be made to

the components of the Framework.

Conclusions: Conservation and Development

In my thesis I have argued that there is a connection between conservation and
development and used the complex human/environment dynamic as the basis for that
argument. Because the focus of my work has been on wildlife and what the social
sciences can bring to its conservation, 1 have stressed the conservation side of the
connection, while development has been subsumed in the discussions of political
ecology. Although, I have brieﬂy examined other aspects of development when
discussing the agricultural and settlement bias and the market orientation of Kenyan
development plans, which, along with international forces presented in the discussion
chapter, act as political/institutional drivers and are related to economic drivers of
change. To complete the examination of conservation and development, I must expand

my discussion of international development policy

181

The development literature is ﬁlled with writings that examine mainstream and
alternative development approaches, such as neoliberalism and political ecology
respectively, from various viewpoints. Good sources of information on the history of
development include: Peet and Watts (1996), Friedmann (1992), Smith (1979),
Friedmann and Weaver (1979), Scoones and Thompson (1994), Mabogunje (1981), Gore
(1984), Friedmann and Rangan (1993), and McNeely and Pitt (1985). Another important
source that summarizes and builds on the work of many of these sources is Brohrnan’s,
Popular Development: Rethinking the Theory and Practice of Development (1996),
which was included in the literature review in the discussion of political ecology.

Historically, development approaches, whether mainstream like SAPs (Structural
Adjustment Program) or supposedly alternative approaches like IRDs (Integrated Rural
Development), whether from classical economic or Keynesian roots, have deﬁned
development in linear, Euro-centric terms, equated it with Westemization, and employed
top down approaches to achieve their goals. In the last century, the colonial world shifted
to become the developing world, and, after World War II as the world became politically
polarized between Soviet and U. S. spheres of inﬂuence, mainstream development
became synonymous with capitalism in the West and is still largely a tool of foreign
policy. Alternative development strategies, aimed at addressing poverty by providing for
basic needs that were determined by the assumptions of the particular alternative, were
often designed more to promote stability in a region than to bringing about any radical
change in addressing questions of inequity (Brohman, 1996: 9-34, 225; Peet and Watts,

1996: 1-36).

182

Not unlike the problems associated with preservationist approaches to wildlife
conservation in East Aﬁica (Western 1994a: 18-19), ill-conceived growth policies after
World War 11 left many countries, including Kenya, worse off by the late 19605 than
when the these programs were implemented (Brohman, 1996 202-203). Likewise,
Pearl’s conception of the West developing a conservation minded community in the
Third World (Pearl, 1994: 221-225, 274-283) has much in common with the paternalistic,
top down approaches of mainstream and most alternative development strategies
(Brohman 1996: 202-217). Modernization theory, which built on heavily economically
oriented growth theory by broadening the social perspective, actually saw traditional
cultures as obstacles to development. As development progressed, it was felt, the
traditional would gradually disappear. In essence, then modernization is synonymous
with Westenrization (Brohman 1996: 15-21). This attitude can be seen in colonial and
later independent Kenyan policy toward the Maasai (see chapter 4).

While I have criticized the ecologists for oversimplifying the human dimension,
social scientists and the development community have done so historically as well. For
instance, mainstream development approaches have had a decidedly urban bias, which
ignored the realities of the agrarian Third World. Alternative approaches, beginning in
the 19705, tried to address this shortcoming by focusing more on rural development
through programs like the Green Revolution. Unfortunately, these programs often simply
deepened the inequities already present in many countries like Kenya, because they were
based on oversimpliﬁed views of the societies in which they were implemented

(Brohman 1996: 210-216; Gibson, 1999: 1-18).

183

In addition, development programs tend to view communities as homogenous
(Brohman 1996: 220-225). For example, territorial regional planning offered an
alternative to the functional approach, which emphasized comparative advantage, by
exploiting the periphery in favor of the core. In contrast, regional integration argued for
endogenous development, oriented toward territorial integration. This promising
approach was bottom up, based on Marxist and neo-populist ideas, and offered the
possibility of local autonomy and the mitigation of inequity and poverty (Friedmann and
Weaver, 1979: 186-207). Despite these positive aspects, the approach had several
drawbacks, however. One of the main criticisms of this territorial approach is that it was
utopian. It had a political emphasis at the local level but ignored class, gender, and ethnic
issues (Brohman, 1996: 232-237). Territories were treated as organisms, and since an
organism cannot have autonomous parts within it, no scale smaller than the arbitrary
bounds of the territory could be addressed (Gore, 1984: 230-231).

