Wildlife conservancies and pastoral livelihoods in the Maasai Mara, Kenya
•Transferir como PPTX, PDF•
2 gostaram•1,168 visualizações
Claire Bedelian conducted research on wildlife conservancies and pastoral livelihoods in the Maasai Mara, Kenya. She studied (1) how conservancy participation impacts income sources and wealth, and (2) how conservancies alter land use and grazing patterns. Her research found that conservancies contribute 14% of household income on average, rising to 21% for member households. However, after controlling for household characteristics, most wealth differences between member and non-member households disappeared. Analysis of satellite imagery showed that livestock enclosures decreased more inside conservancies between 2006-2011 compared to outside areas.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Semelhante a Wildlife conservancies and pastoral livelihoods in the Maasai Mara, Kenya
Semelhante a Wildlife conservancies and pastoral livelihoods in the Maasai Mara, Kenya (20)
Mais de ILRI
Mais de ILRI (20)
Último
Último (20)
Wildlife conservancies and pastoral livelihoods in the Maasai Mara, Kenya
- 1. Wildlife conservancies and pastoral livelihoods in the Maasai Mara, Kenya Claire Bedelian PhD student, University College London Graduate Fellow, International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi BEST Project Policy Maker, Practitioner, Community User and Researcher Workshop, Nairobi, 13 August 2013
- 2. The study • How do conservancies contribute to pastoral livelihoods? – Participation in conservancies – Comparison of livelihood income sources – Impact of conservancies on wealth • How do conservancies alter land use activities? – Impact on livestock grazing – Impact on Maasai settlements
- 3. Methods • Household questionnaire (258hhs) • Semi-structured interviews (60) • Participant observation • Analysis of SPOT 5 satellite images for settlements
- 4. 1. Participation in conservancies • Most households (80%) own some land • Half of households sampled were a member of at least one conservancy (Table 1) • A few households members of 2 or 3 different conservancies • Gender: <1% of members were female • Status: Those in a leadership position more commonly conservancy members (Table 2) Household conservancy membership status Number of households (n=258) Percentage of households Conservancy members 133 52% Conservancy non-members 125 48% Member of 1 conservancy 111 43% Member of 2 conservancies 21 8% Member of 3 conservancies 1 <1% Leadership position (n=258) Households with a conservancy member Major (25) 88% (n=22) Minor (29) 55% (n=16) None (209) 47% (n=95) Table 1 Table 2 How do conservancies contribute to pastoral livelihoods?
- 5. 2. Income • Conservancies contribute 14% of total income to all households sampled. Livestock most important (Figure 1). • Conservancies provide 21% of income for those involved (Figure 2). How do conservancies contribute to pastoral livelihoods? 56% 1% 14% 15% 14% Livestock Crops Conservancy payments Other conservation Off-farm 48% 70% 1% 1% 21% 15% 16% 15% 12% 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Members Non-members Figure 2: Proportion of annual household income from different activities disaggregated to conservancy members and non-member households Figure 1: Contribution of livelihood activities to total annual household income (n=258) • Level of income has doubled since 2004 (Thompson et al., 2009).
- 6. 3. Impact of participation on wealth • To assess the impact of conservancies on household wealth it’s important to control for confounding factors. • ‘Matching’ selects households on the basis of similar characteristics to compare members and non-members in terms of income, assets and expenditure • Household characteristics used in matching: – Total land size owned - Size of household – Household head age - Distance to town – Household head year of education - Distance to reserve – Household head leadership status - Distance to conservancy How do conservancies contribute to pastoral livelihoods?
- 7. 3. Impact of participation on wealth How do conservancies contribute to pastoral livelihoods? Wealth variables Before matching Matched pairs Members Non-members t-test Members Non-members t-test No. of livestock, TLUs 76.6 71.8 0.494 70.3 96.4 -1.807* Total income 427389 317041 2.285** 414546 413775 0.012 Livestock income 195997 216574 -0.550 193442 285533 -1.429 Cultivation income 2860 4355 -0.619 2920 3588 0.237 Off-farm income 125980 80423 2.773** 120538 105411 0.651 Off-farm conservation income 63110 40192 2.135** 57174 59530 -0.167 Off-farm non- conservation income 62871 40231 1.735* 63364 45881 0.932 Number of off-farm activities 1.58 1.49 0.525 1.54 1.91 -1.854* Household monthly expenditure 27186 19107 2.573** 26592 21541 1.100 Asset Index 0.96 0.82 1.751* 0.95 0.90 0.518 Housing Quality Index 3.05 2.03 1.949* 3.09 2.27 1.182 * Significant at 10% level ** Significant at 5% level
- 8. 3. Impact of participation on wealth How do conservancies contribute to pastoral livelihoods? • Comparing households without prior matching suggests significant differences in wealth between conservancy member and non-member households. • Using matched pairs, most of these differences fall away. • Some of the original effect was due to confounding influences, not to conservancy membership
- 9. How do conservancies alter land use? Conservancy restrictions on livestock grazing and settlements
- 10. Identifying pastoral settlements using satellite imagery • Innovative technique • eCognition software identifies settlements – 2.5m resolution SPOT 5 satellite images – Mara, 2006 and 2011. • object based image analysis, two step process: – 1) Identifying livestock enclosure (boma) through presence of dung – 2) Identifying iron-roofed surrounding houses Typical Maasai settlement Settlement as seen from 2.5m SPOT 5 image With Zipporah Musyimi and Jan de Leeuw How do conservancies alter land use?
