The Maasai vs. Wildlife Conservation
The Needs of the Locals vs. the Need for Conservation
Nearly 15 percent of the land in Tanzania and 8 percent of Kenya's land has been set aside in protected areas for wildlife (compared with 4 percent in the continental United States). Tourism is the leading foreign exchange earner in Kenya and Tanzania, and the number of park visitors increases every year. In Kenya, one million people are employed by tourism, which provides 40 percent of the country's foreign exchange earnings. Tourist earnings in Tanzania are $120 million, about a quarter of foreign earnings. Of the $400 million from tourism in Kenya, only $13 million, or 3 per cent, goes to the Kenyan Wildlife Service to run the parks and to compensate the Maasai for their lands. Tanzania is only recently being given the resources and support it needs to begin an active program to address concerns of the villagers.
The Maasai have become disenchanted with wildlife conservation, making them less willing to defend wildlife than they were previously. They have been moved repeatedly and have had land that is used for herding taken away from them. The Serengeti plain now is a patchwork of game reserves and national parks. "Dispersal areas" beyond the parks are available for cattle grazing, but also for wild animals to roam. In Kenya, the Maasai are organizing this land into ranches, giving them formal title to the land. Many group ranches are ploughing this land to grow arable crops.
Community awareness effort of the Kenyan Wildlife Service. Source: © Kenyan Wildlife Service.
Throughout the world, there has been a tendency to ignore the needs of people who live on the border of national parks. Many Maasai live in areas that are critical to the stability of the protected areas. At the same time, the Serengeti herds lie almost entirely within Maasai range lands. This dichotomy does not need to spell conflict, however. Rural communities will support wildlife conservation if they become active participants in the process. If conservation areas are meaningful and valuable to the local people, they will want them protected and will fight to keep them protected. Other successfully managed parks and game reserves have involved extensive educational and economic efforts to involve local people.
Many economists have suggested that if the international community wants Kenya and Tanzania to maintain their great wildlife areas, then its members should help pay for this service. The great wildlife areas have the best chance of being saved if local villagers and the governments of Kenya and Tanzania profit directly from protecting them.