One alternative that challenges the idea of community is political ecology. Peet
and Watts call political ecology the “most important line of recent scientiﬁc thinking
about environment and development” (Peet and Watts, 1996: 3). It arose from a critique
of the homeostatic view of culture held prevalent in ecological anthropology and cultural
ecology. It directly challenged the Euro-centric, modernist viewpoint of mainstream
development strategies, such as the neoliberal perspective that has grown in strength
since the end of the Cold War (Peet and Watts, 1996: 1-5). It is concerned with issues of
poverty, environmental degradation, inequity, and sustainability and emphasizes a bottom

up approach and that sustainability cannot be achieved without local involvement

184

(Brohman, 1996: 312-313; Peet and Watts, 1996: 1-36), which follows Westem’s
argument that the local level is where conservation must succeed (Western, 1997: 50).

Along with understanding the realities of a society and moving beyond simplistic
views of community, political ecology also emphasizes scale (see chapter 2). This
emphasis avoids concentrating exclusively on the local, as some alternative approaches
like 1RD have done. When forces operating at larger scales have been ignored, plans
have been hampered by the political and economic realities at those scales (Brohman,
1996: 220-225).

Political ecology offers the type of alternative evident in the community based
success stories presented in Reasons for Hope (Krishna et. a1., 1997) and Reasons for
Success (Uphoff et. a1., 1998) by challenging the neo-liberal approach to development.
This mainstream approach gained momentum during the Reagan/Thatcher era, came into
full bloom with the end of the Cold War, and now prevails in most in Third World
development plans (Galaty, 1999; 2-6). Neo-liberalism assumes the superiority of
democratic and market structures as self-evident and views the liberalization of land
policies as beneﬁcial and inevitable, with no hard evidence to support those assumptions.
Although the neo-liberal approach recognizes the local level, it is still decidedly top
down. The main theme running through the success stories in the above volumes is that
while the original initiative often comes from outside the community, through
participation the outside initiative is replaced by local initiative. The approach then
becomes a combination of top down and bottom up (Uphoff et. a1., 1998: 1-10).

If it can be accepted that conservation and development are inextricably linked,

then the Framework is as much an approach to aiding in the creation of a development

185

plan as a conservation plan in places like Kajiado. It is concerned with both wildlife and
habitat and issues of poverty and inequity. Peet and Watts argue for increasing role of
the political side of the discourse on political ecology in what they call liberation
ecologies and note that ecology movements can help show the limits of grth and
development (Peet and Watts, 1996: 9-36). While expanding the political aspect is
important, I argue that expanding the ecological aspect with scientiﬁc ecology is equally
important. I have tried to address this need by incorporating a dynamic view of ecology
into the framework. If scientiﬁc ecology is not given a larger role in political ecology, it
is possible that discourse will relegate nature to a mere social construct and thereby
discount it. While the way individuals in a particular society view nature may indeed be
a social construct, wildlife and their plight are no more social constructs than human
beings and their plight. In fact, Peet and Watts warn about these limits, cautioning that
not everything should be viewed as a product of social discourse (Peet and Watts 1996;
260-268).

This discussion of development history, along with the literature analyzed
throughout this thesis, indicate that to be successful conservation (and development) must
be successful at the local level (Western, 1994a). If this is the case, then it makes sense
to plan at the local level, while taking into account larger scale realities. Such planning
would likely be aided by the kind of contextual analysis explicit in the Framework.
While integrated planning already exists, it suffers from recurring problems (see the
introductory section of chapter 4). To overcome those problems, I have argued
throughout this thesis that the discourse between the social and biological sciences needs

to be reﬁned. Through the incorporation of human and environmental components,

186

emphasizing context and the dynamic aspects of both, the Framework has the potential to

aid this reﬁnement.

187

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, David and Richard Grove 1987. Conservation in Aﬁica: People, Policies,
and Practice. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.

Baydack, Richard K., Henry Campa III, and Jonathan B. Hauﬂer 1999. Practical
Approaches to the Conservation of Biological Diversity. Washington,
DC: Island Press.

Berger, Dhyani J. 1993. Wildlife Extension: Participatory Conservation by the Maasai
of Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya: ACTS Press.