- 11. How do conservancies affect distribution and density of Maasai bomas inside and outside conservancies, before and after conservancy set up With Zipporah Musyimi and Jan de Leeuw 2011 – ‘after’2006 - ‘before’ Total area analysed 2006 Bomas Density 2011 Bomas Density % change in (Koyiaki GR) (%) (Bomas/km2) (%) (Bomas/km2) density Total area 580 (100) 0.591 800 (100) 0.815 +37.9% Bomas in a conservancy 229 (39) 0.383 188 (23) 0.315 -17.9% Bomas out of a conservancy 351 (61) 0.915 612 (77) 1.595 +74.4% Table: Difference in bomas from 2006-2011 inside and outside of conservancies in Koyiaki Group Ranch
- 12. Discussion Positives • Higher incomes • Guaranteed rent - buffers tourism shocks, droughts • More equitable sharing of revenues • Land sales decrease -reducing fragmentation Negatives • Non-participants • Land-based • Loss of access and use for grazing • Enforcement and fines • Settlement displacement • Wider knock-on environmental impacts VS. Livelihood trade-offs Evaluation suggests underlying differences between conservancy members and non-members. How replicable?
- 13. Acknowledgements • People of the Mara • Field assistants: Daniel Naurori, Chris Parsitau, Vivian Tulele • Supervisors: ILRI: Joseph Ogutu/Jan De Leeuw/Mohammed Said UCL: Katherine Homewood/Sara Randall • ESRC/NERC PhD studentship • Parkes Foundation • UCL Graduate School • Land Deal Politics Initiative (LDPI)
Notas do Editor
- Mixed methods research using both quantitative and qualitative researchHousehold questionnaire within Koyiaki GR:Olmarei –as household unitFormed a household list using local informants and randomly sampled from the listQuestionnaire collected quantitative info on socio-economic conditions, different household livelihood activities, income and expenditure data, household demographics, some movement/grazing data, cost/benefits.Used questionnaire data for an evaluation methodology – matching – to determine the casual impact of conservancy participation on wealth. Semi-structured interviews:Key informants (30) and community members (30)English/Maa, transcribed, group and individual interviews targeting both men/women, and conservancy members/non-members Formation and management of conservancies, perception of costs and benefits, land use restrictions, grazingParticipant observation:Conservancy meetings, community daysAnalysis of high resolution satellite images:- To detect Maasai settlements inside and outside of conservancies at 2 different years (2006 and 2011)
- Through successive subdivisions most households had acquired at least some land – or through buying/inheritance etc.Those who didn’t tended to be women, younger household heads, those from other GRs Only half of sampled HHs were members of a conservancy.Some households were members of more than once conservancyVery few women were conservancy members (since men own land)Leaders more commonly members – leaders able to acquire largest/best lands
- Of income: Conservancies 14%, livestock most important at 56%. Other conservation income 15% = conservation related jobs in tourism, curios selling, cultural villages, other payments from lodge or camp fees etcIn total conservation at 29% shows it is an important livelihood activityDifference between members and Non-members:For members payments provide 21% of incomeFor non-members livestock become more important
- When assessing impacts of an intervention it’s important to consider what would have happened in the absence of the intervention –the counterfactualMeasuring differences between a treated and control group is a common way to estimate counterfactual‘Matching’ – matches a treated group (members) and a control group (non-members) based on similar observable household characteristics to estimate the casual impact of an interventionUse the matched pairs to investigate differences between members and non-members in terms of household wealthUse landowning households only in matchingThis technique helps to control for confounders – factors that effect the measured outcome and are correlated with the intervention
- T-tests for difference in means for unmatched households shows more significant differences in wealth (eg total income, off-farm income, household expenditure) between conservancy member and non-member households.However, once households are matched –see a reduction in this significance.This indicates some of the effect originally observed was due to confounding influences of covariates and not due to the causal effect of participation
- Conservancy restrictions for settlements, grazing, cultivation, fencing, natural resource collection, walking, land salesRestriction on livestock grazing:Follow controlled grazing plans. Allowed in certain areas, certain times, for certain herds.Usually allowed in tourism low season. In areas away from campsRemoves large areas of former grazing land, for substantial parts of the year. Often drought times when there is most pressure for wildlife and livestock grazing, conservancies are closed to livestock Sometimes members only privilegeCostly grazing fines/herder abuseRestriction of settlements:Resulted in displacement –reduction of settlements insides of conservanciesPeoplemove to areas outside of conservancies, maybe to their own land, to other conservancies or move away completelyTo some extent tied in with land subdivision, many didn’t own land, so could be argued they have few rights to these areas that they don’t own which are now privatised, and maybe landowner asking them to move, but in some cases have lived most of their livesRemoved bomas in some areas close to camps or high wildlife, in other areas allowed to remain
- Fewer bomas inside conservancies compared to outside of conservancies in both 2006 and 2011However the density of bomas reduces from 2006 to 2011 inside of conservancies and increases from 2006 to 2011 outside of conservanciesThis suggests conservancies displace bomas from areas inside of conservancies to areas outside of conservanciesTherefore, although areas inside of conservancies are becoming settlement free, outside of conservancies, in towns etc, becoming more crowded.