Is it time we changed approach to conservation?

A few days ago, Kajiado Governor Joseph Ole Lenku was in the news yet again.

This time, however, he was not goofing on Al-Shabaab massacre at Westgate Shopping Mall in Nairobi with his burning mattresses theory.

CSR

He was threatening that Kajiado residents, whose lives greatly depend on pastoralism, be allowed to graze in the surrounding national parks or they would kill wild animals that trespass into their land.

He said Kenya Wildlife Service should let the animals graze in the parks as part of the state agency’s corporate social responsibility because residents do not benefit from the protected areas.

According to the county boss, opening up the parks to herders would save the lives of thousands of cattle facing starvation due to the drought ravaging the region.

Many people were quick to rebuke the good governor. And rightly so.

With some of our wildlife classified as endangered species, killing them is definitely not an option.

EVICTIONS

But even with that understanding, I knew Ole Lenku had a point.

His call was a manifestation of how ineffective the current conservation model, which treats communities as enemies of nature and conservation, is.

With this model, communities are evicted from their land to create protected areas.

Expansion of protected areas has seen displacement of over 14 million people in Africa alone.

In Kenya, pastoralist communities have been displaced in the past in favour of creating game parks, game reserves, ranches and private conservancies.

EXTINCTION

Sometimes, communities are evicted from their lands forcibly but there are cases where voluntary resettlement takes place.

However, it emerges that even in voluntary resettlement, the affected communities have no say; decisions are exclusively made by governments and conservationists. 

This rapid expansion of protected areas is usually well intentioned more often than not.

With the threat of extinction of some species, measures like this are put in place to ensure we lose no species.

Huge profits from the wildlife tourism are also a motivation for creating some of the parks, ranches and conservancies.

RESEARCH

So, is this model of conservation failing?

Strictly looked at through the biodiversity conservation prism, this model is doing fairly well.

A recent study by the Tropical Ecology Assessment and Monitoring Network that monitored 250 species in 15 protected areas in Africa, Latin America and South East Asia from 2002 to 2015 showed that 17 percent of the species grew in numbers.

During that time, the population of 22 percent of the species under study remained constant while another 22 percent decreased.

With 39 percent of the species not caught on camera enough time to make a conclusive assessment, this study concluded that protected areas were indeed saving wildlife.

JUSTICE

Although some studies have portrayed a contrary opinion, the majority concur that indeed protected areas have a positive impact on species numbers.

But looking at this current model of conservation holistically, I think it has failed.

This is because it fails to consider issues of environmental justice even as it seeks to conserve biodiversity.

When environmental justice is ignored in conservation, what we get are residents threatening to kill wildlife in Kajiado or long-drawn conflicts between communities and ranch owners in Laikipia.

3 PILLARS

Granted, the Laikipia story is deeper than this, but the fact that communities were displaced for the ranches and private conservancies to be established is part of the bloody conflict.

Environmental justice is built on three pillars—distribution, participation and recognition.

If at any point any of these three pillars is not adhered to, then we have a case of environmental injustice.

Let’s see how this current model fails in these three principles of environmental justice.

Distribution as a pillar of environmental justice dictates that environmental goods and bads are shared equally.

EXCLUSION

For example, all people should share the burden of waste, which is an environmental bad, and fresh air, which is an environmental good.

If there's a situation where only a few people are burdened with waste, that's environmental injustice.

Similarly, if only certain people enjoy the perks of unpolluted air, then that's a case of environmental injustice.

When communities are displaced, they rarely get to share the goods that come from those protected areas.

The best they get from such ventures is being tour guides.

A SLICE

A few others work as cooks or security guards in the luxurious lodges that serve tourists in these protected areas.

Some may argue that this is something that contributes towards the displaced community’s wellbeing.

True, but that is like getting a slice out of a loaf of bread. How about them getting half loaf? Until they get that, there is no sense of environmental justice there.

Furthermore, being pastoralists, more often than not, such communities are not allowed to graze their animals in protected areas.

These are people who value their livestock both as a source of livelihood, and a cultural symbol and asset.

PARTICIPATION

Thus, denying them a place to graze not only becomes unfair distribution of environmental goods but a case of dehumanisation.

I know the resources may not always be enough for both livestock and wildlife but striking a balance where both can benefit is important.

Participation dictates that opinions of all concerned parties are heard (at all levels) and taken into consideration in decision-making.

Kenya does not fare well in this aspect of environmental justice either, with some past regimes unilaterally evicting communities from their ancestral lands.

Those are extreme cases and they are reducing by the day.

CONSULTATION

Governments and other stakeholders now try to consult and involve affected communities or at least want to be seen to be doing so.

In most cases, communities are asked for their opinion on select matters only.

Or they may give their opinion but it will not count in decision-making.

Worse still, opinions of a select few may be heard and considered, sidelining others.

For example, men may be asked to give opinions on issues that affect women more but women won’t be asked for their opinion.

INCLUSION

Such decisions are in breach of the principle of participation.

Perhaps the biggest flaw of this conservation model is failing to recognise local communities.

Recognition means respecting the culture and way of life of a people.

It means going beyond and incorporating different pieces of knowledge from different people into conservation.

It realises that different communities may have different views towards conservation but that does not necessarily mean that one community is wrong the other is right. 

It is through recognition that communities will not be seen as enemies of conservation but rather as sources of knowledge on how conservation can be made better.

RELEVANCE

By the mere fact that a community has been displaced, it means they haven’t been recognised.

That simply also means that their knowledge is not important enough for them to take part in conservation.

This conservation model that treats communities as enemies of conservation, therefore, fails the test of environmental justice.

To me, even if governments and conservationists were to be 100 percent effective in biodiversity conservation but fail to deliver environmental justice, they would have failed.

I look at conservation as a humanitarian movement. The success of conservation is partly measured by its relevance to people.

CONVERSATION

So where do we go from here? We need to start asking the hard questions.

Questions like why are the Kajiado residents threatening to kill wildlife?

Why can’t they graze their livestock in the parks? Why are the communities in Laikipia in constant conflict with ranch owners?

What can we do differently to solve these issues?

If we look closely, we will realize these issues are as a result of environmental injustice.

Starting a conversation on environmental justice in conservation is a good place to begin.

WIN-WIN

But even better, is starting to change the view that communities are enemies of biodiversity conservation.

The Northern Rangelands Trust (NRT) is doing it.

The NRT works with community conservancies in northern Kenya and it’s a community-led initiative. This approach realizes that communities are part of nature and are best placed to manage biodiversity. It also recognises that communities can use biodiversity and environmental conservation to diversify and improve their livelihoods.

This new approach to conservation incorporates the principles of environmental justice.

The result is a win-win situation for both the communities and biodiversity.

And this is what we all want. Let’s not dismiss Ole Lenku, let’s engage him and the Kajiado residents.

Maybe, we’ll save a lion with that.

Ms Maroma, a 2017 graduate of University of Leicester, is an Environmental Analyst.