Berkes, Fikret 1989. Cooperation from the Perspective of Human Ecology. In Common
Property Resources: Ecology and Community-based Sustainable
Development, ed. F ikret Berkes. London: Belhaven Press.

Biodiversity Support Program 1993. African Biodiversity: Foundation for the Future. A
Framework for Integrating Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable
Development, Beltsiville, M.D.: Professional Printing, Inc.

Blaikie, Piers and Harold Brookﬁeld 1987. Land Degradation and Society. London:
Methuen.

Boserup, Ester 1965. Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian
Change Under Population Pressure. London: G. Allen & Unwin.

Boserup, Ester 1981. Population and Technological Change: A Study of Long-T erm
Trends, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Boserup, Ester 1996. Development Theory: An Analytical Framework and Selected
Applications, Population Development and Review, 22(3): 505-515.

Brohman, John 1996. Popular Development: Rethinking the Theory and Practice of
Development. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc.

Brown, Lester R. 1987. Analyzing the Demographic Trap. State of the World. World
Watch Paper 74.

Campa, Henry III 1999. Personal communication. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife,
Michigan State University.

Campa, Henry III 2001. Personal communication. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife,
Michigan State University.

188

 

Campbell, David 1981a. Land-Use Competition at the Margins of the Rangelands: An
Issue in Development Strategies for Semi-Arid Areas. In Planning
African Development, ed. Glen Norcliﬂh and T om Pinfold. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.

Campbell, David J. 1981b. Kajiado District—A Case Study. In The Development of
Kenya’s Semi-Arid Lands, ed. David Campbell and S. E. Migot-Adholla.
IDS Occasional Paper No. 36.

Campbell, David J. 1987. Participation of a Community in Social Science Research: A
Case Study from Kenya Maasailand. In Human Organization, 46(2):
160-167.

Campbell, David J. 1993. Land as Ours, Land as Mine: Economic, Political and
Ecological Marginalization in Kajiado District. In Being Maasai:
Ethnicity and Identity in East Africa, ed. Thomas Spear and Richard
Waller. London: James Currey.

Campbell, David 1996. Implications of scale for the Design and Application of
Environmental Information Systems. In Towards An Analytical
Framework For Land Use Change, ed. L. Bergstrtim and H. Kirschmann.
Wallingford, UK: CAB International.

Campbell, D. J. 1998. Towards an Analytical Framework for Land-use Change. Carbon
and Nutrient Dynamics in Natural and Agricultural Tropical Ecosystems.
CAB International.

Campbell, David J. 1999. Personal Communications. Department of Geography,
Michigan State University.

Campbell, David J. 2001. Personal Communications. Department of Geography,
Michigan State University.

Campbell, David J ., Helen Gichohi, Albert Mwangi, Lucy Chege, Eric Ogol, and Thor
Sawen 1999. Interactions Between People and Wildlife in SE. Kajiado
District, Kenya. LUCID Working Paper. Department of Geography,
Michigan State University.

Campbell, D. J ., Helen Gichohi, Albert Mwangi, and Lucy Chege 2000. Land Use
Conﬂict in Kajiado District, Kenya. Land Use Policy, 17(4): 1-12.

Campbell, David and Jennifer M. Olson 1991. Framework for Environment and

Development: The Kite. CASID Occasional Paper No. 10. Department
of Geography, Michigan State University.

189

Campbell, David and S. E. Migot-Adholla 1981. Introduction. In The Development of
Kenya’s Semi-Arid Lands, ed. David Campbell and S. E. Migot—Adholla.
IDS Occasional Paper No. 36.

Casebeer, Robert L. 1975. Summaries of Statistics and Regulations Pertaining to
Wildlife, Parks and Reserves in Kenya. Project Working Paper No. 8,
Kenya Game Department.

Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V. and Richard C. Bishop 1975. Common Property as a Concept on
Natural Resources Policy. Natural Resources Journal, 15(October): 713-
727.

Collett, David 1987. Pastoralists and Wildlife: lrnage and Reality in Kenya Maasailand.
In Conservation in Africa: People, Policies, and Practices, ed. David
Anderson and Richard Grove. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cronon, William 1996. Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature.
New York: W. W. Norton & Co.

Crook, Nigel 1996. Population and poverty in Classical Theory: Testing 3 Structural
Model for India. Population Studies, 50(2): 173-185.

Croze, Harvey 1977. Wildlife Resource in Kajiado District. In Wildlife Conservation
and Management at Kajiado District. Workshop report. WCMD
Publication No. 34.

Diamond, Jared 1998. Overview of Recent Extinctions. In Conservation for the
T wenty-ﬁrst Century, ed. David Western and Mary C. Pearl. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Dyer, M. I. and M. M. Holland 1988. Roundtable: UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere
Program. BioScience: American Institute of Biological Sciences, 38(9):
63 5-641.

Ehrenfeld, David 1989. Hard Times for Diversity. In Conservation for the Twenty-ﬁrst
Century, ed. David Western and Mary C. Pearl. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Ellis, Jeffery C. 1996. On the Search for a Root Cause: Essentialist Tendencies in
Environmental Discourse. In Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human
Place in Nature, ed. William Cronon. New York: W. W. Norton &
Company.

Engman, E. V. T. 1991. Population Growth in Aﬁ'ica: The Road Beyond Family
Planning in the Shadows of Malthus, University of Maiduguri Inaugural

190

Lecture Series No. 49. Maiduguri, Nigeria: University of Maiduguri
Press.

Ehrlich, Paul R. and Anne H. Ehrlich 1971. The Population Bomb (Revised). New York:
Ballantine Books.

Ehrlich, Paul and Anne H. Ehrlich 1990. The Population Explosion. New York: Simon
and Schuster.

Estes, Richard Despard 1991. The Behavior Guide to African Mammals: Including
Hoofed Mammals, Carnivores, Primates. Berkley, California: University
of California Press.

Ferraro, Paul J. 2001. Global Habitat Protection: Limitations of Development
Interventions and a Role for Conservation Performance Payments.
Department of Applied Economics and Management Working Paper No.
2000-3 (Revised). Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (Forthcoming in
Conservation Biology 2001).

Ferraro, Paul J ., R. David Simpson 2001. The Cost-Eﬂectiveness of Conservation
Payments. Future Discussion Paper No. 00-31.

Friedmann, John and Clyde Weaver 1979. Territory and Function: The Evolution of
Regional Planning. London: Edward Arnold Ltd.

Friedmann, John and Haripriya Rangan ed. 1993. In Defense of Livelihood:
Comparative Studies on Environmental Action. West Hartford,
Connecticut: Kumarian Press Inc.

Galaty, James 1993. Maasai Expansion and the New East Aﬁ'ican Pastoralism. In Being
Maasai: Ethnicity and Identity in East Africa, ed. Thomas Spear and
Richard Waller. London: James Currey.

Galaty, John G. 1999. Property in the Strict Sense of the Term: The Theory and
Practical Rhetoric of Land Tenure in East Africa. Alarm Working Paper

(August).

Galaty, John G. and Kimpei Ole Munei 1999. Maasai Land, Law, and Dispossession.
Cultural Survival Quarterly 22(4): 68-71.

Gibbs, Christopher and Daniel Bromley 1989. Institutional Arrangements for
Management of Rural Resources: Common Property Regimes. In
Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community-based
Sustainable Development, ed. Fikret Berkes. London: Belhaven Press.

191

Gibson, Clark C. 1999. Politicians and Poachers: The Political Economy of Wildlife
Policy in Africa. Cambridge University Press.

Gichohi, Helen 2000. Director of the African Conservation Centre, Nairobi, Kenya.
Personal Communication.

Glass, D. V. ed. 1953. Introduction to Malthus. London: Watts & Co.

Gore, Charles 1984. Regions in Question: Space, Development Theory and Regional
Policy. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.

Greenberg, James B. and Thomas K. Park 1994. Political Ecology. Journal of Political
Ecology, (1): 1-8.

Guizlo, Mark ed. 1994. Political Ecology Workshop: Conference Proceedings, April 14-
1 7, 1994. Department of Geography, Michigan State University.

Hales, David 1989. Changing Concepts of National Parks. In Conservation for the
T wenty-first Century, ed. David Western and Mary C. Pearl. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Hardin, Garrett 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162: 1243-1248.

Hardin, Garrett 1992. Cultural Carrying Capacity: A Biological Approach to Human
Problems. Focus, 2(3): 16-24.

Harvey, David 1996. Justice, Nature, and the Geography of Diﬂerence. Cambridge:
Blackwell Publishers.

Himmelfarb, Gertrude 1984. The Idea of Poverty: England in the Early Industrial Age.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Hollis, A. C. 1905. The Masai: Their Language and Folklore. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.

Hunter, M. L. 1990. Wildlife, Forests, and Forestry: Principles of Managing
Forests for Biodiversity, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Kenya Game Department 1973. Hunt Management Programme Kajiado District.
Project Working Document No. 3. Republic of Kenya: Kenya Game
Department and UNDP/FAO Wildlife Management Project.

Khalikane, Mangetane G. 1992. Overview of the Workshop. In AF T EN Working Paper
No. 4. Integrated Natural Resource Management: Report from a

Workshop, F rancistown Botswana, December I-7, I 991 . Environment
Division Aﬁica Technical Department, The World Bank.

192

Kimani, Karnau and John Pickard 1998. Recent Trends and Implications of Group Ranch

Sub-Division and Fragmentation in Kajiado, Kenya. In The Geographical
Journal, 164(2): 202-213.

Kituyi, Mukhisa 1990. Becoming Kenyans: Socio-economic Transformation of the
Pastoral Maasai. Nairobi, Kenya: ACTS Press.

Kock, Richard A. 1995. Wildlife Utilization: Use It or Lose It—A Kenyan Perspective.
In Biodiversity and Conservation, 4: 241-256.

Leakey, Richard and Virginia Morell 2001. Wildlife Wars: My ﬁght to Save Africa’s
Natural Treasures. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Lindsay, W. K. 1987. Integrating Parks and Pastoralists: Some Lessons from Amboseli.
In Conservation in Africa: People, Policies, and Practice, ed. David
Anderson and Richard Grove. New York: Cambridge University Press.

 

Little, Peter D. 1994. The Link Between Local Participation and Improved Conservation:
A Review of Issues and Experiences. In Natural Connections:

Perspectives in Community-based Conservation, ed. David Western and
R. Michael Wright. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Lusigi, Walter J mi 1978. Planning Human Activities in Protected natural Ecosystems:
The Conservation Unit Approach to Planning and Management of
National Parks and Reserves in Kenya Based on the Nairobi National Park
Ecosystem. In Dissertationes Botanicae, 48. Lehre,Germany: J. Cramer.

Mabogunj e, Akin L. 1981. The Development Process: A Spatial Perspective. New
York: Holmes & Meier Publishers Inc.

Martin, P. S. 1984. Prehistoric Overkill. In Quaternary Extinctions, ed. P. S. Martin and
R. G. Klein. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.

MacKenzie, John M. 1987. Chivalry, Social Darwinism and Ritualized Killing: the
Hunting Ethos in Central Africa up to 1914. In Conservation in Africa:
People, Policies, and Practice, ed. David Anderson and Richard Grove.
New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mbuvi, David M. 1977. The Management, conservation and Utilization of Wildlife
Resources. In Wildlife Conservation and Management at Kajiado
District. Workshop report. WCMD Publication No. 34.

McNeely, Jeffery A. and David Pitt ed. 1985. Culture and Conservation : The Human
Dimension in Environmental Planning. London: Croom Hehn Ltd.

193

Medley, Kimberly E. 1998. Landscape Change and Resource Conservation Along the
Tana River, Kenya. In Nature’s Geography: New Lessons for
Conservation in Developing Countries. Madison, WI: The University of
Wisconsin Press.

Meffe, Gary K. and C. Ronald Carroll, 1997. Principles of Conservation Biology, 2nd Ed.
Sunderland Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc.

Metcalfe, Simon 1994. The Zimbabwe Communal Areas Management Programme for
Indigenous resources (CAMPFIRE). In Natural Connections:
Perspectives in Community-based Conservation, ed. David Western and
R. Michael Wright. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Metcalfe, Simon 1997. The CAMPF IRE Program: Community-Based Wildlife
Resource Management in Zimbabwe. In Reasons For Hope: Instructive
Experiences in Rural Development, ed. Anirudh Krishna, Norman Uphoff,
Milton J. Esman. West Hartford, Connecticut: Kumarian Press.

Meyers, Norman 1989. A Major Extinction Spasm: Predictable and Inevitable? In
Conservation for the T wenty-ﬁrst Century, ed. David Western and Mary
C. Pearl. New York: Oxford University Press.

Meine Curt 1992. Conservation Biology and Sustainable Societies. In After Earth Day:

Continuing the Conservation Effort, ed. M. Oelschlaeger. University of
North Texas Press.

Mi got-Adholla, Shem E. 1981. Settlement Policy and Its Implications to the
Development of Kenya’s Semi-Arid Lands. In The Development of
Kenya’s Semi-Arid Lands, ed. David Campbell and Shem E. Migot-
Adholla. Institute for Development Studies, University of Nairobi.
Occasional Paper No. 36.

National Geographic Maps 1998. Population and Resources Map. National Geographic,
(4).

The Nature Conservancy 2000. Site Conservation Planning: A Framework for
Developing and Measuring the Impact of Effective Biodiveristy
Conservation Strategies. The Nature Conservancy (April).

Neurath, Paul 1994. From Malthus to the Club of Rome and Back: Problems of Limits to
Growth, Population Control, and Migrations. Arrnonk, NY: M. E.
Sharpe.

Norton, Bryan G. 1989. The Cultural Approach to Conservation Biology. In

Conservation for the T wenty-ﬁrst Century, ed. David Westem and Mary
C. Pearl. New York: Oxford University Press.

194

 

Ngutter, Larry G. K. 1981. Kenya Government Policy in Semi-Arid Areas. In The
Development of Kenya ’5 Semi-Arid Lands, ed. David Campbell and Shem
E. Migot-Adholla. Institute for Development Studies, University of
Nairobi. Occasional Paper No. 36.

OCHA, 2002. ReliefWeb: Kenya Affected Populations by District Refugees Map.
http://www.reliefweb.int/w/ fullMaps_Af.nsf/ luF ullMap/0537655CAE61 C
14A85256C1 C0069C7C6/$File/kenya_ref02.pdflOpenElement (Viewed
Oct 30, 2002)

Ochoki 1977. Wildlife Management and Conservation. In Wildlife Conservation and
Management at Kajiado District. Workshop report.

Ole Parkipuny, Moringe S. and Dhyani Berger 1993. Masai Rangelands: Links between
Social Justice and Wildlife Conservation. In Voices from Africa: Local
Perspectives on Conservation, ed. Dale Lewis and Nick Carter.
Washington, DC: World Wildlife Fund.

Olembo, Reuben J. 1989. International Perspectives in Conservation Planning. In
Conservation for the T wenty-first Century, ed. David Western and Mary
C. Pearl. New York: Oxford University Press.

Olindo, Perez 1989. Overview: A Planner’s Perspective. In Conservation for the
T wenty-first Century, ed. David Western and Mary C. Pearl. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Olindo, Perez 2000. Former director of the Kenyan Wildlife Department. Personal
Communications.

Olson, Storrs L. 1989. Extinction on Islands: Man as a Catastrophe. In Conservation
for the T wenty-ﬁrst Century, ed. David Western and Mary C. Pearl. New
York: Oxford University Press.

Pearl, Mary C. 1998a. The Human Side of Conservation. In Conservation for the
Twenty-first Century, ed. David Western and Mary C. Pearl. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Pearl, Mary C. 1998b. How the Developed World Can Promote Conservation in
Emerging Nations. In Conservation for the T wenty-ﬁrst Century, ed.
David Western and Mary C. Pearl. New York: Oxford University Press.

Peet, Richard and Michael Watts 1996. Liberation Ecology: Development,
Sustainability, and Environment in an Age of Market Triumphalism. In

Liberation Ecologies: Environments, Development, Social Movements,
ed. Richard Peet and Michael Watts. London: Routledge.

195

Peet, Richard and Michael Watts ed. 1996. Liberation Ecologies: Environments,
Development, Social Movements. London: Routledge.

Price, David 1998. Of Population and False Hopes: Malthus and His Legacy.
Population and Environment, 19(3): 205-219.

Pratt, David J. and Michael D. Gwynne 1977. Rangeland Management and Ecology in
East Africa. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Sahlins, Marshall David 1976. Culture and Practical Reason: Two Paradigms of
Anthropological Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Salafsky, Nick 1994. Ecological Limits and Opportunities for Community-based
Conservation. In Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based
Conservation, ed. David Western and R. Michael Wright. Washington,
DC: Island Press.

Salau, Ademola 1993. Population Growth and Conservation of Biodiversity. In Aﬁican
Biodiversity: Foundation for the Future. A Framework for Integrating
Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development, Biodiversity
Support Program. Beltsiville, M.D.: Professional Printing, Inc.

Scoones, Ian and John Thompson ed. 1994. Beyond Farmer First: Rural People ’5
Knowledge, Agricultural Research and Extension Practice. London:
International Institute for Environment and Deve10pment.

Smith, David M. 1979. Geographical Perspectives on Inequality. New York: Barnes &
Noble Books.

Spear, Thomas 1993a. Being ‘Maasai’ but not People of Cattle. In Being Maasai:
Ethnicity and Identity in East Africa, ed. Thomas Spear and Richard
Waller. London: James Curry.

Spear, Thomas 1993b. Introduction. In Being Maasai: Ethnicity and Identity in East
Africa, ed. Thomas Spear and Richard Waller. London: James Curry.

Soulé, Michael E. 1989. Conservation Biology in the Twenty-ﬁrst Century: Summary
and Outlook. In Conservation for the T wenty-first Century, ed. David
Western and Mary C. Pearl. New York: Oxford University Press.

Spencer, Paul 1993. Becoming Maasai, Being in Time. In Being Maasai: Ethnicity and

Identity in East Africa, ed. Thomas Spear and Richard Waller. London:
James Currrey.

196

Stern, Paul C., Oran R. Young, and Daniel Druckman ed. 1992. Global Environmental
Change: Understanding the Human Dimensions. Washington, D. C.:
National Academy Press.

Swank, Wendell G., Robert L. Casebeer, Philip B. Thresher, and Michael H. Woodford
1974. Cropping, Processing and Marketing of Wildlife in Kajiado
District, Kenya. Project Working Docmnent No. 6. Nairobi, Kenya:
Government of Kenya and FAO.

Terborgh, John 1999. Requiem for Nature, Washington DC: Island Press.

Tiffen, Mary and Michael Mortimore 1994. Malthus Controverted: The Role of Capital
and Technology in Growth and Environment Recovery in Kenya. World
Development, 22(7): 997-1010.

Thompson, Joseph 1887. Through Masai Land: A Journey of Exploration among he
Snowclad Volcanic Mountains and Strange Tribes of Eastern Equatorial
Africa. London: Sampson Low.

Thresher, Philip 1976. Wildlife Viewing Cost/Benefit Analysis Simulation Model. Project
Working Document No. 14. Nairobi, Kenya: Wildlife Conservation and
Management Department, Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife and
UNDP/FAO Wildlife Management Project.

Thresher, Philip 1977. Landowner’s Costs of and Returns from Wildlife. In Wildlife
Conservation and Management at Kajiado District. Workshop report.
WCMD Publication No. 34.

Trench, Charles Chenevix 1993. The Men ”410 Ruled Kenya: The Kenya
Administration. 1892-1963. New York: The Radcliffe Press.

Uphoff, Norman, Milton J. Esman, Anirudh Krishna eds. 1998. Reasons for Success:
Learning from Instructive Experiences in Rural Development. West
Hartford, CN: Kumarian Press.

United Nations Conference on Desertiﬁcation 1977. Technology and Desertification.
Background Document.

United Nations Conference to Combat Desertiﬁcation 1994. Article 7.
UNEP in association with the World Conservation Monitoring Centre 1996.
Framework for information Management: in the Context of the

Convention on Biological Diversity, 2"” ed. (Draft). Nairobi, Kenya:
Biodiversity Data Management (BDM) Project, UNEP.

197

 

UNESCO 2001. The MAB Program. http://www.mabnet.org/main.htm1 (Viewed July
2001)

Vandenneer, John 1994. Integrating Political Economy into Ecology. In Political
Ecology Workshop: Conference Proceedings, April 14-17, 1994, ed.
Mark Guizlo. Department of Geography, Michigan State University.

Valentine, U. James, ed. 1994. Environmental and Economic Dilemmas of Developing
Countries: Aﬁ'ica in the T wenty-F irst Century. Westport, CN: Praeger.

Von Der Goltz, Georg 1977. The Kenya Wildlife Management Project. In Wildlife
Conservation and Management at Kajiado District. Workshop report.
WCMD Publication No. 34.

Wambuguh, Walter 1998. Local Communities and Wildlife: A Spatial Analysis of
Hurnan-Wildlife Interactions in Laikipia District, Kenya. Doctoral
Dissertation, Department of Natural Resource Management, University of
California, Berkeley.

Walker, Robert 2000. Personal communication. Department of Geography, Michigan
State University.

Waller, Richard 1993a. Acceptees and Aliens. In Being Maasai: Ethnicity and Identity
in East Africa, ed. Thomas Spear and Richard Waller. London: James

Curry.

Waller, Richard 1993b. Conclusions. In Being Maasai: Ethnicity and Identity in East
Africa, ed. Thomas Spear and Richard Waller. London: James Curry.

Western, David 1989a. Overview. In Conservation for the T wenty-ﬁrst Century, ed.
David Western and Mary C. Pearl. New York: Oxford University Press.

Western, David 1989b. Population, Resources, and Environment in the Twenty-ﬁrst
Century. In Conservation for the T wenty-first Century, ed. David Western
and Mary C. Pearl. New York: Oxford University Press.

Western, David 1989c. Conservation Biology. In Conservation for the T wenty-first
Century, ed. David Western and Mary C. Pearl. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Western, David 1994a. Ecosystem Conservation and Rural Development: The Case of
Amboseli. In Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based
Conservation, ed. David Western and R. Michael Wright. Washington,
DC: Island Press.

198

 

Western, David 1994b. Linking Conservation and Commrmity Aspirations. In Natural
Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation, ed. David
Western and R. Michael Wright. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Western, David 1994c. Vision of the Future: The New Focus of Conservation. In
Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation,
ed. David Western and R. Michael Wright. Washington, DC: Island
Press.

Western, David 1997. In the Dust of Kilimanjaro. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Western, David and Helen Gichohi 1993. Segregation Effect and the Irnpoverishment of
Savanna Parks: The Case of Ecosystem Viability Analysis. African
Journal of Ecology. 31: 269-281.

Western, David and Joseph Kioko, 1977. Amboseli National Park. In Wildlife
Conservation and Management at Kajiado District. Workshop report.
WCMD Publication No. 34.

Western, David and Mary C. Pearl ed. 1989. Conservation for the T wenty-ﬁrst Century.
New York: Oxford University Press.

Western, David, Mary C. Pearl, Stuart L. Pimm, Brian Walker, Ian Atkinson, and David
S. Woodruff 1989. An Agenda for Conservation. In Conservation for the
Twenty-first Century, ed. David Western and Mary C. Pearl. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Western, David, R. Michael Wright ed. 1994. Natural Connections: Perspectives in
Community-based Conservation. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Western, David and R. Michael Wright 1994. The Background to Community-based
Conservation. In Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based
Conservation, ed. David Western and R. Michael Wright. Washington,
DC: Island Press.

Western, David and Philip Thresher 1973. Development Plans for Amboseli.
Washington: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

Whitesell, Edward 1994. Epistemological Issues in Political Ecology. In Political
Ecology Workshop: Conference Proceedings, April 14-17, 1994, ed.
Mark Guizlo. Department of Geography, Michigan State University.

WinklerPrins, Antoinette 2002. Personal communication.

199

 

Wright, Michael R. 1994. Recommendations. In Natural Connections: Perspectives in
Community-based Conservation, ed. David Western and R. Michael
Wright. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Young, Kenneth R. and Karl S. Zimmerer 1998. Conclusion: Biological Conservation in
Developing Countries. In Nature ’s Geography: New Lessons for
Conservation in Developing Countries, ed. Karl S. Zimmerer and Kenneth
R. Young. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Zimmerer, Karl 1994. Integrating New Ecological Theory into Political Ecology. In
Political Ecology Workshop: Conference Proceedings, April 14-17, 1994,
ed. Mark Guizlo. Department of Geography, Michigan State University.

Zimmerer, Karl S. and Kenneth R. Young ed. 1998. Nature’s Geography: New Lessons
for Conservation in Developing Countries. Madison, WI: The University
of Wisconsin Press.

Zimmerer, Karl S. and Kenneth R. Young 1998. Introduction: The Geographical Nature
of Landscape Change. In Nature’s Geography: New Lessons for
Conservation in Developing Countries, ed. Karl S. Zimmerer and Kenneth
R. Young. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.

200